F.9.1:5 - Archetypal Grounding
F.9.1:5.1 - Local rename inside one bounded use
An obtaining Bridge and a separate affirmative bounded-use claim say that one operational label is suitable as a near-renaming of another in one proposed glossary use. A localRename stance can make that reading quick to recognize. It establishes neither cross-local identity nor unrestricted replacement outside the stated use. The claim says nothing by itself about authorization or whether anyone actually changed or used the glossary.
F.9.1:5.2 - Operational reading of a control cue
An F.9 Partial-overlap Bridge obtains between one exact operator-alarm sense and one broader control-cue sense. A separate affirmative bounded-use claim says that this Bridge is suitable for using the alarm term in one training explanation, in the alarm-to-control direction, under a rule that preserves the response trigger but not the complete control model, with zero tolerance for treating the term as implementation authority. A current A.10 reliance judgment says the available evidence supports relying on that narrow claim.
A stance note may now say: “For this training explanation, read the alarm term as operationalizing the response-trigger part of the control cue; do not read it as the complete control model or as permission to change the controller.” The stance is operationalizes. Whether an instructor is authorized to use that wording and whether any training Work actually uses it remain separate. No Card is required; a Card may package the already separate objects if durable reuse pays.
F.9.1:5.3 - Projection into a report
An obtaining Bridge and a bounded-use claim say that the Bridge is suitable for showing one aspect of a rich operations concept in one proposed weekly-report use. The claim names the report use, direction, correspondence rule, and tolerated omission. A projection stance note may foreground that the report keeps only queue age and drops causal and capacity distinctions. Any authority to publish the report and evidence that a report actually showed that aspect remain separate.
If readers must return to the source account before making a staffing or release decision, follow A.6.3.CSC: return to the source and do not use the report for those decisions. The stance note alone cannot set that boundary.
F.9.1:5.4 - Partial analogy without substitution
Two schools use different senses that share one explanatory pattern. For example, a TAE felt-sense phrase and a later formal term may share one stated explanatory feature while differing elsewhere. Their F.9 Bridge obtains, and an affirmative bounded-use claim says that the Bridge is suitable for one teaching comparison while rejecting method transfer. A partialAnalogy stance helps the reader notice the shared pattern. It neither makes the methods equivalent nor authorizes or proves a teaching act.
F.9.1:5.5 - nonEquivalent is a warning, not a verdict generator
An affirmative bounded-use claim says that the Bridge is suitable for placing two senses in the same comparison table but not suitable for substitution. A nonEquivalent stance may make that limit easy to see. The label does not authorize a table or show that one was produced; nor does it make the Bridge Disjoint, set CL=0, negate another use, or prohibit a future use with different direction, rule, and tolerance.
F.9.1:5.6 - Anti-case: the gloss comes first
“The dashboard metric is basically a projection of operational resilience” supplies neither exact local senses, an obtaining Bridge, nor a bounded-use claim. Do not attach a stance label. Recover the senses and F.9 relation, then state the exact proposed use and its tolerated loss. If the dashboard is a controlled reduction, also apply A.6.3.CSC.