F.4:4.2 - Description versus Neighboring Values
| Current question | Direct locus |
|---|---|
| What local system-role kind is this, and does a candidate satisfy it? | A.2 with C.3 and C.3.2 |
| Which admitted system is assigned to it, and for which uninterrupted occurrence? | A.2.1 |
| Does this assignment satisfy this state condition during the required window? | A.2.5 |
| Can the system do the relevant Work? | A.2.2 |
| Which Method, MethodDescription, WorkPlan, or Work occurrence is current? | A.3, A.15, A.15.1, and A.15.2 |
| Which substitution, incompatibility, qualification, bundle, or other relation among kinds obtains? | A.2.7 |
| What durable name should the kind or description have? | F.18 and F.5 |
| How are two exact local kinds related? | C.3.3, only when its predicate obtains |
| How are two exact source-local senses related? | F.9 between exact F.17 SchemeSenseCell values, only when its predicate obtains |
| How is an episteme used in evidence, source, requirement, status, publication, or assurance claims? | The exact direct relation |
| Which relation position admits which filler kind? | A.6.5 and A.6.RSIR |
F.4 points to these loci; it does not copy their ontology.
Keep the description episteme, the exact local system-role kind it describes, the KindSignature that states the membership criterion, the effective scheme used to read the description, and any classification judgment about a candidate separate. Add an F.17 SchemeSenseCell only when a later use needs a stable local-sense address; cite a LocalSenseBasisRelation only when that relation actually obtains. An ordinary F.4 description requires neither.