F.5:4.2 - Tech and Plain Designations
Use two human-facing designations when a name is durable enough to be reused:
| Designation | Job | Constraint |
|---|---|---|
| Tech designation | Stable label used by the local pattern, table, or description episteme | Must fit the recovered kind and exact meaning source. |
| Plain designation | Short teaching phrase or sentence | Must point to the same value without widening the sense. |
| Symbol or source abbreviation | Optional local notation or lineage spelling | Informative only; it is not another selected Tech or Plain designation. |
For a concrete local system-role kind, the Tech designation normally ends in ...SystemRole, for example ReviewerSystemRole or PumpInspectorSystemRole. The Plain designation may remain ordinary, for example “reviewer” or “pump inspector”, when the named practice and criterion make the intended kind clear. Add “system role” only when it prevents a live neighboring reading. The compound does not imply non-human technical systems, kind admission, candidate classification, assignment, agency, capability, Method, or Work.
For the description episteme, name the description rather than the described kind: PumpInspectorSystemRoleKindDescription may have Plain designation “description of the pump-inspector system-role kind”. SystemRoleKindDescription identifies the construction; Kind identifies the EntityOfConcern and Description already identifies the episteme.
For a coupled system-role–Method phrase, recover the local kind and Method separately before naming either one. Recover and name a MethodDescription, WorkPlan, or dated Work only when that exact object is already admitted and the naming use consumes it; a shared phrase does not require any of them to exist. RoboticsEngineerSystemRole may designate one admitted local kind; RobotEngineeringMethod names a Method or Method family. Ordinary engineer-roboticist may remain the Plain expression when nearby project wording makes the intended kind clear and the C.3 candidate domain, membership distinction, boundary probes, and continuity remain recoverable. The wording helps the reader; it does not identify the kind. It replaces neither a qualifying MethodDescription nor any description of planned or performed Work.
When a later naming use actually consumes one dated Work identity, that Work must already be constituted before F.5 naming begins. Recover every exact actual performer through A.13, and let A.15.1 independently admit the Work from its semantic Method, time, containing System, and other required direct facts. Add the assignment occurrence, holder equality, and F.6 relation only when the naming record or receiving use expressly represents precise assignment-bound attribution; missing or failed F.6 leaves the Work identity intact. Otherwise keep the activity in ordinary wording and do not mint a Work identifier merely to support a name.
For a U-kind, the Tech designation should be neutral enough that no witness wins by vocabulary alone. If witnesses disagree between Observation, Reading, and MeasurementResult, a Concept-Set row preserves the comparison; the exact shared value and invariants must still pass E.24.UK admission or their direct defining rule before an author uses F.5 to choose a name.