#Needed Relation Claim Derivation and Relation-Kind Admission

A.6.RCD · Stable · Kernel relation-foundation pattern · Normative unless explicitly marked informative · 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 relation-foundation pattern Status: Stable Normativity: Normative unless explicitly marked informative

Plain name. Derive the needed relation claim before admitting a relation kind.

Use this pattern when an engineer can name the exact participant referents and the claim, check, decision, or continuation that is blocked, but no current direct relation states the needed relation-bearing claim.

#Relations

#Content

#Use This When

Use this pattern when an engineer can name the exact participant referents and the claim, check, decision, or continuation that is blocked, but no current direct relation states the needed relation-bearing claim.

Typical first-minute situations are:

• several exact base-relation facts seem to imply the needed claim, but related to or a convenient verb hides how;
• a formula, query path, graph edge, or rule appears to define the answer, and the team is about to treat it as a relation kind;
• the same compound claim recurs and the team needs to decide whether to keep deriving it locally, publish reusable predicate semantics, or admit a relation kind;
• a proposed primitive relation appears to be only a composition, projection, closure, aggregation, or cross-algebra juxtaposition of existing claims.

Primary EntityOfConcern. One exact needed relation-bearing claim for one named receiving use. The application also settles whether that claim remains local, receives a reusable predicate-definition episteme, or justifies a derived or primitive relation kind. This wording does not mint a NeededRelationClaim kind or an application-record kind.

First useful move. Write the blocked receiving use and the participant meanings in ordinary domain language. Then use A.6.P to recover the pattern containing the current subject predicate and ask whether that predicate can already state the needed affirmative, negative, or exact rule-qualified modal claim for those participants. If it can, apply its test and use the exact blocker boundary below when the result cannot yet be stated. Derive a compound predicate only when no current direct predicate can express the needed claim.

What goes wrong if missed. A team either leaves the claim as vague connective prose or promotes a formula, query, graph path, definition, or convenient name into ontology. The first loses replayable meaning. The second invents relation kinds without an obtaining law or occurrence identity.

What this buys. The engineer gets the lightest sufficient result: an existing direct relation, a local compound claim, reusable predicate-definition content with an optional separately admitted derived relation kind, or a genuinely irreducible primitive relation kind. The ontology grows only when the receiving use needs occurrence semantics that claim content alone cannot supply.

Ordinary non-use boundary. Do not use this pattern when a current direct predicate can already state the needed affirmative, negative, or exact rule-qualified modal claim; write that claim using the predicate's pattern and stop. A negative, hypothetical, forecast, or rule-qualified modal claim needs no obtaining relation occurrence. If the predicate and its applicability rule exist but the attempted positive result cannot be stated, use the three-way boundary below: factually unsupported only when the available case basis is sufficient to apply the positive test and that test fails; missing-information when a fact needed to decide that test is unavailable. Do not use A.6.RCD for wording-only cleanup, mathematical-lens adequacy, naming, evidence, assurance, or publication questions. E.10, C.29, F.18, A.10, B.3, and E.17 supply the relevant definitions or tests.

Cheap stop. If a readable current direct relation closes the receiving use, stop before constructing a compound claim. If a local compound claim closes it, stop before publishing a reusable definition. If a reusable definition closes it, stop before admitting a relation kind.

#Name the exact blocker

Use three ordinary blocker phrases without turning them into a common result kind:

• missing-governor means that, for the stated participants and use, no current predicate definition, applicability condition, occurrence rule, or other governing rule can state or test the attempted relation claim. It says nothing about whether case facts exist.
• factually unsupported means that the required governor and positive test exist, the available case basis is sufficient to apply that test, and the test fails. It stops the attempted affirmative; it does not establish the negative.
• missing-information means that at least one fact needed to decide the current test is unavailable, so the test cannot yet return its positive, negative, or inapplicable result.

If an applicability rule exists and the available case basis establishes that the case is outside it, return that rule's inapplicable result. State a negative claim only when an applicable non-obtaining criterion or complete closure basis exists and the available facts satisfy it; failure of the positive test alone is not that basis. If the governing rule itself is absent, use missing-governor; if a fact needed to decide its test is unavailable, use missing-information. missing-substrate remains the narrower section 4.2 stop for unavailable constructor semantics. These phrases are readable outcomes, not new U-kinds, result records, or an omnibus blocker ontology.

#Problem Frame

FPF permits rich claims over already identified entities and admitted relations without requiring one primitive relation kind for every useful sentence. The difficult case begins after relational precision restoration: the participants are recoverable, the receiving use is real, and simpler direct relations exist, but no one current direct relation carries the needed claim.

The ordinary result of this pattern is claim content in a C.2.1 episteme. Deriving that content is not the constitution of an actual relation occurrence. Repeated use can justify reusable predicate-definition content. Only a further occurrence-semantics need can justify a derived relation kind, and only irreducible action-facing semantics can justify a primitive relation kind.

#Problem

Two errors compete.

1. Under-definition. Related to, fulfils, enacts, reachable, supports, or another convenient phrase hides the base facts, participant meanings, polarity, intermediate participants, applicability, or rule by which the claim follows.
2. Premature admission. A repeated expression, formula, query, graph path, table row, definition, or name is treated as a relation kind or relation occurrence although no direct subject settlement states obtaining and occurrence identity.

Authors MUST preserve expressive claims while preventing representation-created ontology and primitive-kind inflation.

#Forces

#Solution

Name the blocked receiving claim and participants. Reuse a current direct predicate when it can state that claim. Derive only what the selected substrate warrants. Publish reusable predicate semantics only for repeated use. Admit a relation kind only with its direct obtaining and occurrence-identity laws. Stop when the receiving use works.

#Execute the demand-first method

1. Name the blocked use. State the exact claim, check, decision, or continuation that cannot proceed, and what answer would close it.
2. Recover participants and direct relations. Use A.6.P to name the actual participant referents under their relation-participant meanings and retrieve the smallest plausible base from the exact pattern content or declaration that defines each base predicate and its obtaining law. Similar tokens, shared field names, or adjacent graph edges are not a base.
3. Choose the least constructor admitted by the current substrate. State the constructor semantics and the base claim content it consumes. Do not infer an operator from punctuation or notation.
4. Replay three things. Test one positive case, one discriminating failure case, and the named receiving use. Keep hidden intermediates, polarity, scope, time, and base-definition editions visible when they change the result.
5. Select the lightest disposition. Choose exactly one of the four dispositions in section 4.3 and stop at its stopping rule.
6. Open reusable semantics only when repeated use needs the same rule. First decide whether every reuse concerns one exact subject or the parameterized rule is reused across several subject instances. For one subject, identify a subject-bounded compound-law episteme whose exact EntityOfConcern is that subject and state the reuse limit. For a rule reused across subject instances, identify the exact reusable predicate definition as EntityOfConcern; that episteme may satisfy A.6.0 U.Signature membership before any relation kind is admitted, but it is not a RelationSignature.
7. Open kind admission only when occurrence semantics are consumed. A derived kind needs a direct subject settlement with obtaining, applicability, base dependencies, and a non-optional occurrence-identity rule. A primitive candidate additionally carries the failed derivation, the exact action-facing distinction lost, its own obtaining and recurrence laws, independent receiving uses, and a standalone subject-pattern obligation.

Use this compact working note only while the decision is live:

A.6.RCD working note:
  blockedReceivingUse:
  participantMeanings:
  candidateBaseRelationClaims:
  selectedSubstrateAndEdition:
  constructorSemantics:
  positiveCase:
  discriminatingFailureCase:
  receivingUseReplay:
  disposition:
  predicateDefinitionModeIfCurrent: subjectBounded | reusableAcrossSubjects
  predicateDefinitionEntityOfConcernIfCurrent:
  subjectBoundReuseBoundaryIfCurrent:
  directSubjectSettlementIfKindCurrent:
  stopOrReturn:

The note is a pattern-local prompt. A filled, claim-bearing use is an episteme under [C.2.1](/generated/patterns/C.2.1); the printed shape is not a new record kind, RelationSignature, relation kind, or relation occurrence.

#Respect substrate authority

A constructor probe is usable only when the selected substrate defines its inputs, output claim, applicability, and relevant laws. The following table is a non-exhaustive set of recurring single-substrate semantic probes. It is neither a universal operator registry nor a claim that any substrate supports the whole list.

Cross-algebra claim-use boundary. Ask how the named decision or work occurrence actually uses each result. For every consumed result, state its own obtaining premise-use, reference-use, decision-use, or other direct use relation under the pattern for that question. If the decision is one actual application of a declared operation, an exact A.6.1 argument binding may state that use instead. If no current predicate definition, applicability condition, or occurrence rule can state the required result-use relation for those participants, return missing-governor; if the governor exists and the available case basis is sufficient to apply its positive test but that test fails, return factually unsupported; if a fact needed to decide the test is unavailable, return missing-information. Co-publication, a shared topic, or one decision record supplies no use relation.

Stop there when those independent uses close the named decision or work question. Open a separate joint predicate only when the decision genuinely depends on a joint condition that the independent use relations cannot express; then name that condition and use A.6.RCD to derive exactly it. Do not add a generic joint-use relation or record merely because one decision cites results from two algebras.

When a consumed result relies on an obtaining F.9 Bridge between two exact F.17 SchemeSenseCell values, cite that Bridge and the separate bounded-use claim; add CL or a loss note only when the receiving use needs it. When the result instead crosses exact ReferencePlanes, cite the applicable plane relation and policy. If both facts are current, state both under their own predicates. A cell or plane difference alone creates neither relation, and one branch never fabricates the other. A Bridge-related penalty is current only when an actual named B.3 assurance claim uses an applicable declared domain model, calibrated mappings where needed, stated dependencies and assumptions, and current case facts whose rule yields that penalty. It affects only the calculated assurance result for that named use; it supplies no default fold and changes no independently stated characteristic.

A local compound claim needs recoverable constructor semantics, but it does not need a separately materialized substrate document. Authors MUST name and pin the substrate when the derivation is nontrivial, intended for interoperability, used as proof, or becomes a reusable predicate definition. If no current substrate supplies the proposed operator, return a missing-substrate blocker rather than improvising a universal constructor algebra.

#Select one of four dispositions

These are economy dispositions, not maturity stages. Later need can reopen a local claim or definition. The four dispositions do not impose a required maturity ladder on any application.

#Keep kinds, predicates, claims, and occurrences distinct

Keep the order visible: the admitted relation kind classifies; its direct predicate defines the test; current case facts or constituting history determine whether that test is satisfied, failed, or still open; a claim-bearing episteme states an affirmative, negative, or exact rule-qualified modal claim; and an obtaining world-side occurrence exists only in a satisfied affirmative case. Apply section 0.1 when the test or its factual basis cannot yet produce a result. Use A.6.REL for explicit occurrence individuation only when a named use consumes identity.

#Settle a reusable predicate definition truthfully

When the same rule is used more than once, first ask where the reuse actually travels.

• One exact subject. If every use asks about the same promise-content edition, subject structure, decision occurrence, or other exact subject, identify a subject-bounded compound-law episteme whose EntityOfConcern is that subject. State plainly that the rule may be reused only for claims about that subject; a familiar formula does not make it portable to another subject.
• Across subject instances. If the same parameterized rule is applied to several independently identified subjects, identify one reusable predicate-definition episteme whose EntityOfConcern is the exact predicate definition itself. If its claim graph supplies the subject and value range, Vocabulary, Laws, and Applicability required by A.6.0, the already identified episteme may satisfy U.Signature membership without relation-kind admission. It remains a predicate-definition declaration, not a RelationSignature or a classifier of occurrences.

In either branch, the definition content states:

• parameter and participant meanings;
• the exact base-relation claims and the pattern content or declarations that define their predicates and obtaining laws;
• the derivation rule under the selected substrate;
• polarity, scope, time, and applicability;
• base-definition and substrate dependencies plus their editions when current;
• positive and discriminating cases;
• the admissible claim use and the non-admissible occurrence or ontology overread.

If neither the exact subject nor the exact reusable predicate definition is the truthful EntityOfConcern, keep the needed results as local compound claims. Do not manufacture a union concern or alternate opportunistically between the rule and a nearby domain subject.

#Reusable rule-content predicates stop before relation-kind admission

RuleContentBasisFindingDefinition@R7 is the disposition-3 declaration for two repeated cross-subject predicate semantics: derivedUsingRuleContent(dependentContent, baseContent) and evaluatedAgainstRuleContent(dependentContent, baseContent). Its exact EntityOfConcern is that reusable predicate definition. Its SubjectKind and RangedValueKind are both U.ClaimGraph; predicate obtaining is asserted through C.2.1, so no separate result kind is introduced. The declaration may satisfy ordinary A.6.0 U.Signature membership. It is not a RelationSignature, relation kind, relation occurrence, registry, or claim that every definition or constraint was actually used.

Use the first predicate only when an identified derivation claim names the exact nonempty base subgraph as a formal premise under a declared inference rule or application producing the exact dependent content. Use the second only when an identified criterion-selection claim selects that base for an exact bounded evaluation claim concerning the dependent content. The dependent and base values are predicate parameters, not A.6.5 SlotSpecs. Actual-use assertions remain ordinary C.2.1 epistemes; consultation, influence, provenance, evidence, evaluation Work, and later sufficiency remain separate.

This reusable declaration does not replace the cheaper branches. A subject-local assertion that names its defining or constraining ClaimGraph and closes the receiving use stops at disposition 1 or 2. Open the R7 definition only where repeated cross-subject semantics are actually reused; open a basis analysis only for a named comparison, replay, conflict, or reliance use. No accepted use currently needs an obtaining relation occurrence between rule content and dependent content as a participant or comparison object, so the relation-kind continuation remains closed.

#Prepare derived or primitive relation-kind admission only with occurrence semantics

When a named use consumes occurrence semantics, A.6.RCD yields a relation-kind candidate and the settlement material needed for admission: a derived-kind candidate plus its proposed direct subject settlement, or a primitive-kind candidate plus its candidate standalone subject pattern. Apply the admission predicates defined in E.24 and E.24.UK, and the parsimony predicate in A.11 when that question is current. Neither a proposed settlement nor a candidate pattern locator admits the kind. For a candidate that is admitted, the resulting direct subject settlement states:

1. the classified relation occurrences and exact participant meanings;
2. the obtaining predicate and applicability;
3. for a derived kind, the exact derivation law and base-definition dependencies;
4. a direct occurrence-identity rule that distinguishes repetition;
5. recurrence, cessation, and continuation conditions when those distinctions matter;
6. at least one named receiving use that consumes occurrence semantics;
7. the standalone subject pattern.

An admitted relation kind never has identity intentionally absent. Ordinary use can omit explicit individuation, occurrence records, and designators because no named use consumes them; the direct identity rule still exists.

A pure converse preserves one base occurrence only when the direct subject ontology explicitly says that inverse wording concerns the same occurrence. Restriction, projection, composition, closure, aggregation, and hidden intermediates require an explicit identity decision. Their syntax does not decide whether the derived occurrence inherits one base identity, is constituted as a composite occurrence, or has a new direct identity rule. If no truthful rule is available, remain at local-claim or predicate-definition level.

Before relation-kind admission, authors MAY ask A.6.0 whether a genuinely reusable predicate-definition episteme satisfies ordinary U.Signature membership. That declaration's EntityOfConcern is the exact predicate definition, not a candidate relation kind, and the result neither classifies occurrences nor admits a kind.

Authors MAY publish under A.6.0 a RelationSignature whose EntityOfConcern is an exact relation kind only after that kind is admitted. The RelationSignature declares reusable SlotSpecs and restates the direct laws; it does not admit the kind or make an occurrence obtain.

#Separate recognition from assurance

Recognition branch for ordinary receiving use. Ask only:

1. What receiving claim or action is blocked?
2. Who or what are the exact participants, and under which meanings?
3. Does one current direct predicate already state the needed affirmative, negative, or exact rule-qualified modal claim?
4. If not, what smallest substrate-admitted compound claim answers it?
5. Which of the four dispositions lets the receiving use proceed now?

The ordinary branch can stop at a readable direct claim or one readable compound claim. It does not require a named substrate document, predicate-definition publication, new relation kind, signature, explicit occurrence, or designator when the receiving use consumes none of them.

Negative direct-claim case. A staffing check asks whether Robot_7 holds CellInspectorAssignment, a declared direct species of U.SystemRoleAssignment for InspectorSystemRole, in Cell_3 during Interval_T. The current A.2.1 participant meanings and the direct species predicate state the positive test over the actual holder system, cell, and interval; a taxonomy or scheme is not an assignment participant. If an applicable non-assignment criterion or complete assignment closure basis exists and the available facts satisfy it, one claim-bearing episteme states the negative result and disposition 1 closes the check; there is no obtaining assignment occurrence to individuate. If no current direct-species predicate, applicability condition, or needed occurrence rule exists, return missing-governor. If the governor exists and the available case basis is sufficient to apply the positive test but it fails, return factually unsupported; if a fact needed to decide the test is unavailable, return missing-information. Neither a failed positive test nor either blocker is a third assignment polarity.

Assurance branch for DPF and FPF authors. DPF and FPF authors use this branch whenever they author a compound claim, reusable predicate definition, or relation-kind admission candidate, including a durable local compound claim that stops at disposition 2. In addition, verify:

• exact base patterns, definitions, editions, and applicability;
• selected substrate and constructor semantics;
• positive case, discriminating failure case, and receiving-use replay;
• one truthful definition EntityOfConcern when reusable semantics are published;
• dependency and currentness conditions;
• direct occurrence-identity and recurrence rules for every admitted relation kind;
• representation correspondence without representation-to-world collapse;
• naming only after the exact definition episteme, kind, or occurrence is settled;
• evidence relations under A.10, assurance results under B.3, gate results under A.21, and decision results under C.11 or the pattern whose Solution answers the exact decision claim.

Passing the assurance branch does not make evidence constitutive of relation obtaining. It makes the derivation and admission decision replayable for the declared use.

#Stop and return deliberately

Stop at the first disposition that closes the named receiving use. Use this pattern when:

• a relied-on base relation or predicate definition changes;
• the selected substrate edition or constructor semantics changes;
• applicability, polarity, participant meaning, scope, time, or hidden-intermediate policy changes;
• the derivation becomes unreadable, computationally unsuitable, or unable to interoperate for the declared use;
• repeated consumers begin to need one reusable definition or stable occurrence identity;
• a purported primitive gains an accepted lossless derivation, or a derived kind loses a truthful identity rule.

G.11 supplies currentness, dependency closure, and scoped refresh when a relied-on base definition, substrate edition, or applicability settlement changes. Re-evaluate only affected claims and dependent kinds; do not rebuild a global relation registry.

#Archetypal Grounding — Worked Cases

#Promise-content fulfilment: use the existing direct A.2.3 predicate

Situation. PromiseContent_Housing42_v3 says that exact housing Housing_42 must be delivered to AssemblyCell_B during Interval_42, satisfy OutcomeSpec_Housing42_v3, and satisfy the acceptance predicate in AcceptanceSpec_Housing42_v3. The actual delivery work is the independently identified U.Work occurrence Work_DeliverHousing42; it is not the delivered entity, the post-delivery state, the evaluation, or the acceptance result.

A.2.3 predicate and required subset. A.2.3 already supplies the direct predicate fulfilsPromiseContent(W, SC), so disposition 1 is available. For this exact promise-content edition, the necessary and sufficient world-side subset is:

1. PromiseContentUse(Work_DeliverHousing42, PromiseContent_Housing42_v3, Interval_42) obtains;
2. PromisedOutcomeDeliveryRelation(Work_DeliverHousing42, OutcomeSpec_Housing42_v3) obtains because the selected work facts, exact delivered entity Housing_42, and its post-delivery state satisfy that OutcomeSpec; and
3. the acceptance predicate in AcceptanceSpec_Housing42_v3 is satisfied for those exact facts and states.

No production or entity-inception claim is current because Housing_42 already existed before this delivery work. This edition requires no additional generic transfer or institutional-acceptance relation beyond the two A.2.3 relations and its acceptance predicate. If another edition requires one, it must name that exact direct relation and its participants rather than adding a delivery work bundle.

Evaluation, result, and evidence. Separate evaluation work Work_InspectHousing42 applies the declared acceptance method. Its exact operation-result binding carries the verdict value; optional episteme InspectionVerdict_Housing42 states that evaluation result. An A.10 evidence-use relation may support reliance on the affirmative fulfilment assertion. The evaluation work, result binding, verdict episteme, and evidence-use relation neither become parts of Work_DeliverHousing42 nor make PromiseContentFulfilmentRelation obtain. The three world-side conditions above make the direct relation obtain; evaluation and evidence only support an assertion about it.

Positive case. All three required conditions above are satisfied, so the direct predicate is satisfied and a claim-bearing episteme may state fulfilsPromiseContent(Work_DeliverHousing42, PromiseContent_Housing42_v3) without creating the occurrence.

Discriminating failures. Work_DeliverHousing42 can occur and Housing_42 can be in the target post-state while PromiseContentUse is absent or concerns another promise edition; then PromisedOutcomeDeliveryRelation for this promised outcome does not obtain and the promise is not fulfilled. Or the delivery relation can obtain while one acceptance condition is false; an accepted label or report cannot repair that failure. Missing evidence leaves reliance on the assertion unresolved; it creates neither fulfilment nor non-fulfilment.

Disposition and stop. Stop at disposition 1 under A.2.3. No new compound-law episteme, predicate definition, relation kind, or RelationSignature is needed. Use A.6.REL only if a later use must distinguish this fulfilment occurrence from another occurrence of the same admitted relation.

#System-role assignment and performed Work: recover A.13 and A.15.1 first, then use F.6 directly when attribution is current

Situation. A work record needs the readable claim that one actual system performed one exact Work occurrence under one exact assignment to a system role.

Base and direct result. Recover S : U.System as the exact actual performer through A.13 and let A.15.1 independently admit exact W : U.Work. When the work record expressly needs the under-assignment claim, reuse the same obtaining A.13 assignment RA, apply F.6 to the direct predicate performedUnderAssignment(W, RA), and compare RA.HolderSystemSlot with the already recovered S. F.6 identifies neither assignment nor performer. A C.2.1 episteme may assert that result for the receiving use. The system performs the Work; the assignment supplies its holder and assigned-kind projection but neither acts nor creates another participation relation. If F.6 is missing or fails, retain the Work and remove only the under-assignment claim.

Positive case. A.13 has already recovered S through the same obtaining RA, A.15.1 has independently admitted W, RA covers W, RA.HolderSystemSlot = S, and F.6's direct Work-attribution predicate holds for the exact pair. The readable result is “S performed W under RA.” No generic enactment object is needed.

Discriminating failure. The assignment obtains, but another system performs the Work, or S performs Work outside the assignment's extent. Assignment plus nearby Work is insufficient; capability, responsibility, authority, and a result also remain separate claims.

Disposition and stop. Stop at disposition 1 under A.2.1 and F.6. Admit no RoleEnactment kind, compound relation, occurrence, or RelationSignature. If a later use needs another participation or functioning relation in addition to Work attribution, name its direct predicate or return that exact missing governor instead of generalizing from enacted.

#Supply-chain reachability: subject-bounded query or reusable predicate definition

Situation. One planner asks whether Supplier_A can reach Plant_B inside SupplyNetwork_North_2026. Other planners want the same directed-reachability rule for independently identified supply-network structures.

Base and derivation. Name the direct edge-relation kinds, direction, structure parameter, source and target parameters, path or closure rule, zero-length and cycle policies, applicability, and edge-definition editions. A one-off answer is a local compound claim. Repeated queries only about SupplyNetwork_North_2026 may use a subject-bounded compound-law episteme whose EntityOfConcern is that exact structure and whose reuse boundary excludes other structures. When the same parameterized rule is reused across independently identified structures, publish DirectedReachabilityPredicate_v1 as a predicate-definition episteme whose EntityOfConcern is that exact reusable definition. If its claim graph supplies A.6.0's subject and value range, Vocabulary, Laws, and Applicability, it may independently satisfy ordinary U.Signature membership without becoming a RelationSignature.

Positive case. A path exists whose every edge is an obtaining occurrence of the admitted base relation under the selected structure and closure rule.

Discriminating failure. A graph representation contains a visual or stored path, but one edge points in the wrong direction, denotes a different base relation, or belongs to a superseded structure edition. Representation connectivity therefore does not satisfy the reachability predicate.

Disposition and stop. The one-off query stops at disposition 2. Repeated use confined to one exact structure stops at disposition 3's subject-bounded branch. Cross-structure reuse stops at disposition 3's reusable predicate-definition branch and may add ordinary A.6.0 U.Signature membership. If a subject practice later needs reachability occurrences with action-facing identity, recurrence, continuation, or participation in another relation, the A.6.RCD application records a derived reachability-kind candidate plus a proposed direct subject settlement; apply the E.24 and E.24.UK admission tests and the A.11 parsimony test when current. Create a RelationSignature only for an admitted relation kind. Path identity, query-result-row identity, predicate-definition identity, subject-structure identity, and relation-occurrence identity are not interchangeable.

#Formal and probabilistic result use: preserve separate algebras

Situation. One engineering decision-work occurrence consumes one formal result episteme and one probabilistic result episteme.

Base and derivation. Keep the formal result in its formal substrate and the probabilistic result in its probability substrate. State the two result-use assertions under their exact predicates in one C.2.1 episteme whose exact EntityOfConcern is the engineering decision-work occurrence. The formal and probabilistic result epistemes remain distinct used results; neither their pair nor a union of nearby objects replaces that concern.

No F.9 Bridge is needed for this case as stated: the two result epistemes enter the decision through separate direct use relations, and no obtaining relation between two exact F.17 cells is claimed. No ReferencePlane crossing is claimed either, so no plane relation or policy is added. Either fact could later become current without creating the other.

Positive case. Both direct use relations obtain for the decision-work occurrence under their own applicability, so the decision rationale can cite each result for its admitted use.

Discriminating failure. The two results are co-published or mention the same subject, but the decision work has no current direct use relation to one of them. Shared carrier, topic, or notation does not establish decision use.

Disposition and stop. The apparent combined need decomposes into two independently stated receiving claims. Each closes under disposition 1 with its exact direct decision-use relation. Do not publish a cross-algebra conjunction predicate merely to join the sentences, and do not infer one composite relation occurrence from a decision record.

#Primitive-candidate stop test

A subject practice proposes a primitive relation because all accepted bases preserve co-occurrence and shared participants but lose one independently used subject distinction. The candidate advances only when the subject can name that lost distinction, show a positive and discriminating case, state its own obtaining and recurrence laws, distinguish repeated occurrences, and identify independent receiving uses. If any item is missing, the honest result is a local claim, reusable predicate definition, or exact blocker. This is disposition 4's positive test, not a license to mint a placeholder relation.

#Bias-Annotation

Lenses tested: Gov, Arch, Onto/Epist, Prag, Did. Scope: Universal for applications of this pattern across FPF subject practices.

This pattern corrects primitive-kind bias: a useful repeated phrase or representation can look ontologically important before its exact claim and occurrence semantics are recovered. It also corrects false-parsimony bias: if every accepted derivation loses a distinction that changes real work and the subject supplies its own obtaining and identity laws, refusing the primitive would hide needed ontology.

The formal examples can bias authors toward syntax-first reasoning. The method therefore begins from the blocked receiving use, direct participants, and direct relations. The ordinary branch stays readable; formal apparatus appears only when it changes replay, reuse, proof, interoperability, or admission.

#Conformance Checklist

1. Blocked use. The exact claim, check, decision, or continuation under repair is named.
2. Participants first. Actual referents and relation-participant meanings are recovered before constructor or notation choice.
3. Direct-predicate stop. A.6.P recovers the current subject predicate before compound derivation begins. If that predicate can state the needed affirmative, negative, or exact rule-qualified modal claim, use it and stop. If no needed predicate, applicability condition, or occurrence rule exists, return missing-governor; if the governor exists and the available case basis is sufficient to apply its positive test but that test fails, return factually unsupported; if a fact needed to decide the test is unavailable, return missing-information. A negative additionally needs an applicable non-obtaining criterion or complete closure basis and facts that satisfy it.
4. Exact base. Every base predicate names the exact pattern content or declaration that defines it and its obtaining law. The current case separately supplies the relevant facts or constituting history; an assertion or representation does not turn that rule into an obtaining occurrence.
5. Substrate authority. Every used constructor has semantics in the selected substrate; nontrivial, interoperable, proof-bearing, or reusable derivation pins the substrate and edition.
6. Replay. One positive case, one discriminating failure case, and the receiving-use replay agree.
7. Lightest disposition. Exactly one of the four dispositions closes the current use; later branches are not opened by habit.
8. Claim polarity and occurrence boundary. Direct and compound assertions may be affirmative, negative, or rule-qualified modal claims. The subject predicate defines the test, current case facts or constituting history determine its satisfaction, and the assertion states the result without creating an occurrence. The three blocker phrases in section 0.1 remain distinct and are not predicate values. Use A.6.REL only when a satisfied affirmative case has an occurrence whose identity a named use consumes.
9. Definition identity and reuse boundary. A subject-bounded compound-law episteme names the exact subject as its EntityOfConcern and states that reuse does not travel to another subject. A genuinely reusable predicate-definition episteme names the exact reusable predicate definition as its EntityOfConcern. Both state exact applicability and visible base dependencies.
10. Definition/signature boundary. A genuinely reusable predicate-definition episteme may satisfy ordinary A.6.0 U.Signature membership before relation-kind admission. It is not a RelationSignature, does not classify relation occurrences, and does not make one obtain.
11. Derived-kind candidate and admission. When a named use needs stable occurrence semantics, the A.6.RCD application records a derived-kind candidate plus a proposed direct subject settlement covering derivation and dependencies, obtaining, applicability, recurrence where current, and a direct occurrence-identity rule. Apply the admission predicates defined in E.24 and E.24.UK, and the parsimony predicate in A.11 when current. Neither the proposal nor a SubjectPatternLocator admits the kind. Only an admitted relation kind proceeds to an A.6.0 RelationSignature; ordinary U.Signature membership of a predicate-definition episteme is independent of that branch.
12. Primitive-kind settlement. A primitive candidate records the failed derivation, exact action-facing loss, independent uses, own obtaining and identity laws, and standalone direct pattern before A.11/E.24/E.24.UK admission can pass.
13. Identity never absent. Explicit individuation can be omitted from ordinary use; an admitted relation kind's identity rule cannot.
14. Representation boundary. Formula, query, graph, tree, path, diagram, row, and name remain representations or designators connected to independently recovered content.
15. Neighboring claims. Apply A.10 for evidence, B.3 for assurance, A.21 for gates, A.15 for work, C.11 or the exact decision pattern for decisions, E.17 for publication, F.18 for naming, and G.11 for currentness.
16. Stop or return. The result states the current stop and the exact dependency or use change that would reopen it.

#Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

#Consequences

Benefits. FPF can state many exact compound claims without multiplying primitive relation kinds. Repeated subject semantics become reusable without confusing a definition with ontology. When occurrence semantics really matter, derived and primitive relation kinds enter with direct obtaining and identity laws rather than with syntax or names.

Costs. Authors MUST expose base dependencies and substrate semantics for nontrivial reuse. Authors of a direct subject pattern MUST supply the additional settlement content required by section 4.6 before a relation kind is admitted. Some familiar relation words remain local claims or exact blockers.

Boundary. This pattern reduces public primitive kinds and duplicate declarations; it does not reduce the number of true compound claims or obtaining base-relation facts.

#Rationale

Claim composition and relation-kind admission answer different engineering questions. A claim asks whether an exact predicate, possibly built from admitted base predicates, is satisfied for named referents. A relation kind classifies obtaining occurrences and therefore needs a rule for reidentifying those occurrences. Repetition of the first question can justify publication of the predicate rule; it does not answer the second.

The demand-first order is deliberately asymmetric. Existing direct relations are cheapest because their admitted definitions already state obtaining and identity. Local compound claims preserve expressive reach without public ontology cost. Predicate-definition epistemes prevent repeated derivations from drifting. Derived relation kinds add occurrence semantics only where named uses consume them. Primitive relation kinds remain available for irreducible distinctions rather than being prohibited by abstract minimalism.

#SoTA-Echoing

Reopen these source-use decisions when a selected substrate changes its operator semantics, a newer practice invalidates one of the representation boundaries, or a direct FPF relation pattern supplies a more action-capable derivation or identity rule without worse ontology truth, reader use, or modeling cost.

#Reopen Conditions

Reopen the exact affected disposition, not the whole relation foundation, when:

• a base relation definition, participant meaning, obtaining law, or applicability changes;
• a substrate edition changes a constructor used by the claim;
• a local claim recurs enough to need one stable definition;
• a reusable definition gains or loses a truthful single EntityOfConcern;
• a named use begins or ceases to need stable occurrence identity;
• an admitted derived kind loses a base dependency or identity rule;
• an admitted primitive gains a lossless derivation or loses its independent action-facing use;
• repeated reader error shows that the definition, kind, occurrence, representation, or designator is being confused.

#Relations

• Entered from: A.6.P only after exact participants are recovered and no current direct relation closes the named receiving claim.
• Builds on: A.6.REL for relation obtaining and occurrence identity; A.6.5 for participant declaration discipline; C.2.1 for local claims and predicate-definition epistemes; and the direct subject patterns supplying base relations.
• Coordinates with: A.11, E.24, and E.24.UK for parsimony, ontic settlement, and durable admission; A.6.0 for possible ordinary U.Signature membership of a genuinely reusable predicate-definition episteme before relation-kind admission, and for RelationSignature only after the exact relation kind is admitted; C.29 for derivation representations; F.9 only when a consumed result relies on an obtaining Bridge between two exact F.17 cells and its separate bounded-use claim; the applicable plane relation and policy only when an exact ReferencePlane crossing is current; B.3 only when an actual named assurance claim uses an applicable declared domain calculation for a Bridge-related penalty, with any resulting penalty confined to the calculated assurance result for that named use; F.18 for names and designators after settlement; and G.11 for dependency currentness and scoped refresh. Bridge and plane branches may coexist, but neither supplies or requires the other.
• Does not replace: direct subject relation patterns, A.6.P, E.24.UK, C.29, F.18, evidence or assurance patterns, or work and decision patterns.

#A.6.RCD:End

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