#Relation, Signature, Interface, Role, and Slot Precision Restoration

A.6.RSIR · Stable · FPF precision-restoration pattern · Normative unless 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: FPF precision-restoration pattern Status: Stable Normativity: Normative unless marked informative

Plain name. Relation-signature-interface-role-slot recovery.

#Keywords

• relation-signature-interface-role-slot recovery
• ambiguous role wording
• direct relation participant
• participant meaning
• RelationSignature
• SlotSpec
• operation declaration and binding
• representation position
• system-role kind
• system-role assignment
• interface
• port
• API
• reduced-use source label.

#Relations

#Content

#Use This When

Plain name. Relation-signature-interface-role-slot recovery.

Use this pattern when relation, signature, interface, assignment, enactment, slot, field, parameter, argument, endpoint, port, API, protocol, connector, capability, affordance, method, function, concern, interest, Markov-blanket, computational-boundary, or active-inference-boundary wording hides which FPF object or claim kind is current. For bare claim-bearing role, apply E.10.ROLE once. Do not apply RSIR when that step recovers a system-role kind, assignment, capability, Work, deontic relation, evidence use, another direct object, or ordinary non-use. Apply RSIR only when the still-unanswered question concerns direct participation, a reusable declaration, an interface, an operation declaration or binding, or a representation position.

Primary EntityOfConcern. The EntityOfConcern is one encountered use of an ambiguous engineering phrase together with the claim that this use is intended to carry. RSIR recovers the direct governed object, direct relation and participant meaning, actual participant, declaration-local SlotSpec or operation declaration, exact operation application and binding, assertion- or description-side designation, representation position and correspondence, or claim before selecting its subject pattern. The phrase remains wording in an episteme or in speech; it is not the world-side object, occurrence, value, or relation named by the recovered claim.

Primary working reader. The first reader is an FPF pattern author, reviewer, or practitioner repairing a phrase before selecting the subject pattern. The downstream reader is the engineer, manager, analyst, or steward who needs the repaired phrase to preserve useful project language without minting a shadow ontology.

First useful move. Recover the project concern first, then recover the current governed EntityOfConcern or claim kind. As soon as the applicable definition, constraint, or test is clear, apply that rule and stop the RSIR repair. Keep a reduced-use source label only when no governed value is being asserted.

What goes wrong if missed. The same word is used for differently defined objects without saying which claim is current. For example, interface may denote an API description, reusable signature, functional port, compatibility claim, or module-boundary relation. Bare role may point to a system-role kind, one assignment, direct-relation participation, a declaration-local SlotKind, a representation position, use of an episteme, another object, or ordinary wording. A later reader then cannot recover which relation obtains, which participant is meant, which declaration is current, whether an exact operation application binds an actual value, or which representation correspondence is intended.

What this buys. The reader gets one small recovery move before the direct pattern is applied. The repair preserves useful engineering words while preventing a lexical cue from minting a new root kind or collapsing direct participation, reusable declaration, assertion or description, exact operation application and binding, and representation correspondence.

Not this pattern when. Do not use A.6.RSIR after the subject pattern is already clear. Do not use it for general relation repair after A.6.P is selected, for slot discipline after A.6.5 is selected, for function-like repair after A.6.F is selected, for module-interface repair after A.6.M is selected, for transformation wording after A.3.4.P is selected, or for publication and description repair after E.17, C.2.1, or C.2.P.DR is selected.

#Problem frame

The RSIR cluster sits at a common failure point in FPF texts. A project team sees one word and treats it as if it already selected the ontology:

• bare “role” whose E.10.ROLE branch may be a system-role kind, assignment, direct relation-participant meaning, declaration-local SlotKind, representation position, evidence use, another exact object, or ordinary wording;
• "interface" in a module relation, functional port, API description, protocol, signature, or publication view;
• "slot", "field", "parameter", or "argument" in wording about an actual relation participant, a RelationSignature declaration, an A.6.1 argument or result declaration, one actual operation application and bound value, a data, formula, or method-call representation, or ordinary prose;
• "signature" in a law-governed declaration, API shape, interface specification, or plain sign-off phrase;
• "function" in architecture, capability, method, work, mathematical modeling, or quality wording.

A.6.RSIR is the first-level recovery pattern for this bounded cluster. It does not decide every neighboring subject ontology. It helps the practitioner recover which object or claim is current, identify the rule that defines or tests it, and then stop the RSIR repair.

#Problem

Without this pattern:

1. Lexical cues create shadow kinds. Interface, role, slot, endpoint, and function words become local root kinds because they sound technical.
2. Participant, declaration, and representation uses become system roles. A direct relation-participant meaning, declaration-local SlotKind, argument, field, endpoint, or representation position is renamed as a system-role kind. Evidence-use, transformation, and interface claims then lose their direct relations and patterns.
3. System-role kinds become declaration or representation labels. A real context-local system-role kind is demoted into a declaration-local SlotKind or source-schema field, so its KindSignature, exact assignment occurrence and window, SystemRoleAssignmentStateRelation, and Work consequences can no longer be recovered.
4. Signatures absorb implementations. A law-governed U.Signature is used as if it were a mechanism, method, work-start gate decision, interface conformance proof, or publication.
5. Participant, declaration, application, and representation boundaries are skipped. A field or parameter is edited without deciding whether it denotes a direct relation-participant meaning or actual participant, a declaration-local SlotSpec, an A.6.1 argument or result declaration, one exact operation application and actual binding, or a position in a selected representation.
6. Evidence and status uses keep old role grammar. An episteme, standard, report, publication, or badge is said to have a role instead of being used in an evidence-use, source-use, status-use, publication-use, assurance-use, or gate relation.
7. Neighboring patterns are copied locally. A pattern repeats negative catalogues such as "not proof, not permission, not gate" instead of recovering the current object and applying the pattern that defines or constrains the claim.

#Forces

#Solution

Use A.6.RSIR as a first-level recovery move. RSIRRepairNote is optional working support, not a required record, schema, or publication layout. Omit every branch that is not current. The ordinary path may stop after projectConcern, recoveredEntityOfConcernOrClaimKind, selectedSubjectPatternLocator, and one result stated as retainedSourceLabelUse, blockedOverread, or nextAdmissibleUse. The PatternID is only a locator for applicable defining, constraining, or testing content.

RSIRRepairNote (optional working support; keep only current lines):
  projectConcern:
  recoveredEntityOfConcernOrClaimKind:
  selectedSubjectPatternLocator?: PatternID used only as a locator
  retainedSourceLabelUse?:
  blockedOverread?:
  nextAdmissibleUse?:
  encounteredWording?:
  currentUse?:
  directParticipantMeaningAndActualParticipant?:
  relationDeclaration?:
  assertionOrDescriptionDesignation?:
  operationDeclaration?:
  exactOperationApplicationAndBinding?:
  representationUseAndCorrespondence?:
  neighboringCandidateValues?:
  stopCondition?:

When the optional note is used, it is complete when the current object or claim kind is clear enough to apply the subject pattern, keep ordinary prose, keep quote-only wording, or stop the stronger claim. No unused branch is filled for completeness.

#Recovery order

1. Recover the project concern. Say what the project is trying to do: assign work responsibility, declare a signature, check an interface, compare functions, name a port, use evidence, assert status, describe a method, or make another claim.
2. Recover the current object or claim kind. Decide whether the wording points to a direct relation or participant meaning, an actual participant, a reusable RelationSignature or SlotSpec, an assertion- or description-side participant designation, an A.6.1 argument or result declaration, one exact operation application and actual binding, a representation position and correspondence, a signature, interface claim, system-role kind, system-role assignment, system-role-kind description, port, boundary claim bundle, capability, affordance, Method, function, concern, interest, publication, source label, or ordinary prose.
3. Name the applicable rule. Use the table in A.6.RSIR:4.2 only until the definition, constraint, or test needed by the current question is clear. Record its PatternID only as a locator.
4. Separate direct participation, reusable declaration, and assertion or description. Use A.6.5 only when one complete SlotSpec in one exact RelationSignature is current. The direct relation pattern defines or constrains participant meaning, actual participants, obtaining, and occurrence identity. If an assertion or description episteme designates a participant, C.2.1 governs that episteme's identity and content, while the direct assertion, evaluation, evidence-use, or description family governs the exact predicate, polarity, or use relation. When a compatible SlotSpec is current, A.6.5 governs the designation's ValueKind and refMode discipline; an ordinary assertion may instead name actual participants directly without opening a reusable RelationSignature.
5. Separate operation declaration, actual application and binding, and representation. Use A.6.1 for declaration-local ArgumentDeclaration and ResultDeclaration content. Open an actual operation-application binding only after one exact application has been independently identified and its actual bound value matters to a receiving claim. Keep a method-call, formula, tuple, edge, or schema place under C.29 or its exact representation pattern and state correspondence separately.
6. Keep the source label reduced-use when no governed claim is current. A word can remain a cue, quotation, title, or local shorthand without being admitted as FPF-governed vocabulary.

Use Tech position only for a place in a selected representation, such as a tuple component, formula or method-call argument, graph-edge endpoint, or schema field. Until an explicit correspondence is stated, that position is neither a relation-participant meaning, actual participant, SlotKind, SlotSpec, nor evidence that the direct relation obtains.

#Subject pattern selection

#Relation-defined wording dispatch

When wording derives a qualification, status, or category from participation in a relation, recover the object needed by the next use before naming it:

1. If the claim concerns an actual entity participating under one named relation-participant meaning, state the direct relation, that meaning, and the actual participant. The participant retains its direct kind.
2. If reusable typed declaration is current, use A.6.5 for the corresponding SlotSpec inside one exact RelationSignature. Its SlotKind is declaration-local and neither is the participant nor makes the relation obtain.
3. If an episteme asserts, evaluates, or describes the participation, C.2.1 governs the episteme's identity and content, while the direct assertion, evaluation, evidence-use, or description family governs the exact predicate, polarity, or use relation. When a compatible SlotSpec is current, A.6.5 governs the participant designation's ValueKind and refMode discipline; without reusable declaration, the assertion may designate the actual participants directly.
4. If repeated local quantification over such actual participants is current, use C.3 and C.3.1 for the local U.Kind, membership rule, and extent rule. Neither the participant-meaning label nor the declaration-local SlotKind admits that kind.
5. If the source exposes a tuple component, argument, edge endpoint, schema field, or other representation position, keep it under C.29 or the exact representation pattern and state an explicit correspondence before an FPF claim consumes it. A value shown at that position establishes neither actual participation nor relation obtaining.

For parameter, argument, or result wording, separately recover the A.6.1 declaration content, one independently identified exact operation application and any obtaining declaration-local binding, and the selected representation position. Open the binding only when the actual bound value matters to a receiving claim. Neither the declaration nor representation syntax establishes the binding; a result binding is distinct from production, a produced entity, a result episteme, evidence, and work.

When a receiving use compares or constrains a whole organization of relation occurrences, A.22 may govern a selected U.Structure. One actual participant, corresponding SlotSpec or designation, operation binding, or representation position does not by itself establish such a structure.

#Replacement candidate rule

Do not replace one umbrella with another. The minimum admissible repair candidate names:

• the current object or claim kind;
• the subject pattern;
• one result current for the receiving use: a retained reduced-use source label, a blocked stronger reading, or the next admissible use.

Name a direct relation, claim-bearing episteme, declaration-local SlotSpec, A.6.1 operation declaration or actual application binding, or representation correspondence only when that exact object is current for the receiving use. Do not fill an unused branch or require both a retained source-label use and a blocked overread. If the minimum cannot be named, leave the phrase in quote-only or reduced-use form and record the blocker.

#Reduced-use source labels

Reduced-use labels are allowed. They are not failures. A source label remains reduced-use when it helps readers find or recognize the case but does not carry FPF-governed content.

Examples:

• “API role” can remain a quoted source phrase while the branch is selected with E.10.ROLE. The repaired claim may be an API description, an exact provider system-role assignment, a declaration or representation position, a promise-content episteme under A.2.3, an independently obtaining commitment under A.2.8, PromiseContentUse, a delivery or acceptance relation, another named direct relation, or an interface specification.
• "parameter" can remain ordinary prose while a complete SlotSpec is named only for a current reusable relation declaration, an operation ArgumentDeclaration or ResultDeclaration and any exact application binding stay under A.6.1, and a method-call, formula, or other representation position stays under C.29 or its exact representation pattern.
• "function" can remain ordinary engineering language when no architecture, capability, method, work, mathematical, quality, or module claim depends on it.

#Shortcut Cost and Reopen Condition

A.6.RSIR is a deliberately weak first-level recovery move. The baseline is full use of the subject pattern: A.6.P for relation repair, A.6.5 only for reusable RelationSignature SlotSpec discipline and compatible participant-designation typing, C.2.1 plus the direct claim family for assertion or description content, A.6.1 for operation declarations and any exact application binding, C.29 or the pattern that defines the exact representation claim for positions and correspondence, A.2, C.3, and A.2.1 for system-role kinds and system-role assignments after that branch is selected with E.10.ROLE, A.6.M for module-interface, A.6.F for function-like repair, or the evidence, status, publication, architecture, method, work, gate, or problem pattern named by value.

The saved effort is that a practitioner does not run several full patterns before knowing which one is current. The loss budget is narrow: RSIR may select a direct pattern, preserve a reduced-use source label, or record a blocker. It may not decide the system-role kind, system-role assignment, signature, operation application or binding, evidence-use relation, status assertion, exact service or access relation, architecture description, or Method relation that belongs to the selected pattern.

Reopen RSIR when the selected pattern shows that the source phrase carried more than one governed object, the object kind was selected too early, a needed slot distinction was missed, or evidence, status, publication, gate, method, work, architecture, capability, or concern claims were folded into one label. The reopened repair splits the phrase into multiple governed values or keeps the excess wording reduced-use.

#Archetypal Grounding

System case: module interface claim. A team says "the cooling module exposes the heat-exchanger interface." RSIR first asks what claim is current. If the claim is substitutability or separate change, use A.6.M. If a reusable relation declaration for exchanged-medium and boundary-condition participant meanings is current, use A.6.0 plus A.6.5 for the RelationSignature and complete SlotSpecs. If the current use is a diagram, API schema, or other representation, keep its positions under C.29 or the exact representation pattern and state explicit correspondence. If the claim is a functional port in a transformation-flow structure, use A.6.F, A.3.4, and E.18. RSIR does not create U.Interface.

Bare-role case: API provider wording. A source says “the API role is provider.” Apply E.10.ROLE once. If it recovers a provider System, local ProviderSystemRole kind, assignment, capability, provider Work, promise, access relation, publication, or another direct object, apply that object's rule and do not apply RSIR. Apply RSIR only when the still-unanswered question is the participant meaning in a direct relation, a reusable declaration, an interface claim, an operation declaration or binding, or an API-schema representation position. For protocol, service-term, SLA, or agreement-like wording that bundles several claims, use A.6.C to unpack the claims before stating each object or relation. Use A.6.M only for a module-interface claim and A.6.B only for boundary-package statement classification. Do not assign a system role to the API description.

Evidence case: reviewer and report wording. A report says “reviewer evidence role approved the gate.” Apply E.10.ROLE once and split the claims. Apply A.2/A.2.1 for any exact reviewer system-role kind or assignment. Use A.10 for evidence reliance on a named claim, B.3 only for an actual named assurance claim, F.10 for an exact status-use relation, E.24.PUB when publication availability is current, and E.17 when the accepted account needs a reader-facing publication form. Use A.21 for the gate decision and A.2.9 for any issuing speech act. None of those recovered branches needs RSIR unless a separate direct-participation, reusable-declaration, interface, operation, or representation-position question remains. No episteme receives a system-role assignment by being evidence.

Slot case: method parameter. A method description says "parameter target controls the model." The sentence does not identify what target designates or which control relation is claimed. Keep it as reduced-use source wording and recover those missing values before asserting the control claim. A separate positive example illustrates an A.6.1 argument label. In the current recognizeAdmittedHolonCandidate declaration, candidate is an ArgumentDeclaration meaning one exact entity being evaluated, with ValueKind = U.Entity; recognitionJudgment is the declared result meaning. Under A.6.1, the project independently identifies the bounded recognition-evaluation invocation P-37 by that declaration's application predicate, identity rule, and extent rule. During P-37, Pump #37 is actually bound under candidate, and the returned value unknown is bound under recognitionJudgment. In a call representation such as recognizeAdmittedHolonCandidate(target = Pump-37, ...), the named-argument position target corresponds to the declared candidate meaning but is neither the declaration nor either binding. The practitioner writes: "target is the call label; A.6.1 declares candidate : U.Entity; during exact application P-37, Pump #37 is bound as candidate." Stop there unless the receiving claim needs the result binding or another subject pattern.

#Near-Miss Checks

#Bias-Annotation

This pattern has a relation-cluster bias because it sits in A.6. It mitigates that bias by stopping as soon as the applicable definition, constraint, or test is clear.

It has an interface and software-language stress case because API, endpoint, protocol, and interface wording often enters from software. The pattern deliberately keeps the recovery general: architecture interfaces, physical ports, functional ports, service-access descriptions, and publication forms are all possible, and none is selected by word choice alone.

It resists semio-bias by keeping descriptions, publications, records, reports, standards, and source labels under the patterns that define or constrain those objects and uses: C.2.1, E.17, C.2.P.DR, A.10, B.3, F.10, C.28, E.10, or E.10.ARCH when those objects or uses are current. A source label may help recognition; its presence is not evidence that the denoted object is the current EntityOfConcern or that a proposed action is admissible.

#Conformance Checklist

1. The repair starts with project concern, not with a replacement word.
2. The current EntityOfConcern or claim kind is named before a subject pattern is applied.
3. The repair stops once the applicable rule and concrete next action are clear.
4. When reusable relation declaration is current, slot discipline uses A.6.5 and states one complete SlotSpec = <SlotKind, ValueKind, refMode> inside one exact RelationSignature; actual participants and representation positions remain outside it.
5. A system-role-assignment claim names one occurrence and its declared U.SystemRoleAssignment species. The species defines the participant meanings and rule; the occurrence supplies its holder, assigned local kind, and any other participant that distinguishes it. Apply the direct rule for a system-role-kind description, SystemRoleAssignmentStateRelation, selected structure among system-role kinds, capability, Method, planned Work, or performed Work; do not apply RSIR merely to repeat that result.
6. Evidence-use and status-use cases are not represented through U.SystemRoleAssignment for epistemes. Apply E.10.ROLE once to bare role; if it recovers evidence use, status use, or another direct object, apply that object's rule and leave RSIR closed.
7. Interface wording is kept as a recognition cue but is not admitted as generic U.Interface.
8. Every neighboring object family selected in the dispatch table uses its defining or testing rule rather than being redescribed inside RSIR.
9. Relation-defined wording dispatches separately to the direct participant meaning and actual participant; a declaration-local SlotSpec when reusable typing is current; an assertion- or description-side designation whose episteme identity and content stay with C.2.1, whose predicate, polarity, and use stay with the direct claim family, and whose typing stays with A.6.5 only when a compatible SlotSpec is current; a C.3 local kind when repeated quantification is current; or a representation position plus explicit correspondence. It does not create one umbrella qualification object.
10. Operation wording keeps A.6.1 ArgumentDeclaration or ResultDeclaration content, one independently identified exact application and obtaining argument or result binding, and any call or formula representation position distinct; it infers neither a public application kind nor production, a produced entity, a result episteme, evidence, or work from the binding.
11. Quote-only or reduced-use labels carry no action-facing claim beyond the claim admitted by the selected rule.

#Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

#Consequences

A.6.RSIR adds a bounded recovery step when the engineering object or claim remains unclear after the F.19 reading with E.10 cues. The selected subject pattern then handles the substantive claim; neighboring patterns can refer to this recovery instead of repeating it.

The pattern also keeps useful source vocabulary alive. Engineers can still say interface, API, role, parameter, function, and endpoint. FPF simply refuses to let those words select ontology by themselves.

The cost is one explicit stop: after the direct pattern is clear, RSIR must stop. Otherwise it becomes the giant repair pattern it was created to avoid.

#Rationale

The RSIR cluster needs a bounded recovery step when F.19's whole-span reading and E.10's compact cues leave an engineering object or claim unclear. Direct relation, declaration, interface, system-role, Work, publication, evidence, and status rules retain their own objects and predicates. Apply the thinner E.10.ROLE entry once to bare role. If one concrete direct-participation, declaration, interface, operation, or representation question remains unanswered, apply RSIR to that question; otherwise leave RSIR closed.

The main ontological principle is separation among participant, declaration, application and binding, assertion and designation, and representation. An actual direct-relation participant retains its direct kind under one participant meaning. A corresponding SlotSpec, when reusable typed relation declaration is current, states a declaration-local SlotKind, exact ValueKind, and refMode. An assertion or description remains a C.2.1 episteme; its direct claim family supplies predicate, polarity, or use, and A.6.5 types a participant designation only against a compatible current SlotSpec. An A.6.1 declaration states reusable operation meaning, while one exact application and obtaining binding relate that occurrence to an actual value. A C.29 representation position may correspond to any of those objects without becoming one.

The second principle is direct rule use. Once the current object is recovered, apply the rule that defines, constrains, or tests the claim. RSIR only identifies that rule and its PatternID locator when the reference must travel.

#SoTA-Echoing

This pattern does not introduce new external SoTA sources beyond the source uses already admitted by E.24 for ontic introduction. It applies those source uses to the narrower RSIR recovery problem.

#Relations

Use F.19 for the whole-span reading with the compact cues in E.10:0.2. Apply E.10.ROLE once to bare claim-bearing role. Apply RSIR afterward only if one concrete direct-relation, declaration, interface, operation, or representation question remains; all other recovered branches use their direct rules and leave RSIR closed. E.10.ARCH describes both entries in the shared restoration architecture.

A.6.5 defines complete declaration-local SlotSpec = <SlotKind, ValueKind, refMode> content inside one exact RelationSignature and, only when a compatible SlotSpec is current, participant-designation typing. C.2.1 supplies the assertion or description episteme's identity rule, while the direct claim rule supplies predicate, polarity, and use. An ordinary assertion may designate actual participants directly without reusable declaration.

Apply A.6.P for relation precision restoration after the recovered object is a relation or relation-bearing claim.

A.6.0 defines U.Signature; A.6.1 defines operation argument and result declaration content plus the rules for any independently identified exact application and declaration-local binding; E.20 supplies mechanism-introduction rules. A.6.1 admits no public OperationApplication U-kind or universal input/output/result relation, and its result binding alone establishes none of production, a produced entity, a result episteme, evidence, or work.

A.2, A.2.1, A.2.2, A.2.5, A.2.7, A.15, and Part F system-role-description and naming patterns define or constrain local system-role kinds, direct system-role assignments, capability, SystemRoleAssignmentStateRelation, SystemRoleKindRelationStructure, system-role–Method–Work alignment, and durable system-role-kind names.

Apply A.6.M, A.6.F, A.6.A, A.3.4.P, E.18, C.30, C.30.ASV, C.30.AD, or C.30.TFS-REL for the corresponding module-interface, functional, affordance, transformation, transformation-flow, architecture-of, structural-view, or architecture-description question.

Apply C.2.1, E.17, C.2.P.DR, A.10, B.3, G.6, F.10, or C.28 for the corresponding episteme identity and content, publication, declarative representation, evidence, assurance, provenance, status, or causal-use question; the exact direct claim rule still supplies the predicate, polarity, or use asserted through that content.

#A.6.RSIR:End

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