F.5:4.4 - Neighboring Use Boundary
When a candidate contains a tempting word, recover the current claim instead of replacing words mechanically.
| Source wording | First ontological question | Direct next locus |
|---|---|---|
EvidenceRole, ModelFitEvidenceRole, or “evidence role” | Is an episteme used as evidence for a target claim with exact scope, polarity, relevance window, and provenance? | A.10, B.3, C.2.1, or the exact evidence-use relation |
RequirementRole or “standard role” | Is an episteme, standard, or clause used as a requirement, source, or specification? | E.10.D2, C.28, E.17, or the exact source or requirement relation |
Access Role in RBAC | Is this a policy or permission grouping rather than a work-facing kind? | Exact access, policy, permission, or status relation; F.18 only if durable naming is needed |
| “role of subject, provider, or input” | Is this participant meaning, a declaration slot, or a representation position? | E.10.ROLE, A.6.RSIR, and A.6.5 |
ReviewerSystemRole | Is one exact local C.3 kind with a direct criterion current? | A.2 with C.3; F.4 for its description; A.2.1 only when assigned |
robotics engineer or engineer-roboticist | Is this a local kind, conjunction, relation, Method, Work, or capability? | A.2.7, A.3, A.15, A.2.2, and F.18 when durable naming is current |
Reviewing, ReviewMethod, RobotEngineeringMethod, ReviewWorkflow, or MethodAlgebra | Is this a Method, MethodDescription, Method relation structure, WorkPlan, performed Work, or lens? | A.3, A.15, G.5, C.29, or the exact composition pattern |
ReviewWork or “review happened” | Is one performed Work occurrence current? | A.15.1 |
Select the name only after recovery. A cleaner string is not a repair if it hides the same ontological error.