ME.23:4 - Solution
Build the language from the questions it must answer and the results those answers consume. Keep Method semantics, pattern relations and publication arrangement distinct.
ME.23:4.1 - Select the smallest useful language
- Name the receiving uses. For each materially different use, state the reader, recognizable difficulty, first useful result and stop. Begin with one; add another only when it needs a different action or boundary.
- Recover the allocated content. Use ME.21’s source allocations or an already sufficient equivalent result. Preserve current suppliers, unresolved candidates and direct-source remainder. Do not infer a new Method from a source heading.
- Identify what each body describes or governs. Use ME.8 to describe how an admitted Method is performed or to improve an account of a proposed way while retaining its unresolved identification conditions. Keep neighboring selection, evidence, permission, architecture, representation and source-return questions under their own subjects. A body can cite those results without absorbing them.
- Compare the direct alternative. Try a direct description or existing pattern entry for the same use. Retain a new body or language relation only when it adds a warranted action, result, boundary or saved source reconstruction at acceptable burden.
- Assign the contributions to bodies. Give each body its own recognizable problem, useful move, worked case and stop. Put shared conditions and the reasons for the selected combination in the profile’s whole account; use exact returns to inherited body answers.
- Name the material relations. State in ordinary language which result another use consumes, what condition enables that use, what is an alternative, what conflicts and where a failed or missing result returns. Apply the defining FPF relation when a stronger relation claim is needed.
- Provide direct reader entries. A reader should reach the relevant full body from a problem question without reading the complete production account. Whole-use explanation remains available for choosing, combining or adapting the language.
- Challenge the proposed arrangement. Use ME.24 to attempt reconstruction and a changed-source return. Use ME.22 only when a material claim about content or representation advantage remains. Keep a direct-description or smaller-language answer when it is sufficient.
The list is an authoring aid. It does not prescribe the order of every user’s Work.
ME.23:4.2 - Keep the described wholes separate
A MethodDescription has one admitted Method as its exact subject. A source-grounded language may publish such a description across several bodies when their bounded claims jointly describe that Method. State that subject and the claims included; do not infer membership from a coherent book or a shared title.
A profile account concerns the selected pattern/Method arrangement for its declared uses. It can include several MethodDescriptions and neighboring results. A separately addressable description of the production Method excludes independent situated-use and general profile-relation claims. Sharing a carrier does not merge those epistemes.
Method parthood is another claim. Independently identify the proposed whole and smaller Methods, then use B.1.5 for their whole-forming relations, joins, bounds and failure conditions. In the absence of that result, a useful action/result architecture remains prospective. Do not make the pattern inventory stand in for the missing composition.
ME.23:4.3 - Make each relation say something useful
Use the relation that changes the receiving action. The following are common questions, not a required universal relation catalogue:
| Relationship question | Useful statement |
|---|---|
| Result dependency | This description review consumes the qualification of these claims; if it is missing, return to that qualification. |
| Alternative | Either representation can serve this action under its stated loss limits; choosing one does not prove the other false. |
| Source support | This assertion relies on this recovered passage for the named use; changed or unavailable basis reopens that reliance. |
| Conflict | These candidate conditions cannot both govern the same selected use; retain the conflict for the owning decision. |
| Reuse or specialization | This profile reuses the general action and adds this source-specific condition. |
| Method composition | This independently admitted Method is a part of that whole under the B.1.5 result. |
| Publication grouping | These bodies are shown together to help discovery; their display order makes no stronger relation claim. |
A formal CGUS is appropriate only when that structure is itself needed. A.22.CGUS supplies the constituents, selected obtaining relations, applied constraints and named use frame, as well as potential branching and case-judgement requirements. Plain alternatives and conditions do not automatically admit that structure. ME.20 supplies ordinary situated continuation and its optional formal branch.
A changed fact can change a continuation judgement under the same frame. A changed question, admissible action or stop can require reidentification. The user or capable system assesses the new situation. During ongoing Work, A.15.7 supplies the next-action decision.
When the promised use includes performing or learning a Method, show its relevant vertical as well as result dependencies. At a selected moment, what constituent action is enacting what encompassing work, and what changes in that action when a condition of the whole changes? B.1.5.EW supplies this recovery. Show the capability, support and combined resource conditions that the DPF’s own bodies leave to another contribution. Use a representative case where a missing intermediate performance changes the continuation; do not require an exhaustive stack when its understood parts cannot change the use. B.1.5.RS supplies the distinct comparison when a constituent is replaced across encompassing uses.
ME.23:4.4 - Explain the profile at its own scope
Use all twelve substantive E.8 functions for the connected account: working situation, problem, forces, selected solution, grounding, bias, practical checks, recurring failure, consequences, Architectural Rationale, source comparison and relations. E.11.PFP governs where readers reach those answers. An inherited answer can be cited precisely; shared whole conditions and profile-specific consequences still need an explanation.
If a language is claimed to expose more structure to its reader, use ME.22 with C.2.8 for that specific comparison. Select the dependencies, alternatives or stops the reader needs, and distinguish new content from a different expression of the same claims. Identify the actual preparation, help and source returns. More patterns or links do not establish more extractable structure, and a larger amount does not establish that the language is worth its reading burden. Keep the direct description or smaller language when it suffices.
Distinguish relations across scales. A specialization narrows conditions while retaining the relevant general claims. A bounded-use projection selects claims for a reader. Reuse can connect several profiles. Method composition establishes actual parts. A publication group provides navigation. There is no fixed maximum number of scales, and overlap does not establish a mathematical lattice; use C.29 only for that qualified representation.