F.9:14 - Reasoning primitives

These are conceptual judgements, not work-enactment, card-completion, registry, publication, permission, or authorization rules.

F.9:14.1 - Direct Bridge occurrence

P = <kind, symmetry-or-orientation, endpoint-readings,
     relation-condition, applicability-and-as-of,
     Boolean-truth-condition, stop-dependencies>

Bridge(A, B; P) obtains
iff
  A and B resolve to exact F.17 SchemeSenseCell values,
  semanticContext(A) != semanticContext(B),
  applicable(P, A, B, asOfBasis),
  bridgePredicate(P, A, B) = true,
  and requiredDependencies(P) are present.

No proposed use, direction, use-specific rule, loss tolerance, claim polarity, reliance result, or card is a component of P.

F.9:14.2 - Bounded-use proposition

Bridge(A,B;P) obtains as b
and C is a C.2.1 claim with
  EntityOfConcern = b,
  ClaimGraph designating <u,d,r,t,polarity>,
  and an effective ReferenceScheme interpreting those designations
=> C says whether b is suitable for exactly <u,d,r,t>.

Changing u, d, r, or t changes C; it does not change b. Affirmative polarity is not evidence reliance, assurance, authorization, or occurrence.

F.9:14.3 - Ordinary A.10 reliance

C is current and affirmative for <u,d,r,t>
and EP is the descriptive A.10 evidence-provenance path for C and u, citing independently established direct relations
and RelianceDisposition(EP,u,d,r,t) = pass
=> the reader may rely on C only for that bounded evidence use.

A non-passing or narrower disposition supplies no support for the attempted use. The disposition is a local A.10 classification statement, not a new result kind.

F.9:14.4 - B.3 assurance branch

C is current and affirmative for <u,d,r,t>
and an actual named assurance claim about this use is current
and its B.3 AssuranceResult carries the same bounded assurance use
and disposition = supported-for-use
=> assurance supports only that bounded use.

A narrowed disposition supports only its stated narrower use. abstain, evidence-needed, reopen, or blocked stops the attempted use. If no assurance claim is current, do not open B.3. A consequence, display, or local threshold creates no assurance claim.

F.9:14.5 - Receiving occurrence stays separate

Bridge b obtains
and C is affirmative for proposed use u
and current reliance supports C for u
=> no Work, assertion, publication, relation, or operation application follows.

An actual receiving object exists only when its subject pattern supplies its participants or arguments, obtaining or performance facts, and identity.

F.9:14.6 - Direction guard

Relation symmetry or orientation does not select d. Each proposed direction receives its own bounded-use claim. For an inclusion relation, a broader-to-narrower proposal normally requires refined endpoint senses and a separately tested Bridge; it cannot borrow safety from the inverse reading.

F.9:14.7 - Chained-use guard

Bridge(A,B;P1) obtains
and Bridge(B,C;P2) obtains
=> no Bridge(A,C;P3) follows.

A composite proposed use must cite each obtaining Bridge, state one exact composite rule and accumulated tolerance in its own claim, and recover current reliance for that claim. If a direct A-to-C correspondence is needed, test it independently.

F.9:14.8 - Candidate-card guard

candidate or negative Bridge Card exists
=> no positive Bridge occurrence follows.

The card concerns the admitted direct Bridge relation kind and places proposed endpoints, profile, ClaimMode, and polarity in its ClaimGraph. It creates neither relation nor receiving occurrence.