| AP-1 | Row-created sameness | Entries are called “the same” because they share a row. | Layout is mistaken for evidence. | State the actual relation or mark a contrast. |
| AP-2 | Scope label as licence | “Naming-only” or another row label is treated as permission. | The receiving-use claim and its evidence disappear. | Write the use conclusion separately. |
| AP-3 | senseFamily typing | One broad label is used instead of explaining the comparison. | Hidden kinds and relations remain unnamed. | State the intensional comparison and direct relation. |
| AP-4 | Temporal blur | Design descriptions and Work occurrences are treated as interchangeable. | MethodDescription and Work collapse. | Show the distinction and any actual relation through F.11, A.3, and A.15. |
| AP-5 | Loss denial | A relation is shown without its material limitation. | Readers over-transfer. | Add the loss and a concrete counterexample. |
| AP-6 | Row CL | A minimum or average CL is computed across heterogeneous relations. | One number collapses unrelated claims. | Keep CL only on the F.9 relation that declares it; assess the receiving use separately. |
| AP-7 | Overwide row | Many sources are added “for completeness”. | Differences hide and the entry cost rises. | Keep two to four answer-changing entries. |
| AP-8 | Minted paraphrase | A cell replaces the source expression with a new umbrella term. | Provenance and locality vanish. | Cite the exact local claim; put any selected designation in its own column. |
| AP-9 | Duplicate rows by wording | The same argument is repeated under different labels. | Readers infer distinct concepts where none were established. | Keep one comparison and let F.5 manage aliases. |
| AP-10 | Automatic transitivity | A–B and B–C are used to assert A–C. | Relation composition may not hold or may add loss. | State only relations whose composition is justified by their direct patterns. |