F.4:7.1 - Pump Inspector System Role

PumpInspectorSystemRoleKindDescription is a C.2.1 episteme whose EntityOfConcern is the kind currently named PumpInspectorSystemRole. The practical distinction is simple: an admitted system counts when it obtains readings for the named pump and declared condition characteristics in the applicable inspection situation and returns the named pre-maintenance judgment from those readings. A maintenance technician, inspection robot, or service team can be a member; a report, or a system missing either condition, is a relevant non-member. PlantA-PumpInspector-KindSignature-v4 and Plant-A-Maintenance-Scheme state the current definition and interpretation. Plant A provenance locates that definition; it does not identify the kind. The same kind continues through an aligned edition while the candidate range and two-part distinction continue; a material change to either calls for another kind. Each predicate declaration supplies participant meanings and applicability, and the current case supplies the satisfying facts. Use A.6.F only if source wording first hides those claims behind function; it establishes neither predicate. If either predicate or its case facts cannot be recovered, record the exact A.6.RCD missing-governor or missing-information result instead of classifying the candidate.

The description says the kind concerns pump-condition inspection and does not itself denote repair. It may cite pump-inspection capability conditions or an inspection Method when a receiving Work claim needs them. Its boundary says that an inspection report is an episteme used through evaluation, evidence, source, or publication relations, not a system-role holder.

The description makes PumpInspectorSystemRole recognizable. It does not say that Robot-7 satisfies the kind, has an assignment, is capable of inspecting, has permission or readiness to inspect, enacted a Method, or performed Work. Those claims use C.3.2, A.2.1, A.2.2, A.2.8.PER, A.15, and the applicable evaluation or evidence relations.