#Evidence Graph Referring (C-4)

A.10 · Stable · Kernel pattern · Normative · Part A - Kernel Architecture Cluster

#About this pattern

This is a generated FPF pattern page projected from the published FPF source. It is canonical FPF content for this ID; it is not a FPF Reference product feature page.

#How to use this pattern

Read the ID, status, type, and normativity first. Use the content for exact wording, the relations for adjacent concepts, and citations to keep active work grounded without pasting the whole specification.

Type: Kernel pattern Status: Stable Normativity: Normative

Use this pattern when a source, carrier, result episteme, credential, dashboard, provenance label, generated explanation, model card, or review note is being relied on for a named claim or bounded action and the source-to-use account is still implicit.

#Keywords

• relied-on claim
• bounded use
• claim/result episteme
• source publication
• carrier
• dated work
• direct relation
• evidence-provenance path
• currentness
• rival explanation
• RelianceDisposition
• unsupported overread
• actual-use relation.

#Relations

#Content

#Problem frame

Use this pattern when a source, carrier, result episteme, credential, dashboard, provenance label, generated explanation, model card, or review note is being relied on for a named claim or bounded action and the source-to-use account is still implicit.

Primary EntityOfConcern. The live object is the exact relied-on claim and bounded use. A.10 builds a descriptive evidence-provenance path that represents the independently established sources, carriers, work, result epistemes, provenance relations, currentness, and later-use relations needed to judge that use. The path is not a new world-side relation and its edges establish none of the facts they cite.

First useful move. Write: “Claim episteme E is being relied on for bounded use U; E states local result R; the cited sources, carriers, and direct relations are S; currentness is T; the bounded A.10 disposition is D.” Add a dated U.Work occurrence only when that Work is itself a current claim. If the account says that Work returned, produced, or obtained a value, name the exact A.6.1 application binding, one local A.15.PROD claim, or a direct subject relation under its own pattern; otherwise keep the Work and value as separate facts. Mark any missing rule or relation as a gap.

What goes wrong if missed. Carrier presence becomes truth, provenance becomes approval, a result record becomes performed work, MethodDescription becomes a run trace, a graph edge becomes an obtaining relation, and a currentness or assurance decision is inferred from display styling.

What this buys. A source-to-use account that can be replayed, contested, refreshed, narrowed, or handed to the pattern that defines or tests an additional claim, while keeping the claim, carrier, performed work, local result, result episteme, provenance, currentness, reliance, assurance, and action distinct.

Not this pattern when. A.10 does not establish measurement, formal, causal, diagnostic, conformance, comparison, selection, acceptance, gate, permission, commitment, Work, or decision results. It does not establish representation correspondences. Use the pattern that defines or tests each result, A.15.1 and A.6.1 for performed Work and actual bindings, C.2.1 for the result episteme, G.11 for currentness, C.29 for mathematical representation, and B.3 only when an actual named assurance claim is current.

Use A.2.4 first when only the first evidence-use or status-use classification of an episteme is at issue. Enter A.10 when carrier identity, source recovery, provenance, currentness, rival explanations, or bounded reliance must remain replayable.

Here path means a path in a descriptive evidence/provenance graph, never a route of action or a universal evidence relation.

#Problem

Source-backed reasoning fails in recurring ways:

1. the relied-on claim is not named;
2. a carrier or publication face is substituted for the claim it represents;
3. a method description, plan, signature, or stored reference is substituted for actual work and bindings;
4. a local domain result is replaced by a generic evidence or result field;
5. provenance, currentness, reliance, assurance, and authorization are collapsed; or
6. a graph edge is asserted before the direct source, work, production, representation, participation, or use relation is known to obtain.

The practical effect is false authority and unreplayable decisions: a badge looks like permission, a dashboard looks like a gate decision, or a model output looks like an accepted conclusion.

#Forces

• Minimality vs consequence. Orientation needs a small path; material reliance needs the exact fields that change the decision.
• Carrier identity vs claim content. The same content can appear in several carriers and editions; a carrier can be authentic while the claim is false or stale.
• Reusable method vs performed work. A method is a repeatable way of doing. Ordinary reading, orientation, or reliance can remain ordinary; a claim about performed U.Work requires the dated occurrence and exact bindings consumed by the claim.
• Provenance vs result establishment. A.10 must make a result traceable without establishing the result itself.
• Graph convenience vs ontic discipline. A graph can represent many relations compactly but cannot make them obtain.
• Contestability vs confidentiality. Reliance must be challengeable while sensitive carriers may require scoped, redacted, hashed, or access-controlled views.

#Solution — recover exact objects before drawing the path

#Start with the relied-on claim

Name the exact C.2.1 episteme whose content is being relied on. Its ClaimGraph states one local result or proposition, subject, interpretation basis, polarity or status when current, and uncertainty or qualification when relevant. The local result must come from the pattern that defines or tests it: C.16 for measurement, C.28 for causal support, A.19 for comparison or selection, G.4 for an acceptance-clause application, A.21 for a gate decision, C.11 for an option-set choice, and the applicable formal, diagnostic, conformance, identity, permission, or commitment pattern. When role appears in a technical result, use E.10.ROLE to select the exact local system-role-kind classification, U.SystemRoleAssignment occurrence or state, relation among system-role kinds, declaration, participation, interface, or representation claim before citing its governor.

A carrier, citation, provenance entry, or A.10 classification does not constitute the result episteme or the domain result. When their identity is live, use C.2.1 for the result episteme and the direct subject pattern for the domain result; use A.15.PROD when inception through Work is claimed.

#Ground source, carrier, publication, and representation

Recover the selected source episteme and its edition and claim content. When availability, form, or carrier matters, separately recover the EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence, publication form, carrier, or face involved, together with any copy, extraction, or transformation between source and use. Use E.24.PUB for publication, form, and carrier relations, E.17 for multi-view publication, and C.29 for mathematical representation correspondences. The descriptive graph points outward to those independently established objects and relations.

Carrier authenticity, integrity, or provenance may support only its named origin, history, build, or transformation claim. It does not imply truth, safety, approval, release, permission, assurance, or work occurrence.

#Separate method, work, participants, and local result

U.MethodDescription is an episteme about one exact U.Method. It may state generic participants, parameters, effects, and operating conditions. It has no actual-participant slots; design-time intention and proof/test criteria are not intrinsic method-description fields, and generic method claims do not establish that Work occurred.

Source production, measurement, verification, interpretation, transformation, query, review, publication, or later reliance may be described ordinarily. When the current claim says that one of these is a dated U.Work occurrence, first recover each actual performer's A.13 core and independently admit the occurrence through A.15.1 from its performance history, enacted Method, extent, and containing-System relation. Add F.6 afterward only when the evidence account also needs precise assignment-bound attribution. A short account may omit an assignment identifier unused by the receiving claim; when attribution is consumed, every required assignment and F.6 fact remains recoverable. Affected or evaluated referents, resources, and actual participants enter only through direct subject relations or A.6.1 operation-application bindings. Capability, authority, and responsibility remain separate predicates. A compatible signature, plan, description, log schema, or graph node establishes none of those bindings.

For every cited result, name the pattern that defines or tests it and its C.2.1 result episteme separately. The provenance path may represent exact Work, participants, entities, domain results, result epistemes, and outcomes only after their direct relations are established. Relate Work to a returned or produced value only through an exact A.6.1 application binding, one exact local A.15.PROD claim, or a direct subject predicate under its own pattern; otherwise show the two facts separately and return the reason-specific non-assertability result if that connection is needed.

#Build a descriptive evidence-provenance path

The minimum A.10 path records only what the bounded use needs:

Graph nodes retain their admitted kinds. Each edge cites one independently established direct relation; no generic evidences, verifiedBy, validatedBy, measuredBy, producedByWork, or criterion-participant relation is minted as a fallback. A project may label display edges for navigation, but the label has no ontic force.

#Classify bounded reliance

The canonical local RelianceDisposition member set is exactly: pass, degrade, abstain, reopen, evidence-needed, assurance-needed, and blocked-current-use. pass supports only the exact bounded use; degrade supports only the named narrower or reversible use. assurance-needed says that A.10 alone cannot support the attempted use because a direct domain rule or receiving decision requires a separately stated assurance claim. It creates no assurance claim and does not open B.3 until that claim is current. No disposition is claim truth, CV.Status, gate decision, selector outcome, approval, permission, release, assurance, or Work authorization.

When an actual named assurance claim is current, use B.3 for that assurance question. A.10 continues to supply the exact source and provenance paths but does not issue the assurance result. Consequential evidence use without such a claim stays with the direct safety, access, status, gate, permission, release, responsibility, or controlled-action pattern.

A reliance limitation qualifies the attempted use. When advice must also say what to do next, use C.11.DUA to compose a feasible continuation from that limitation. Further inquiry is one possible continuation. Retain the unsupported claim boundary when choosing a narrower use, another action or a stop. Use an already adequate C.11 choice directly.

#Route unlike exploratory inputs without changing their kind

When an observation, objective, former cue, novelty characterization, or similarly interesting item is proposed as a premise for an exploratory or creative move, recover the item under its direct owner before applying this bounded reliance classification. Do not rename every item signal or cue, and do not create a second premise-disposition vocabulary.

The composition produces only the direct source result, one existing RelianceDisposition when bounded reliance is current, and one later ChoiceResult. If the source claim is already qualified and the current C.11 record can use it directly, stop; no intermediate premise record is required.

#Currentness, actual use, and graph limits

Source availability and source currentness are distinct. Record issue/effective windows, supersession, revocation, source-order rules, and the G.11 currentness result when a use depends on them.

Actual reliance requires one exact premise, reference, decision-use, operation-argument, or other direct relation to the result episteme. When that reliance is also claimed as dated U.Work, recover the Work independently. Storage, indexing, citation, graph membership, visibility, or co-location establishes neither reliance nor performed Work.

Part-whole, temporal, production, publication, representation, provenance, participation, and reliance relations must each be established separately. The A.10 graph may cite them together for replay but never substitutes one for another.

#Authority-reliance use of ordinary A.10 evidence-provenance paths

Use this subsection when an authority-looking carrier is being relied on. The A.10 path represents one named claim, its exact sources and direct relations, and one bounded use; it is not an authority relation. If the Work occurrence, gate decision, speech act, commitment, permission, exact system-role assignment, assignment-state assertion, or other required relation already exists in a project-side source, recover that object by value and let the graph cite it.

A10-lite is enough for source-finding, orientation, learning, and bounded reversible probes:

Minimum evidence-provenance path for routine reliance:

Expanded fields are collected only insofar as they decide the current reliance question. Evidence depth follows consequence severity, reuse, contestability, cross-context movement, and the evidence relation required for the attempted claim. Do not expand a source-finding note into a full evidence dossier, and do not collect every expanded field merely because a carrier is copied, generated, credential-like, provenance-like, or cross-context.

Adversarial misuse guard. Do not let carrier authenticity, provenance, copied approval, generated summary, stale screenshot, credential status view, or dashboard export convert into claim truth or currentness. Treat each as a rival explanation to test against the exact issuer, publication, registration, status-source, source-maintenance, trust, acceptance, or currentness predicate actually used; any source-side Work and its attribution; the time window; and the relying context. If the needed predicate has no governor, return that A.6.RCD gap rather than calling it support.

Data-minimization and privacy boundary. Preserve the minimum source, provenance, and direct-relation account sufficient for the intended use. Use redacted, hashed, scoped, or access-controlled carrier refs when raw material would expose personal identity, access tokens, cryptographic proof payloads, tenant identifiers, security logs, incident details, internal release metadata, audit trails, privileged reviewer identities, sensitive model provenance, or sensitive data provenance. Redaction creates no source relation; it must preserve enough recoverability for the relying context.

Case repairs:

If the evidence-provenance path is incomplete, A.10 reports the missing source, carrier, work, rule for the cited result, direct relation, or G.11 currentness fact and narrows or blocks only the attempted use. Possible continuations include source-finding only, reopen original carrier, request issuer or status verification, refresh the source query, mark stale or contested, narrow the attempted P2W class or reliance claim, proceed only with a reversible local probe under an explicit work plan, or block the unsupported use.

Missing source-relation repair assignment. If the relying actor cannot recover or verify the source relation, name the admitted System selected by an independently obtaining project-side repair-responsibility relation and assign only prospective repair Work. The relevant issuer or performer, exact verifier system-role-assignment occurrence when one is current, status-source relation, evidence-producing Work and System, gate-decision source relation, system-role-assignment source relation, status register entry, boundary claim relation, or source-currentness relation remains a separate fact; none is a responsibility relation by form. If the corpus has no direct predicate that selects the repair System for this case, record the exact A.6.RCD missing governor. The A.10 result names the missing source relation or source-bearing record and blocked use rather than making the relying actor reconstruct a relation they cannot issue or verify.

Repeated missing-source-relation indicator. If A.10 results for the same visible carrier family repeatedly report stale, contested, missing-source-relation, or no-currentness findings, record a source-relation repair action: instrument the source relation, expose the carrier field that carries the source-bearing relation, expose decision-log refs, add currentness checks and status checks, preserve claim-bound source relations for generated or copied outputs, require credential views to show status windows and currentness windows, require model documentation and data documentation to expose intended-use and evaluation-condition fields, or require provenance labels and attestation labels to name their bounded claim type. Repetition is an indicator that the source relation or display needs repair; it is not a reason to make each acting user rebuild the evidence-provenance path manually.

Display guidance for evidence and currentness: an evidence or status display should show the claim or effect, evidence carrier, the exact issuer, publication, registration, status-source, source-maintenance, trust, acceptance, or currentness predicate it uses, reference or link named by value, time window, freshness, relying context, and unsupported Work use, reliance use, claim, or effect. A display that can only show source availability should say so; it must not imply approval, permission, gate passage, Work occurrence, or assurance.

Incident-learning fields for evidence and currentness overread: visible carrier or publication face, intended claim or effect, missing evidence-provenance field, evidence carrier named by value, exact source-side predicate actually used, ordinary method trace or admitted Work trace, and needed time relation; rival explanation; current safe disposition; and the smallest upstream repair to instrumentation, selected source U.Episteme, exact publication occurrence when availability matters, changed publication form or carrier, issuer, registration, status-source, source-maintenance, trust, acceptance, or currentness relation, claim-bound source relation, credential view, model or data documentation, or provenance or attestation label.

Contestability and redress relation: when an evidence-provenance path or source-currentness relation affects person or team status, access, responsibility, a compliance relation, or a release decision, the A.10 result names the disputed claim, evidence carrier, affected use or harm, available challenge, review, redress, communication, source, publication, register, access, or contact relation, allowed evidence or argument, possible disposition change, outcome route, reopen trigger, and safe interim disposition. Source exposure remains independent of who may later perform review or repair Work. Name a responsibility, allocation, commitment, permission, or authority relation—or its exact missing governor—only when assigning that future Work; its absence does not close the challenge.

Positive repaired evidence-use statement. When the source account is complete, write the smallest bounded statement: named relied-on claim; carrier and source; direct provenance, citation, and currentness relations; ordinary bounded use; RelianceDisposition; unsupported attempted use; and reopen condition. Add producing or interpreting U.Work, each actual performer's A.13 core, independent A.15.1 admission, Method, actual bindings, and later Work only when those facts are current. Add F.6 afterward only when the receiving account needs precise assignment-bound attribution. A claimed Work-to-value link needs an exact A.6.1 application binding, one local A.15.PROD claim, or a direct subject predicate under its own pattern. Add authority or responsibility only when an exact relation is independently required by the use. A short Work statement may omit an unused assignment identifier only when every relation it consumes remains recoverable; an assignment is never the authority or responsibility result.

What this does not authorize: A.10 does not approve, authorize, pass a gate, release, create permission or commitment, establish a local system-role-kind classification, establish a U.SystemRoleAssignment occurrence or state, establish a relation among system-role kinds, establish performed Work, establish a domain result, assert a representation correspondence, or raise assurance. It supplies source recovery, provenance, and bounded reliance for the exact neighboring objects named by value.

#Local evidence-use classifier and RelianceDisposition for source-bearing carrier or display reliance

Use this subsection when a visible carrier, publication face, selected source U.Episteme ref, exact EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence ref when availability is material, source relation ref, or display is being relied on for a named claim or act. First recover the claim kind, the pattern or source rule that defines or tests the claim, the source/provenance path, and the bounded use. Broad words such as source, metric, confidence, conformant, safe, ready, certified, approval, or permission are recovery prompts, not relation names.

This is a local reliance-use classifier, not a Core evidence-kind ontology. Use only the row that decides the attempted use. The path represents exact direct relations and the RelianceDisposition records one bounded A.10 judgment; neither becomes a general evidence or authority relation. Affordability card: orientation or source-finding remains a cue and stops here; bounded reliance states one evidence use, unsupported attempted use, window, and reopen condition. If a direct domain rule requires assurance, state the exact assurance claim and then use B.3. Plain wording remains ordinary unless it changes one of the named source, evidence, gate, assurance, Work, decision, or control claims.

Cheap stop: if a bounded claim, current carrier, evidence-provenance path, window, bounded evidence use, unsupported attempted use, and reopen trigger are present, and there is no actual assurance claim, gate relation, Work relation, control-bearing relation, or release relation, stay in A.10. Do not open B.3, A.21, B.2.5, or a broad evidence pack merely because the carrier or display looks official, quantitative, generated, credentialed, or safety-related.

Common wrong first classification: a visible carrier, selected source U.Episteme ref, publication-form or carrier ref, exact EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence ref, source relation ref, or display is approval, permission, safety, or readiness. First honest entry: recover the A.10 evidence-provenance path for one bounded claim or use; approval, permission, safety, readiness, gate passage, and work authority must be established separately under the pattern that defines or tests each claim.

Plain disposition palette: RelianceDisposition=pass means proceed only inside the bounded evidence use; degrade means use only a narrower or reversible version; abstain means do not decide yet; reopen means a changed or contested evidence relation defeated the previous classification; evidence-needed names missing evidence at the decision point; assurance-needed says a separately stated assurance claim is required before this attempted use can proceed; blocked-current-use blocks the attempt until its evidence-provenance path or source relation changes.

For A.10 use, RelianceDisposition is a local disposition over the evidence-provenance path and the bounded reliance use. Outside a table column already headed RelianceDisposition, write the qualified form RelianceDisposition=... and bind it to the named attempted use, currentness and window when relevant, bounded evidence use, unsupported attempted use, and reopen or stop condition; it is not CV.Status, GateDecisionResult, selector result, or ProblemCard@Context state.

Observed-effect or consequence evidence may be used only for what happened or is credibly recorded. If the attempted use says the source caused, prevented, would have changed, or is responsible for that effect, leave ordinary A.10 reliance and open C.28 plus any relevant evidence, work, or assurance relation.

If a proxy marker, benchmark, confidence value, dashboard metric, or score becomes the primary driver for action, release, resource allocation, people status, team status, or P2W priority, check whether the claim being made also raises an E.13 proxy-to-objective question. Do not open E.13 for every metric; open it only when the proxy is being used as the target or decision driver.

If publication or observation of a cue changes the represented situation or represented source condition, recover the probe-coupled boundary before treating the cue as passive evidence. The boundary check prevents passive-evidence overread for dashboards, warnings, labels, and public status displays.

Minimum contest relation with possible redress: a contest relation exists when the affected party can identify the disputed claim or source, affected use or harm, an available challenge, review, redress, communication, source, publication, register, access, or contact relation, evidence or argument allowed in challenge, possible disposition change, outcome route, and reopen trigger. A system-role label, assignment, feedback channel, complaint form, or appeal label without those recoverable values is not enough to change the disposition. Responsibility for future review Work is a separate claim.

Affected-party contestable minimum: even when raw evidence stays restricted, the contesting party must be able to see enough of the claim, source class, disposition, affected use, available challenge or contact route, and allowed challenge evidence to challenge the result. Privacy, security, or privilege can narrow disclosure; they cannot erase the challengeable minimum while still claiming contest or redress.

False-negative reliance guard: a blocked, abstained, or evidence-needed use is not final if challenge evidence, missing affected-party evidence, changed source relation, changed selected source U.Episteme edition, changed EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence when availability is material, changed publication form, changed evidence carrier, changed representation, or redress can materially change the disposition. If refusal is based on missing evidence, name the missing evidence kind and decision point rather than closing the dispute by vagueness.

Sensitive evidence boundary: use scoped, hashed, redacted, or access-controlled evidence refs when raw carriers would expose personal data, secrets, tokens, privileged logs, tenant identifiers, incident details, security-sensitive traces, or unnecessary identities. A redacted path must still preserve enough recoverability for the relied-on claim, disposition, and contest relation.

Worked source-overread slices:

#Route a Changed Claim Across Several Actual Receiving Uses

Use A.10.1 when a later or replacement source may materially change a claim and the receiving uses must still be found across a bounded frame or closed across several actual uses. A.10 continues to govern each exact one-use source-to-use account, direct-use relation, and RelianceDisposition. Applying A.10.1 bounds the receiving-use search frame, states source-outward and receiver-oriented coverage and gaps, classifies found candidates as depends, mentions only, or unresolved, and prepares only action-changing depends branches for application of their direct subject-pattern guidance.

If one already-known bounded reliance use is the whole question, apply A.10 and the direct subject guidance. A citation, carrier, declared edge, or graph-reachable node does not become affected merely because the source changed. The completed A.10.1 account cites each independently obtained subject result afterward; it neither replaces that result nor changes A.10's disposition set.

#Causal support in evidence-provenance paths

An A.10 path used for a causal claim cites the exact C.28 components it actually carries; it does not compress them into one alternative-valued “support basis” or copy C.28's field list.

causalSupportComponentRefs?: CausalSupportComponentRefs
causalUseSupportResultRef?: CausalUseSupportResultRef

CausalSupportComponentRefs remains defined only by C.28. A.10's ordinary evidence-provenance path still identifies the exact source, carrier, Work or data, provenance relations, and bounded use required by this pattern. Inside the C.28 contract, cite only the components the causal claim actually relies on. When C.28 admits another specialist component, A.10 can cite it through that contract without defining a second schema.

Examples:

• an observational cohort path cites the observation and measurement Work plus observationalOrNaturalBehaviorData; an intervention-effect statement still needs a C.28 identification or design result;
• a randomized estimate path cites assignment and Work evidence, its identification or design result, estimate, uncertainty, and limits;
• a prospective counterfactual-sampling path may cite the realizability result with its decision Method, construction, bound, or obstruction, but claims no performed sampling or data;
• a performed counterfactual-sampling path cites dated sampling Work, attribution, and the resulting sample or data; only that complete path may support realizedCounterfactualSamplingData;
• a simulation path cites model output, assumptions, validation, and bounded model use; it does not become realized or interventional evidence by relabeling;
• a target-trial emulation path cites its TargetTrialMappingResult, including the observational source, protocol-to-data mappings, gaps, residual-confounding assessment, and sensitivity mappings; reporting completeness alone establishes neither identification nor low bias;
• an off-policy or causal-RL path cites its exact OffPolicyCausalEvaluationResult with the question, behaviour and evaluation policies, overlap check, supported and unsupported use, and reopen condition. It also cites optional details about history or horizon, confounding, changed endpoints or transport, the estimator, and uncertainty only when they change what the path supports, where that support came from, whether it is current, its bounded use, or when it reopens;
• a causal-representation path cites its exact CausalVariableRepresentationRecord with the question, source representation, selection or abstraction Method, representation assumptions, intervention-validity result, supported and unsupported use, and reopen condition. It also cites optional invariance, fidelity, query-preservation, uncertainty, or shift-limit results only when they change what the path supports, where that support came from, whether it is current, its bounded use, or when it reopens;
• a transport path cites every changed endpoint, assumptions, overlap evidence, formula or comparator, uncertainty or unresolved assumptions, and bounded use carried by its transportability result; and
• an observationally identified estimate cites both the evidence path and separate identification and estimate results.

What changes in practice: the path exposes where every relied-on component came from and may cite the C.28 support-result episteme. A.10 creates none of the C.28 components, the causal verdict, or downstream authority by carrying their refs.

#Archetypal Grounding

Runtime acceptance from a measurement result. C.16 dated measurement work obtains a pressure measurement result with uncertainty under a named model and calibration; a distinct C.2.1 episteme states it. If the claim that this Work first constituted that episteme is current, A.15.PROD recovers one local entity-inception claim. Separate evaluation work applies the declared G.4 pressure clause through A.6.1 bindings and obtains unknown; another C.2.1 episteme states that verdict. A.10 records the source publications, calibration and measurement work, result episteme, evaluation work, clause declaration, exact bindings, provenance, currentness, and rival explanation. Later C.11 decision work uses the verdict episteme as a premise and defers. No ledger edge establishes measurement, verdict, decision, or use.

Meta-analysis. Source study publications, datasets, analysis code, inclusion work, statistical method, and synthesis work are recovered by their direct relations. The application of the statistical method and the result relation establish the pooled estimate and uncertainty; its C.2.1 episteme is the relied-on claim. A.10 records source identity, transformations, coverage, provenance, currentness, and the bounded clinical or policy use, not a generic validatedBy relation.

Credential display. A credential view can support credential currentness only when it names the exact issuer or trust-root object and relation, holder binding, verifier, exact status source or register relation, revocation, and window. Permission remains with A.2.8.PER, commitment with A.2.8, an issuing act with A.2.9, and an exact system-role-assignment occurrence with A.2.1. A status assertion requires its direct status pattern; an entry predicate requires its defining pattern and A.6.B boundary classification; gate passage remains with A.21. Display presence creates none of them.

#Bias-Annotation

A.10 corrects carrier-authority bias and graph-authority bias. A polished badge, attestation, dashboard, generated explanation, or provenance mark can make an unsupported claim look settled; a tidy graph can make an ungrounded edge look like an obtaining relation. The repair is to recover the claim, source, carrier, work, local result, pattern or source rule that establishes it, result episteme, direct relations, currentness, bounded use, rival explanation, and disposition. More impressive paperwork is not a substitute.

#Conformance Checklist

1. Claim: the exact relied-on C.2.1 episteme and proposition/local result are named.
2. Result rule: every measurement, formal, causal, diagnostic, conformance, comparison, selection, acceptance, gate, permission, commitment, system-role-kind classification, system-role-assignment occurrence or state, relation among system-role kinds, or decision result identifies the pattern that defines or tests it; any other technical role use is first routed through E.10.ROLE.
3. Carrier/source: the selected source episteme and edition, any material publication occurrence, form, carrier, or face, the copy/transform chain, and direct provenance or citation relations are recoverable.
4. Work: whenever production, interpretation, transformation, evaluation, or reliance is asserted as dated U.Work, point to its basis: A.13 first, independent A.15.1 Work admission second, and F.6 afterward only for precise assignment-bound attribution. Add direct relations, A.6.1 bindings, and resource-use facts only when the receiving claim uses them. Ordinary source-finding action need not be admitted as U.Work.
5. MethodDescription boundary: the description's generic method claims establish no actual participants, occurrence, use, proof/test event, or result.
6. Result boundary: domain result, result episteme, carrier, provenance entry, outcome, and later action remain distinct.
7. Graph boundary: every asserted edge names an independently established direct relation; no edge establishes work, participation, production, result, currentness, reliance, or representation by graph membership.
8. Time/currentness: edition, window, supersession, revocation, source order, and G.11 result are explicit when they affect use.
9. Reliance: bounded use, unsupported attempted use, local RelianceDisposition, rival explanation, and reopen trigger are present; B.3 opens only when an actual named assurance claim is current.
10. Contest/privacy: the affected party can challenge the claim and disposition, while sensitive carrier access is minimized without erasing recoverability.

#Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

• Carrier as truth. Recover the claim and direct source relation; authenticity or availability is not truth.
• MethodDescription as intent or trace. Recover generic method claims separately from the dated work and actual bindings.
• Generic result field. Name the domain result, the pattern that defines or tests it, and the distinct C.2.1 episteme.
• Edge as fact. Establish the direct relation first; then let the graph represent or cite it.
• Provenance as assurance or permission. Enter B.3, A.2.8.PER, A.21, or the pattern that defines or tests the additional claim only when that claim is live.
• Citation as actual use. Ground the exact premise/reference/argument relation and any later Work claimed as such.
• Full dossier by default. Collect only fields that decide the bounded use, consequence, contestability, and reopen condition.

#Consequences

Benefits. Reliance becomes replayable without turning A.10 into an authority over the results it cites. The same path can expose stale sources, hidden transformations, ungrounded work, incompatible currentness, or an unsupported lift from provenance to action.

Trade-offs. Subject-pattern recovery takes more effort than a single evidence edge. The gain is that later users can challenge exactly the claim, work fact, source relation, currentness result, or reliance boundary that failed.

Failure containment. Missing source, work, direct binding, rule for a cited result, currentness, or use relation blocks or narrows only the affected reliance use. It does not authorize a universal evidence or result relation.

#Rationale

Evidence use is a relation-specific claim about why one later use may rely on one episteme. Provenance records make the source history recoverable; they do not create the source facts, local result, truth, work, or use. Keeping the descriptive graph outward-facing keeps each cited result with the rule that establishes it while still making complex source chains inspectable.

#SoTA-Echoing

Source qualification was checked against the publishers' current surfaces on 2026-07-30. It remains qualified through 2027-07-30 unless a latest specification, Recommendation, tagged framework release, status mechanism, or adopted documentation baseline changes earlier. Each source changes only the bounded A.10 locus named below; lineage and popular comparators not listed here are non-governing.

The current source decisions deliberately do not import a credential, attestation, documentation, or provenance ontology as A.10 authority. Source refresh replays the named rule, case, and checklist rows first and widens only if that local replay exposes a direct contradiction.

#Relations

• Builds on: C.2.1 for claim and result epistemes; E.24.PUB for publication, form, and carrier relations and E.17 for multi-view publication; A.13 for every precise performer's local core, A.15.1 for independent dated Work admission, and F.6 only for a current precise assignment-bound attribution; A.6.1 for actual operation bindings; A.15.PROD when entity inception through Work or production completion is current; and E.10.ROLE plus the selected A.2-family pattern for any technical role claim.
• Coordinates with: A.2.4 for first-use evidence/status classification; G.11 for currentness; C.29 for mathematical representation; B.3 for assurance; C.16 for measurement; C.28 for causal use; A.19 for comparison/selection; G.4 for acceptance declarations and applications; C.11 and A.21 for option-set choice and gate results, respectively.
• Constrains: provenance and reliance descriptions only. A.10 does not create another pattern's result, occurrence, participation, representation, currentness, assurance, permission, commitment, gate, or decision.

#Older source text interpretation and neighboring-pattern notes

Treat legacy names such as manifest, creator, observer, symbol register, SCR, RSCR, MIC, verifiedBy, validatedBy, or evidence path as recovery prompts, not current relation names.

• A manifest or source register is a carrier/publication or provenance description; recover the exact source, edition, claim, and direct relations it represents.
• A creator, observer, producer, verifier, or maintainer participates as an admitted System only when the direct participation relation obtains. If dated Work is asserted, recover every precise performer's A.13 core and independently admit the Work under A.15.1. Add F.6 afterward only when precise assignment-bound attribution is current. Name any exact direct relation or A.6.1 binding used by the claim separately. Those labels and assignments supply neither participation, authority, nor responsibility.
• A method-instantiation note is not work. Recover the exact U.Method, generic MethodDescription claims, dated occurrence, enactment, ordering, participants, and result separately.
• A work result, measurement result, validation result, or verification result label requires the exact domain result and a separate C.2.1 episteme; the legacy field name establishes neither.
• Resource rosters remain separate from carriers and provenance records.

When older text also claims approval, permission, gate passage, assurance, causality, comparability, representation, publication effect, or decision, use the pattern that defines or tests that additional claim and let A.10 retain only source recovery, provenance, bounded reliance, and contestability.

#Evidence carriers for quantum-like statements

Use A.10 when a quantum-like statement is being relied on. Name the minimal claim, selected source episteme and edition, any material publication occurrence, form, or carrier, time and currentness, rival explanation, bounded use, unsupported attempted use, and RelianceDisposition. Add producing or interpreting dated U.Work, Method, actual bindings, and a Work-to-value predicate only when those facts are independently current. Use C.16 for ordinary measurement, the relevant C.26 pattern for probe or frame effects, F.9 for Bridge loss, C.29 for mathematical representation, and B.3 for material assurance.

The quantum-like label has no evidence weight. A descriptive graph may represent the source and use relations only after those relations are established.

#C.29 mathematical-lens use relation

When a mathematical lens is used in the evidence account, use C.29 for the representation correspondence, declared lens use, and lens-use boundary claim. A.10 may cite that C.29 episteme and record its provenance, currentness, bounded reliance, and later use; an A.10 graph edge does not establish the correspondence. Use C.16 for measurement construction and B.3 for assurance.

#A.10:End

Last Updated: 2026-09-10 — upstream FPF commit a87d0ef4 (github.com/ailev/FPF)