I.2 - Choose a First Pattern: Expanded Entry Disambiguation Cases

I.2 is the canonical publication unit for ExpandedEntryDisambiguationCase entries in this architecture. An I.2 item expands one compact E.11-distributed entry cue, README scenario, ToC query cue, or local pattern Problem frame when first-pattern choice is high-risk, often misclassified, repeatedly failed, retrieval-facing, or too dense for compact guidance. Its E.11 use is limited to disambiguation, wrong-pattern rejection, entry-load reclassification, and admissible entry stop.

An ExpandedEntryDisambiguationCase is a bounded entry case. It is not U.Work, not a workflow, not a route script, and not an execution trace.

I.2 carries expanded disambiguation only when README scenarios, ToC query cues, E.11 entry-distribution cues, or local Problem frame recognition are insufficient for one high-risk, often-misclassified, repeatedly failed, retrieval-facing, or materially new first-entry pattern-comparison set. A compact entry cue plus the pattern Problem frame is a complete admissible entry result when it is enough.

Each expanded entry-disambiguation case keeps recoverable:

Case signal
Initial uncertainty
Plausible candidate patterns
Tempting wrong pattern, wrong defining episteme, or false family
Disambiguating fact
Recognition repair or entry-load reclassification
Actual governing FPF pattern body or projection role
Admissible entry stop
What not to infer

I.2.1 - Project alignment

Case signal: “We keep mixing responsibility, method, plan, and what actually happened.”
Posture: compact-index-only is normally sufficient.
Initial uncertainty: the reader may think FPF starts with the whole specification, but the entry load is narrower: align context, roles, method vocabulary, work vocabulary, and actual execution.
Plausible candidate patterns: A.1.1, A.15, A.15.2, A.15.3, B.5.1.
Nearby patterns: F.11 for method vocabulary and work vocabulary; F.9 for cross-context sense Bridges; F.17 for an early term sheet when vocabulary is the live stabilizing result.
Tempting wrong pattern: treat F.17 or E.9 as a universal first stop.
Actual governing FPF pattern body or projection role: A.15 and its neighbors govern the role, method, plan, and run split; F.17 is a stabilizing lexical projection, not the whole alignment governing pattern.
Admissible entry stop: the reader has opened the right alignment governing pattern or has enough first shared vocabulary to proceed.
What not to infer: no universal first chain is implied.

I.2.2 - Partly-said cue and language-state discovery

Case signal: “This phrase matters, but it is not yet a claim.”
Initial uncertainty: the reader can be seeing one cue, one early language-state requirement, one publication seam, or one L/A/D/E-classified claim family.
Plausible candidate patterns: C.2.LS, A.16, A.16.1, A.16.2, B.4.1, B.5.2.0.
Tempting wrong pattern: harden the cue into A.6.P, C.16.Q, A.6.A, or C.25 before it is stable enough to be a claim, action, or quality object.
Disambiguating fact: the phrase still needs preservation and entry-load typing; it is not yet an endpoint claim.
Decision movement: if the phrase is still a cue, use A.16 to identify the next language-state move; use A.16.1 for early preservation and B.4.1 when route plurality or selection needs publication after stabilization; if it is already a boundary claim, inspect A.6.B / A.6.C; if it is being forced into a quality endpoint or action-invitation endpoint too early, reject C.16.Q, A.6.A, and C.25 for now.
Actual governing FPF pattern body or projection role: A.16 governs the next language-state move and A.16.1 early cue preservation; B.4.1 governs explicit route publication after stabilization, and C.2.LS applies when a U.Episteme publication needs an explicit language-state facet profile; A.6.B / A.6.C become first governing patterns only after boundary claim structure is actually being made.
Admissible entry stop: cue preserved, entry plurality opened, or entry-load reclassified into the right boundary-claim pattern.
What not to infer: do not recast the cue as a finished requirement, work record, quality claim, or action invitation too early.

I.2.3 - Boundary unpacking and claim decomposition

Case signal: “The API or contract-language description says X.”
Initial uncertainty: the reader may be seeing one boundary description, an admissibility gate, a duty, an evidence claim, an action invitation, or an interface/access note.
Plausible candidate patterns: A.6, A.6.B, A.6.C.
Nearby patterns: A.6.RSIG if first-contact recognition is still live; A.6.P when relation wording hides participants or predicate; C.16.Q for overloaded quality wording; A.6.A for action invitation wording; E.17 for reader-facing publication of an already accepted engineering account, E.17.0 for view recognition, and E.24.PUB when publication occurrence, form, or carrier matters.
Tempting wrong pattern: treat an API/access phrase as a promise of downstream effect, or treat one boundary phrase as a complete Contract Bundle.
Disambiguating fact: the sentence mixes admissibility, gate, duty, evidence, and action-invitation claims, or the encountered description’s defining U.Episteme is not yet clear.
Recognition repair or entry-load reclassification: use A.6.RSIG if the first question is “what description is this?”; otherwise inspect A.6.B / A.6.C for atomic boundary claim structure.
Actual governing FPF pattern body or projection role: A.6.B and A.6.C govern L/A/D/E-classified claim decomposition; A.6.RSIG only governs first-contact description recognition.
Admissible entry stop: boundary claim pattern opened, or one Claim Register or L/A/D/E-classified atomic claim set is ready for the next governing FPF pattern.
What not to infer: one contract-language or API cue does not by itself create one work action, quality claim, or evidence relation.

I.2.4 - Admissible comparison, candidate-pool policy, selection, and selected-set declaration or publication

Case signal: “We need a shortlist, not one winner.”
Initial uncertainty: the live entry load can be comparison substrate, candidate-pool policy, one local choice, call planning, or selected-set declaration or publication.
Plausible candidate patterns: A.19.CN, A.17-A.19, C.18, C.19, G.0, G.5.
Nearby patterns: C.11 if the entry load narrows to one local decision doctrine; C.24 after the action or option is fixed and a call plan or checkpoint return is needed; A.19.CPM and A.19.SelectorMechanism if comparator/selector structure is live.
Tempting wrong pattern: treat C.11 as the first governing pattern while the real entry load is candidate-pool policy, selector-facing set declaration, or publication.
Disambiguating fact: the current question concerns a governed set or shortlist, its selector-facing declaration, or its publication, rather than choosing one single winner.
Decision movement: for generation and archive/front stewardship while forming the pool, inspect C.18; for policy over still-live candidates, inspect C.19; to declare the selector-facing set result, inspect G.5; to make that declared result available, inspect E.24.PUB; for one local choice, inspect C.11; after the action or option is fixed, inspect C.24 if tool or service call planning is missing, including calls for an already chosen comparison.
Actual governing FPF pattern body or projection role: C.18 for generation and archive/front stewardship; C.19 for live-pool policy; G.5 for selector-facing set declaration; E.24.PUB for publication availability; C.11 for local choice; C.24 for call-planning/checkpoint-return after the action or option is fixed.
Admissible entry stop: the correct first governing pattern is opened, or an admissible candidate-pattern set is stabilised without implying sequence.
What not to infer: do not force a one-winner answer when the honest output is still a governed selected set.

I.2.5 - Generator, SoTA, or Portfolio Kit

Case signal: “We need a reusable search/harvest/portfolio scaffold, not one recommendation.”
Posture: compact-index-only is normally sufficient unless repeated misclassification makes an expanded entry-disambiguation case necessary.
Initial uncertainty: the reader can confuse generator/scaffold authoring with one-off recommendation, one comparison, one selected-set declaration or publication, or tooling choice.
Plausible candidate patterns: A.0, G.0, G.1, G.2, G.5.
Nearby patterns: B.5.2.1 and C.17-C.19 when creative search, novelty, or explore/exploit policy is already central; G.10 or G.11 when shipping or refresh is live.
Tempting wrong pattern: jump to selected-set declaration in G.5, publication, or a local selector before the reusable generator/SoTA scaffold is declared.
Disambiguating fact: the generator, SoTA, or portfolio kit must be reusable across searches, portfolios, or updates.
Actual governing FPF pattern body or projection role: G.1 and G.2 for generator and SoTA support; G.5 for selector-facing set declaration; E.24.PUB when making that result available.
Admissible entry stop: scaffold/generator pattern body opened, or portfolio set-result or publication pattern identified.
What not to infer: not every generator/SoTA entry load is a tool implementation or one immediate publication obligation.

I.2.6 - Same-entity rewrite, explanation, and comparative reading

Case signal: “We need to explain the same EntityOfConcern for another audience.”
Initial uncertainty: explanation, rendering, repair, representation transition, and comparison are all nearby, and the reader can accidentally mint one second EntityOfConcern.
Plausible candidate patterns: A.6.3.CR, A.6.3.RT, E.17.EFP, E.17.ID.CR.
Nearby patterns: E.17.AUD.LHR for pressured-head local repair; E.17.AUD.OOTD for PublicationUnit stability.
Tempting wrong pattern: explanation-as-new-object or repair-as-second-rule track.
Disambiguating fact: the EntityOfConcern remains the same; only rendering, reading posture, or explanatory framing changes.
Recognition repair or entry-load reclassification: move toward same-entity rewrite or explanation-facing rendering while rejecting second-object drift.
Actual governing FPF pattern body or projection role: A.6.3.CR for same-entity retextualization, A.6.3.RT for representation transition, E.17.EFP for explanation-facing rendering, E.17.ID.CR for bounded comparative reading.
Admissible entry stop: same-entity rewrite opened or explanation-facing rendering stabilized with source pins.
What not to infer: explanation or comparison does not by itself justify a second semantic track.

I.2.7 - Temporal claim adequacy: state -> rate -> Dyn2

Case signal: “Adding review capacity for two sprints will double backlog reduction rate.”
Initial uncertainty: the reader may be seeing ordinary prose; a state reading or snapshot, measured rate, or intervention-sensitive temporal claim; a benchmark, quality, viability, causal, evaluation, or dynamics-law claim; a promise; or a residual QL question.
Plausible candidate patterns: C.27, C.16, A.3.3, B.1.4, B.1.6, C.24, G.9, C.25, C.26.3, C.26.
Tempting wrong pattern: treat every speed or rhythm word as C.27, or treat every C.27 card as benchmark proof, causal proof, service promise, quality claim, viability claim, reusable transition law, or QL activation.
Disambiguating fact: the phrase changes admissible use only when effort, window, resistance or cost, basis, and reopen condition matter for action.
Recognition repair or question reclassification: keep a snapshot as Dyn0; keep a measured trend or rate as Dyn1 and inspect C.16 when measurement construction or comparability is live; use Dyn2TemporalClaimAdequacyCard when the intervention-sensitive temporal claim itself changes admissible use; move the other question to the named FPF pattern that governs it.
Actual governing FPF pattern or projection role: C.27 carries authored temporal-claim adequacy; C.16 carries measurement construction and comparability; A.3.3 carries reusable transition law or formal dynamics model; G.9 carries benchmark parity; C.25 first checks whether one Characteristic and Scale suffice for the quality claim and uses a bundle only when differently typed contributors jointly determine it; C.26.3 carries viability diagnosis and, when selected, boundary regulation; C.26 carries a QL reading only when an exact contextual-model obstruction remains after the applicable ordinary subject assertion and predicate are in place.
Admissible entry stop: ordinary prose, Dyn0, Dyn1 with C.16 when measurement construction or comparability is live, a local Dyn2TemporalClaimAdequacyCard, a boundary-crossing Dyn2TemporalClaimProfile, or a named neighboring FPF pattern relation.
What not to infer: faster is not automatically better, a velocity target is not proof of improvement, a dynamic benchmark is not benchmark superiority, and a rhythm or inertia word does not by itself mint a new dynamics object.

I.2.8 - Causal-use and counterfactual-support repair

Case signal: “This policy would have prevented harm”, “this intervention caused the improvement”, “this fairness result is causal”, “this method is better on counterfactual outcomes”, or “these simulated counterfactuals prove the decision”.
Initial uncertainty: the reader may be seeing association, a metric disparity, temporal change, method execution, work-plan use, work occurrence, simulation output, deontic boundary language, or a real causal-use claim.
Plausible candidate patterns: C.28, A.10, B.3, C.11, C.19, C.24, C.26, C.27, D.5, G.5, G.9, A.15, A.3.2, A.6, C.16.
Tempting wrong pattern: use D.5 to treat metric fairness as causal fairness; use G.9 to compare methods across different causal rungs; use C.26 to hide a causal-support question under quantum-like wording; use C.27 to treat rate change as causal effect; use A.15 or A.3.2 to treat a sampling method, intervention procedure, or target-trial recipe as causal support by itself; use A.6 to turn causal evidence into a duty or release gate.
Disambiguating fact: the decisive question is not whether a causal-looking word appears. It is whether publication, choice, deployment, assurance, audit, benchmarking, or method dispatch relies on causal support governed by C.28: effect, intervention success, counterfactual comparison, causal fairness, policy optimality, causal evidence support, off-policy/causal-RL evaluation, or causal method superiority.
Recognition repair or question reclassification: if only a measured value is live, repair in C.16; if only rate, trend, or temporal adequacy is live, repair in C.27; if only method, work, or work-plan structure is live, repair in A.15 and A.3.2; if only boundary duty or agreement language is live, split with A.6; if residual QL modeling is the live question, use C.26 only when an exact contextual-model obstruction still changes inference or action after the applicable ordinary subject assertion and predicate are in place.
Actual governing FPF pattern body or projection role: C.28 carries causal-use question, causality-ladder rung, claim kind, causal estimand, identification, counterfactual sampling realizability, causal support components, one causal-use support result, supported use, and unsupported use. A.10 governs the relied-on evidence/provenance paths; B.3, D.5, G.5, and G.9 use the C.28 support result when the current downstream question is respectively assurance, ethical/fairness audit, method dispatch, or benchmark parity.
Admissible entry stop: a cheap downgrade sentence, a local CausalUseTriageRecord, a local or durable CausalUseEvidenceDesignRecord, a CausalUseSupportResult, or a named neighbor-pattern use that cites C.28 without claiming broader authority.
What not to infer: a randomized procedure is not automatically counterfactual support; a simulation is not realized counterfactual data; a target-trial phrase is not proof of identification; a fairness metric is not causal fairness; a method benchmark is not comparable if methods sit on different causal rungs or estimands; and a causal-use support result does not by itself create a duty, promise, commitment, release gate, or admissibility predicate.