F.3:6 - Solution — how to think about clustering

F.3:6.1 - Consolidate source-blessed aliases

If spelling variants, abbreviations, or explicit synonyms are interchangeable in the relevant passages and do not change a conclusion, let one LocalSenseClaim cover them.

Example: ITIL’s service-level objective and SLO may support one local claim when the cited edition uses them interchangeably.

F.3:6.2 - Split incompatible argument patterns

Split when the same head takes materially different participants or occupies a different place in the source’s propositions.

Example: a BPMN event as a diagram node is not an outage occurrence merely because a tutorial uses the same word narratively.

F.3:6.3 - Split divergent entailments

If one use entails occurrence in time and another entails a design structure or capability, the uses support different claims.

Example: a PROV activity is a time-bounded occurrence; that claim does not describe a static algorithmic capability.

F.3:6.4 - Prefer the coarsest adequate partition

Merge candidates when no source-grounded test relevant to the receiving question distinguishes them. Split when a concrete counterexample would otherwise be admitted. Do not split merely to fill a taxonomy.

F.3:6.5 - Keep labels honest

Keep the Tech label in the source’s idiom. Make the Plain label explain the same claim to a careful newcomer. Neither label is the value being described, and neither may widen the claim.

F.3:6.6 - Address only recurring uses

Ordinary prose may cite the source, expression, and claim directly. Mint an F.17 cell only when the local meaning must be reused, compared, or traced repeatedly.