F.5:1 - Problem Frame

FPF needs names that humans can use without dragging the wrong ontology behind them. A good name is short enough for documents and conversation, but it belongs to a recovered meaning.

This pattern keeps two recurrent naming tasks separate.

First, a public U-kind gets a name only after E.24.UK admits the exact value. Another durable cross-local value gets a name only after its direct rule has identified or established it; kind membership is only one case. A Concept-Set row may preserve witness comparison and evidence; it neither admits nor identifies the value. The name should be neutral across witnesses and no wider than the recovered invariants.

Second, one concrete local system-role kind receives a ...SystemRole designation after A.2 and C.3 settle its candidate domain, operative membership condition, intended member/non-member boundary, and continuity rule. A practice or source reference may help readers find or compare that settlement; it does not identify the kind. SystemRole is common morphology, not a universal kind. An F.4 description episteme is another object and may receive a separate ...SystemRoleKindDescription name. Neither label creates the kind, description, classification, or assignment.

The tempting shortcut is to make system-role descriptions cover statuses and episteme uses because all need labels. That convenience creates duplicate ontology. Another governed value—for example, a status, evidence use, permission, or publication—may need a name; none becomes a system-role kind because it is named.