F.9:9 - Boundary to coarsening and quantum-like export

Open F.9 when a receiving use needs an actual semantic relation between exact local senses. A lossy or approximate export is not thereby a Bridge, and an actual Bridge is not thereby a quantum-like state transition.

Use this order:

1. resolve the exact F.17 cells, state the relation-semantic profile, and test whether the Bridge obtains;
2. state the proposed use separately as <u,d,r,t> and give the C.2.1 claim its polarity;
3. recover the descriptive A.10 evidence-provenance path, the independently established direct relations it cites, and local disposition or, when an actual named assurance claim is current, its B.3 AssuranceResult for the same use;
4. if the use happened, identify the actual governed object and apply its subject pattern;
5. add a Bridge Card only if durable packaging pays;
6. open A.6.3.CSC, C.26.1, or C.26.2 only when coarsening, probe effects, or failure of any faithful-enough report is the live question.

When a state, metric, option, causal reading, or viability claim crosses the semantic boundary, its subject pattern states what survives and what is lost. The Bridge supplies only the semantic-correspondence premise; the bounded-use claim supplies only the named suitability proposition.