FPF Reference

    U-kind Admission and Ontic Settlement

    E.24.UK · Stable · Part E FPF authoring discipline pattern · Normative unless a section is explicitly informative · Part E - The FPF Constitution and Authoring Guides

    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: Part E FPF authoring discipline pattern Status: Stable Normativity: Normative unless a section is explicitly informative

    Use this pattern when a public FPF expression proposes a U.*, type, kind, or subkind and the author must choose among four outcomes: reuse an admitted durable kind, declare a bounded C.3.2 local kind, admit a genuinely needed durable kind, or recover a non-kind object under the rule that defines or tests it. A title, filename, ToC row, table, or source spelling opens the question but never answers it.

    Relations

    E.24.UKcoordinates withStructure and Structural Views (STRUCT-CAL)
    E.24.UKcoordinates withBounded Model-Use Structure and DDD Bounded-Context Recovery
    E.24.UKcoordinates withUnified Scope Mechanism (USM): Context Slices & Scopes
    E.24.UKcoordinates withKind Intent, Membership Judgment, and Extension
    E.24.UKcoordinates withOntic Candidate Detection and First-Use Disposition
    E.24.UKcoordinates withOntic Description and Publication Discipline
    E.24.UKcoordinates withViewpoint and View Recognition for Multi-View Describing
    E.24.UKcoordinates withUniversal Core Principle
    E.24.UKcoordinates withOntological Parsimony
    E.24.UKcoordinates withUnified Lexical Rules for FPF
    E.24.UKcoordinates withKinds, Intent and Extent, and Typed Reasoning
    E.24.UKcoordinates withU.Kind and U.SubkindOf Core
    E.24.UKcoordinates withMint-or-Reuse Decision
    E.24.UKcoordinates withUnified Term Sheet
    E.24.UKcoordinates withLocal-First Unification Naming Protocol
    E.24.UKoutline parentU.Ontic and Ontic Introduction Discipline
    E.24.UKoutline prev siblingOntic Description and Publication Discipline
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceMathematical Lens Use
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceOntic Description and Publication Discipline
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceU.Ontic and Ontic Introduction Discipline
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceKinds, Intent and Extent, and Typed Reasoning
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceUnified Lexical Rules for FPF
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceWording-Use Ontological Precision Restoration Architecture
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceMint-or-Reuse Decision
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceNaming Discipline for U-kind Names and SystemRoleKindDescription Labels
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceLocal-First Unification Naming Protocol
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceUnified Term Sheet
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceU.Episteme: Constitution, Empirical Grounding, and Edition Relations
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceU.WorkPlan: The Schedule of Intent
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceSystem-Role Kinds and Assignments
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceSystem-Role–Method–Work Alignment
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceU.MethodDescription: Description Episteme for a Way of Doing
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceViewpoint and View Recognition for Multi-View Describing
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceBounded Model-Use Structure and DDD Bounded-Context Recovery
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceUnified Scope Mechanism (USM): Context Slices & Scopes
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceStructure and Structural Views (STRUCT-CAL)
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceEpisteme viewing - EntityOfConcern-preserving episteme construction
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceU.Capability: System Ability Envelope and Measures
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceAction-Invitation Precision Restoration (ACT-INV)
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceRelation Obtaining and Individuated Relation Occurrences
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceU.Kind and U.SubkindOf Core
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceKindUseAdaptationDeclaration — Contextual Adaptation of Kinds without Cloning
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceOntological Parsimony
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceUniversal Core Principle
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceU.Signature - Reusable Law-Governed Declaration Episteme
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceRelation-Declaration Slot Discipline - SlotKind, ValueKind, RefKind, and participant-designation discipline
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceKind Intent, Membership Judgment, and Extension
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceSignature Stack & Boundary Discipline
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceAlignment and Bridge across Contexts
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceNeeded Relation Claim Derivation and Relation-Kind Admission
    E.24.UKexplicit referenceOntic Candidate Detection and First-Use Disposition

    Content

    Use This When

    Use this pattern when a public FPF expression proposes a U.*, type, kind, or subkind and the author must choose among four outcomes: reuse an admitted durable kind, declare a bounded C.3.2 local kind, admit a genuinely needed durable kind, or recover a non-kind object under the rule that defines or tests it. A title, filename, ToC row, table, or source spelling opens the question but never answers it.

    Typical moments:

    • a direct relation family has stable occurrence identity and patterns for the next questions need one common kind for those occurrences;
    • a proposed U.* name appears in a pattern title, host filename, monolith heading, or ToC row;
    • a current pattern uses type, kind, or subkind wording and the governed object is unclear;
    • a structural name looks useful for search, but may advertise a false root kind;
    • a RelationSignature SlotKind, an assertion or description field, a C.29 representation element, or an E.24.PUB reusable form has acquired a U.* spelling;
    • a single E.24 ontic settlement appears to govern one root U-kind plus several dependent durable U-kinds.

    Primary EntityOfConcern. Identify the exact object the admission decision is about before filling the shared E.24-family decision: an already recoverable C.3 U.Kind, the proposal episteme for an unadmitted distinction, or the source-construct entity being translated. Put the proposed criterion, candidate individuals, intended extent and non-member boundary, spelling, and dependent claims in the decision's ClaimGraph. If no decision subject is identifiable, keep the inquiry open. An extension, member list, rule bundle, title, or spelling cannot fill this position.

    Primary working reader. The first reader is an FPF pattern author or reviewer deciding whether a public FPF name should remain U.*. The downstream reader is the practitioner who uses public pattern titles, headings, ToC rows, and names as orientation cues and needs those cues to point to the real governed object.

    First useful move. First name the exact local kind, proposal episteme, or source-construct entity that the decision is about; if no such object is identifiable, retain the inquiry and stop. Then recover the proposed governed individuals, identity or membership rule, intended extent and non-member boundary, and the action-facing claim that needs the kind. Test whether existing U-kinds, direct relations, declaration SlotKinds, C.3 local kinds, or selected structures already preserve that distinction. Judge the public spelling only after the admission disposition is stable.

    What goes wrong if missed. FPF grows a shadow ontology by punctuation. A slot label becomes a kind, a publication form becomes an ontic, type and kind wording becomes active beside ontic settlement, and a useful title survives because it is searchable rather than because it names the governed object.

    What this buys. Public U.* names become trustworthy. A candidate distinction either passes one explicit root or dependent admission test, or stays with the actual governed object and uses its defining or testing rule, with the PatternID kept only as a locator, without creating an umbrella kind.

    Not this pattern when.

    • If the question is whether FPF needs a durable ontic at all, use E.24.
    • If the question is only detecting an ontic candidate before the durable decision, use E.24.CD.
    • If the question is the difference among an ontic, its description episteme, publication, and publication form, use E.24.PUB.
    • If the question is one phrase-level precision issue with no durable name pressure, use E.10, E.10.ARCH, or the direct precision-restoration pattern.
    • If the current governed object is already recovered and only its public label must be chosen, use F.8, F.5, F.18, or F.17 according to the naming use.

    Problem Frame

    FPF reserves U.* names for admitted durable U-kinds. Current source material and older corpus passages can still place that spelling on a declaration-local SlotKind, participant designation, selected structure, publication form, representation element, or unsettled candidate. The spelling is therefore evidence of admission pressure, not evidence of admission.

    Section 4.2 separates exact accepted admission-result references from open prerequisites, blocked candidates, and non-admission exits. A public spelling, owner citation, or orientation row supplies no admission by itself. Existing root and same-individual-dependent kinds remain usable only through the exact accepted result reference recorded there; U.Capability remains blocked on its missing dependence governor, and unresolved prerequisite kinds remain unsettled rather than being inherited by assertion.

    E.24.UK governs this separation. A world-side relation participant keeps its independently governed kind; a RelationSignature SlotKind stays declaration-local; an assertion-side designation stays in its claim-bearing episteme; and a publication form or C.29 representation keeps its direct use. It is an E.24 subpattern because U-kind admission depends on ontic settlement, but it is not the head E.24 pattern. E.24 remains the head pattern for U.Ontic and ontic introduction. E.24.UK governs the detailed U-kind admission rules.

    Problem

    Without this pattern:

    1. U.* spelling substitutes for admission. A public name is retained because it looks like a kind.
    2. Unsettled type and kind wording competes with U-kind admission rules. Type, kind, subkind, Concept-Set rows, U-kind names, and E.24 ontics become overlapping ontologies.
    3. A dependent distinction becomes an independent root. A kind whose individuals retain root identity or depend on one root-kind individual is treated as if it had an independent root settlement.
    4. Structural names over-admit. A title, filename, heading, ToC row, bounded-context label, system, team, subsystem, view, diagram, publication, or named use is treated as if it created a base U.Structure identity or specialization membership.
    5. Declaration and representation elements become U-kinds. A participant meaning in a direct relation, a SlotKind in its reusable declaration, an assertion field, or a C.29 representation element receives a U.* spelling even though its governing object is already known.
    6. Naming patterns are asked to do ontology. F.5, F.8, F.18, or F.17 is used before the governed object has been recovered.

    Forces

    ForceTension
    Public mnemonic usefulness vs ontology truthA U.* name can improve discovery; it can also advertise a false governed object.
    Root stability vs dependent reuseSome dependent distinctions deserve durable names but retain identity through one root settlement.
    C.3 typed reasoning vs U-kind governanceU.Kind is an admitted meta-kind and C.3 kinds are its individuals; this does not give each such individual its own public U.* subject-kind name. U.SubkindOf is separately admitted as a same-individual dependent relation kind under U.Relation. Every other durable subject-kind proposal still needs its own E.24.UK result.
    Kernel parsimony vs expressive pattern languageFPF needs useful names, but new U-kinds are expensive and must not replace slots and relations.
    Host and ToC structure vs prose nuanceA false U.* in a title, filename, heading, or ToC row is stronger than a false prose occurrence.

    Solution

    Treat durable U-kind admission as a claim-bearing decision about one identified entity, not as a relation between a public name and a settlement and not as a bundle of future members, rules, boundaries, and uses. Select the decision's EntityOfConcern by the entry rule above; keep the proposed kind criterion, extent, spelling, and use-enabling claims in its ClaimGraph. Record the decision in a DRR or another claim-bearing episteme under E.9; the decision creates no project-side U.Relation occurrence.

    Do not fill a second E.24.UK decision card. E.24:4.0a is the sole editable E24FamilySettlementDecision schema. The short view below helps a practitioner find its U-kind fields; it is a read-only projection and cannot omit, weaken, rename, or override any claim required by the shared decision.

    Practitioner questionExact place in the shared decision
    What is being decided, and under which scheme?DecisionEpistemeIdentity, including the independently identified pre-judgment EntityOfConcern, its identity governor, and the effective ReferenceScheme
    Which practical use needs a visible result?CandidateInputs.ReceivingUseAndVisibleResult
    What subject and identity rule are already current?PrimaryGovernedSubjectKind and SubjectIdentityConstitutionOrRecognitionRule
    What durable kind is proposed?ProposedDurableUKindIfAny, including governed individuals, membership rule and scheme, intended extent and nearest non-members, plus the root-inclusion or exact identity-dependence rule when that branch needs one
    What public spelling is proposed, if any?CandidatePublicSpellingIfAny; it remains naming pressure, not admission evidence
    What existing rule already covers the need?ExistingGovernorAndNonDuplicationResult
    Which relations and declarations does the receiving use actually consume?MinimalGovernedRelationSet, IdentityBearingDirectRelationIfSelected, and ReusableDeclarationsActuallyConsumed; inactive entries are omitted only from the display, never from the underlying decision when they are required
    Who will rely on the result, and where does it stop?NamedDependentPatternReliance, NonUseBoundary, and ReopenCondition
    What was decided?Outputs.UKindAdmissionResult, including the result reference, one of the six dispositions, subject-pattern locator, positive membership-and-extent result when current, branch-specific result, and non-use/reopen boundary
    Was an ontic result reused or created beside it?Outputs.OnticSettlementResult and DecisionMode; U-kind-only cites an already accepted ontic settlement, while atomic ontic-plus-U-kind creates two sibling outputs from the same inputs

    A short view is therefore valid only when every displayed answer resolves back to that one shared decision. An inactive field may disappear from the view; a required field may not disappear from the decision. The UKindAdmissionResultRef identifies the result, not the decision episteme. In an atomic decision, the ontic and admission results remain provisional together and neither is evidence for the other.

    The shared decision selects exactly one positive form—root, same-individual-dependent, or identity-dependent—or one non-admission exit—reuse, local-kind, or reject. Every positive result cites its durable membership rule and scheme. Same-individual dependence also states the root and the implication to root membership for the same individual. Identity dependence instead cites an already governed relation to a distinct root-kind individual plus every discriminator. The three non-admission exits cite the exact reused kind, local C.3.2 declaration, or recovered non-kind object.

    A public Tech label follows the accepted result through F.18 and F.17. Spelling improves retrieval but supplies neither membership nor extent. The decision, its output result, the proposed or admitted kind, and individuals classified by that kind remain different objects.

    Positive Test For A Durable U-kind

    Test a proposed new durable U-kind against these eight conditions. It may receive root, same-individual-dependent, or identity-dependent only if all eight hold:

    1. Governed individuals. The candidate classifies identifiable governed individuals, not source expressions, declaration fields, table columns, reference suffixes, publication forms, or mathematical representation elements.
    2. Stable identity or membership. Cite an identity, grounding, recognition, or membership rule that reidentifies individuals and determines whether they enter the intended extent.
    3. Reviewable witness. Cite the direct operational test. For a relation-kind candidate, cite the pattern passage that defines the relation; that passage must state participant meanings, obtaining, applicability, and occurrence identity. If no current direct relation closes the claim, an A.6.RCD application may record a derived or primitive candidate with a proposed direct subject settlement; its local-claim and predicate-definition exits are not kind witnesses. Every other candidate cites its direct constructive, classificatory, or membership test. A signature, row, declaration, or mathematical trace counts only when its declaration or defining rule states the correspondence to the governed individuals.
    4. Action-facing need. FPF users need to state, compare, constrain, transform, or otherwise reason about those individuals under this kind; a wording preference alone does not qualify.
    5. Non-duplication. Existing U-kinds, direct relations, declaration SlotKinds, local C.3 kinds, and selected structures cannot preserve the needed distinction without this durable kind.
    6. Defining locus. One primary rule passage or accepted governed source set states the kind's identity or membership, intended extent, admissible use, and non-use boundary.
    7. Shared E.24-family settlement. Fill E.24:4.0a with the subject kind and identity rule, the smallest governed relation set needed by the named use, any identity-bearing relation selected by the current settlement decision, declarations actually reused, direct defining or testing rules, receiving use, and non-use and reopen boundaries. Also cite the durable-membership rule and scheme, the same-individual inclusion law or identity-dependence relation when applicable, and the exact result references. If both ontic and public kind are new, one atomic co-decision returns separate provisional outputs without circular premises.
    8. By-value dependence. Current or selected downstream uses cite the kind by value rather than only repeating its label.

    If any positive-admission condition fails, do not force the candidate into a durable root or dependent form. Select reuse when an admitted durable kind already covers the distinction, local-kind when bounded C.3.2 classification is sufficient, or reject when no classificatory distinction remains. Recover the exact direct relation, declaration component, selected structure, episteme, publication form, representation element, or source wording that carries the current claim. Only after disposition is settled may an author apply F.8, F.5, and F.18 naming criteria and constitute any public F.17 row.

    Six Admission Dispositions

    The typed AdmissionDisposition has exactly six values:

    1. root. The candidate classifies individuals identified by one cited identity or membership rule whose extent and recognition conditions are explicit.
    2. same-individual-dependent. The candidate classifies individuals already admitted under one root U-kind. The root pattern keeps individual identity; the dependent pattern adds a stable membership condition and an action-facing use. The accepted settlement also states the implication: if that same individual satisfies the dependent condition, it is a member of the named root kind.
    3. identity-dependent. The candidate classifies a distinct individual whose identity cannot be stated without one named root-kind individual. The exact dependence relation between those two individuals and every additional discriminator must already have a defining rule. A holder or root reference without that relation does not close admission.
    4. reuse. The needed individuals and distinction are already covered by one admitted durable U-kind. Reuse that exact kind and its cited identity or membership rule; do not admit a duplicate root or dependent kind.
    5. local-kind. Record this non-admission exit only with one exact current C.3.2 declaration through LocalKindDeclarationRef. The distinction remains local under the C.3 family and does not become a root or dependent durable U-kind; E.24.UK does not restate the declaration's internal mechanics.
    6. reject. No durable or local classificatory distinction survives recovery. Keep the exact relation, declaration component, selected structure, episteme, publication object, representation element, or source wording that carries the claim. A contingent qualification whose membership is only temporary participation in a relation belongs here; use Plain relation-defined wording when useful.

    Only root, same-individual-dependent, and identity-dependent admit the candidate as a durable U-kind. reuse, local-kind, and reject are distinct exits, not weakened dependent admissions.

    Read kind, individual, dependence, and part separately:

    • U.WorkPlan is a kind name. MaintenancePlan_Q3 is one individual that may be classified by that kind. The name is not the plan individual, and neither is a declaration slot or record field.
    • Same-individual dependence adds membership, not another object. C.2.1 first identifies MaintenancePlan_Q3 as one U.Episteme; when A.15.2's plan-membership predicate holds, that same episteme is also a U.WorkPlan. No second plan individual and no parthood claim follow.
    • Identity dependence concerns two distinct individuals joined by a governed relation that contributes to one individual's identity. A capability and its holder system would need that relation. Current A.2.2 supplies a holder-indexed identity tuple but not the required capability-to-holder relation, so U.Capability remains blocked; a holder field or reference is not the missing relation.
    • Dependence does not imply parthood. Even if a capability-to-holder dependence relation is governed later, that fact alone does not make the capability a part or characteristic of the holder system. A parthood conclusion needs its own direct part relation under A.1 and that relation's obtaining rule.

    None of a kind name, membership, identity dependence, or parthood follows from another. When the contrast is kind versus instance, say kind, individual, instance, or concrete governed object, not bare value. Reserve slot-filler wording for actual declaration slots and record-field wording for records.

    Durable Membership and C.3 Projection

    Durable U-kind membership and C.3 classification remain distinct, but C.3 now relies on an admitted meta-kind. E24UK-AR-UKIND-R5-01 admits U.Kind; its individuals are reusable intensional classification distinctions recovered through candidate domain, operative membership condition, intended member/non-member boundary, and continuity rule. A KindSignature, source or practice label, scheme, extension, assertion, or publication is not that kind individual.

    For an independently identified candidate x, membership in an admitted durable subject kind K still follows the direct predicate M_K under the accepted settlement. A C.3 U.Kind individual may declare or reuse that predicate for typed reasoning without admitting another public U.* kind. A row, spelling, record, or unresolved evaluation changes neither the direct predicate nor the world-side extent.

    E24UK-AR-USUBKINDOF-R5-01 separately admits U.SubkindOf as a same-individual dependent kind under U.Relation. Its individuals are the same relation occurrences already admitted under U.Relation whose exact ordered kind participants satisfy C.3.1's criterion-entailment branch or exhaustive deliberately closed-domain branch within declared applicability. Scheme and signature editions qualify the obtaining test and assertion; they are not participants or occurrence-identity discriminators.

    For any other same-individual-dependent admission, the settlement states M_Kd(x) -> M_Kr(x) and the same individual keeps root identity. For identity-dependent, the cited rule defines or constrains a two-place dependence relation from the distinct dependent individual to one exact root-kind individual and supplies every additional discriminator. A root reference alone closes neither form.

    The current capability candidate still stops at the exact missing-governor result in section 4.2c; do not invent a dependence relation to make that example pass. U.Structure follows the accepted A.22 architecture instead. A.22 identifies one context-independent selected organization from four and only four discriminators: exact independently identified constituents, exact selected obtaining relation occurrences, exact constraints as applied, and one named selection-use frame. E24UK-AR-USTRUCTURE-R12-01 records the root admission. A bounded-context label, system, team, subsystem, model, method, work occurrence, result episteme, description, view, graph, table, representation, publication, or use does not supply that identity.

    BoundedModelUseStructure and A.22's conditional crossing-analysis specialization are same-individual dependent predicates over already identified U.Structure values. The same structure individual keeps its A.22 identity; satisfying the corresponding A.22:4.1c condition adds the specialization and implies U.Structure membership. The bounded-model-use name has a current F.17 row. The crossing-analysis condition is strictly conditional on independently governed exact obtaining crossing occurrences plus all four A.22 base discriminators; because no positive member exists, its NameCard label remains local and pending and is not consumed here as public vocabulary. Neither condition adds a second structure individual, root identity, ambient-context discriminator, holonhood, agency, description identity, or view identity. An A.2.6 claim-scope value or membership fact affects the selection only when an exact applied constraint refers to it; that applied constraint, not the bare scope or membership outcome, occupies the third discriminator. A scope, context, label, view, publication, representation, or selected use alone creates neither the base structure nor specialization membership.

    The three A.1.1 relation-kind designations consumed by the bounded-model-use test are current through UTS.ModelApplicabilityRelation.FPFCore.2026-07-25, UTS.ModelUseRelation.FPFCore.2026-07-25, and UTS.ModelExpressionCoherenceRelation.FPFCore.2026-07-25. Those F.17 rows publish only the names. A.1.1 defines each relation; the corresponding passage states its predicate, participants, obtaining condition, and occurrence-identity rule. A row, NameCard, matching token, or appearance in this registry makes no occurrence obtain and grants no BoundedModelUseStructure membership.

    A project that needs bounded quantification may use an admitted U.Kind individual through C.3.2. If the kind's membership criterion cites an already governed durable subject-kind predicate, that projection neither admits another durable kind nor creates an automatic U.SubkindOf fact. A project-specific kind remains an individual of U.Kind without acquiring its own public U.* label; proposing such a label reopens E.24.UK for that subject kind.

    Accepted Admission-Result Registry

    Each E24UK-AR-* reference identifies one accepted UKindAdmissionResult, not the decision episteme that produced it. The registry is a navigation index. The two R5 references resolve to the complete shared decisions and separate outputs in sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3; the bootstrap resolves to E24-CO-UONTIC-BOOT-01 and sibling result E24-OS-UONTIC-BOOT-01. A row marked RG is a reconstructed by-value result whose exact subject-pattern passage and this row together state the disposition, membership test, reliance, and boundary; it does not pretend that a new shared decision was run. No result reference gains a second result by appending a suffix.

    Each R5 or bootstrap result is a C.2.1 episteme about the pre-judgment subject construct. Its own ClaimGraph states the exact shared decision reference, disposition, membership or identity basis, subject-pattern locator, branch result, reliance, and non-use/reopen boundary under FPFCoreReferenceScheme. An RG result instead uses the reconstructed basis stated above and carries no fabricated shared-decision or sibling-output reference. The decision episteme has its own ClaimGraph and identity. A consumer relies on the result reference and follows it to the decision when it needs common inputs or decision mode.

    RG means reconstructed and grandfathered. The exact result reference, not the row wording, is the reliance point. Every row reopens if its direct membership or identity predicate, intended extent or named reliance, nearest non-use boundary, or shared E.24 settlement law changes; carrier, layout, and spelling changes alone do not reopen it.

    E24-CO-UONTIC-BOOT-01 takes the E.24 source construct, shared settlement rule, receiving use, and non-use boundary without presupposing U.Ontic. It returns E24-OS-UONTIC-BOOT-01 and E24UK-AR-UONTIC-BOOT-01; neither the schema, pattern, decision, nor kind thereby becomes an ontology-unit individual.

    ResultU-kind and dispositionSubject pattern and decisive testNamed reliance; nearest non-member
    E24UK-AR-UENTITY-RG-01U.Entity; root, RGA.1:4.1; individuable and referenceableall subject-pattern references; a label or row is not thereby an entity
    E24UK-AR-UHOLON-RG-01U.Holon; root, RGA.1:4.2; six-part constructive holon criterionrecognition of the four root holon kinds; a collection or part list is not a holon by form
    E24UK-AR-UONTIC-BOOT-01U.Ontic; root, bootstrapE.24:4 plus E24-OS-UONTIC-BOOT-01; connected action-facing ontology unitE.24-family and dependent ontology reuse; a topic cluster, form, or registry row is not the unit
    E24UK-AR-USYSTEM-RG-01U.System; root, RGA.1:4.4; constructively recognized acting holonA.2 and A.15; a local system-role kind, system-role-assignment occurrence, relation-participant position, declaration or representation position, Method, capability record, work record, or ordinary organizational title is not a System by that fact alone
    E24UK-AR-UEPISTEME-RG-01U.Episteme; root, RGC.2.1:4.1; ClaimGraph, EntityOfConcern, and scheme constitute one epistemeA.3.2, A.15.2, E.17.0, and this registry; carrier, publication, or view use adds no second identity
    E24UK-AR-UMETHOD-RG-01U.Method; root, RGA.3.1:4; one semantic way of doingmethod-description and enactment uses; a description, plan, or dated work occurrence is not the method
    E24UK-AR-UWORK-RG-01U.Work; root, RGA.15.1:4; one dated performed occurrenceA.15 and P2W; a plan, log, result, delivery, or effect is not the Work occurrence
    E24UK-AR-UTRANSFORMATION-RG-01U.Transformation; root, RGA.3.4:4; one grounded actual bounded changetransformation and production uses; a planned, modeled, asserted, or represented change is not actual change
    E24UK-AR-URELATION-R11-01U.Relation; root, reconstructedA.6.REL:4 plus the direct relation pattern; obtaining occurrence with identity ruleoccurrence-bearing epistemes and relations; predicate, assertion, designator, tuple, or edge is not the occurrence
    E24UK-AR-UKIND-R5-01U.Kind; root, R5C.3:4 and C.3.1:4, through atomic decision E24-CO-UKIND-R5-01 and sibling ontic result E24-OS-UKIND-R5-01; one reusable intensional classification distinction recovered through candidate domain, operative membership condition, intended member/non-member boundary, and continuity ruleC.3 typed reasoning and durable kind settlement; a KindSignature, locality, scheme, current extension, label, assertion, or publication is not the kind individual
    E24UK-AR-USUBKINDOF-R5-01U.SubkindOf; same-individual-dependent under U.Relation, R5C.3.1:4.1, through atomic decision E24-CO-USUBKINDOF-R5-01 and sibling ontic result E24-OS-USUBKINDOF-R5-01; the exact ordered U.Kind participants satisfy criterion entailment or exhaustive evaluation over a deliberately closed finite domain within declared applicabilitysubkind comparison and typed compatibility; a hierarchy edge, mutual classification equivalence, sample, assertion, scheme/signature edition, or source boundary does not create the occurrence or identify the kinds
    E24UK-AR-USTRUCTURE-R12-01U.Structure; root, R1.2A.22:4.1; one selected organization identified only by exact constituents, selected obtaining relation occurrences, applied constraints, and one named selection-use frameselected-structure and specialization uses; context, label, system, team, subsystem, method, work, result, description, view, representation, publication, or use alone is not the structure
    E24UK-AR-BMUS-R12-01BoundedModelUseStructure; same-individual-dependent under U.Structure, R1.2A.22:4.1c with A.1.1 and A.2.6; the same already identified structure is selected over one exact model episteme, exact admitted model-use holons, and the required obtaining A.1.1 relation occurrences under applied constraints for the named bounded-model-use framebounded model-use reasoning; a bounded-context or model-use label, model episteme, team, subsystem, scope, description, view, graph, table, or publication alone grants no membership
    E24UK-AR-A22-CROSSING-RULE-R12-01A.22 conditional crossing-analysis specialization; same-individual-dependent rule under U.Structure, R1.2; public term pendingA.22:4.1c; the same already identified structure must have several bounded model-use structures as exact constituents and exact selected obtaining crossing occurrences among them under applied constraints for one named crossing-analysis usethe rule may support future crossing analysis; no current member, context-map label, mapping method or work, view, diagram, publication, shared participant, or selected use grants membership or a public specialization name
    E24UK-AR-UWORKPLAN-RG-01U.WorkPlan; same-individual-dependent under U.Episteme, RGA.15.2:4; intended-work membership plus root inclusionplanning and readiness; a calendar image, possible work, method description, or performed Work is not a WorkPlan
    E24UK-AR-USYSTEMROLEASSIGNMENT-RPR-01U.SystemRoleAssignment; same-individual-dependent under U.Relation, RPRA.2.1:4; the same identified relation occurrence has family membership through one declared assignment species. That species declares HolderSystemSlot, a declaration-local assigned-kind slot limited to one local system-role kind, its own predicate and applicability, maximal uninterrupted occurrence identity, and every commission, position, installation, or other participant on which its identity depends. Membership implies U.Relation for that same occurrence.attribution and work-facing assignment use; the family has no permissive binary root signature, and a stronger species is not a generic holder-kind occurrence plus another occurrence. A holder-kind pair, interval, assertion, responsibility claim, or generic U.Kind domain is not an assignment occurrence.
    E24UK-AR-UMETHODDESCRIPTION-RG-01U.MethodDescription; same-individual-dependent under U.Episteme, RGA.3.2:4; substantive claims about one admitted methodmethod use and planning; mention, metadata, approval, publication, or representation is not membership
    E24UK-AR-UVIEWPOINT-RG-01U.Viewpoint; same-individual-dependent under U.Episteme, RGE.17.0:4; fixed viewpoint-convention membership claimsE.17.0; an identifier, reference, describing use, selected viewpoint, carrier, or structure does not grant membership
    E24UK-AR-UVIEW-RG-01U.View; same-individual-dependent under U.Episteme, RGE.17.0:4; EpistemeViewpointConformanceRelation(E,P) obtainsE.17.0 and A.6.3; authoring, rendering, query execution, or publication does not grant membership

    Open Prerequisites, Blocked Candidates, and Non-admission Results

    The shared decision can also encounter public kind names that do not yet have a resolvable accepted admission result. They remain explicit prerequisites rather than being smuggled into the accepted registry. Existing by-value use of an exact current value may continue under its subject pattern, but no new admission may cite the unsettled kind itself as already accepted.

    Exact result or blocker referenceCurrent dispositionExact missing or closing basis
    E24UK-OPEN-UREFERENCESCHEME-01U.ReferenceScheme prerequisite unsettledF.18 identifies the current FPFCoreReferenceScheme value and C.2.1 consumes an effective scheme, but no current subject pattern and accepted result state the kind's identity, extent, and non-use boundary
    E24UK-OPEN-UCLAIMGRAPH-01U.ClaimGraph prerequisite unsettledC.2.1 consumes exact claim content and distinguishes it from graph representations, but no current accepted admission result and direct kind-admission pattern are resolvable from this host set
    E24UK-BLK-U-CAPABILITY-01U.Capability identity-dependent candidate blockedA.2.2 supplies the holder-indexed identity tuple but not the exact governed capability-to-holder identity-dependence relation, its obtaining condition, and its identity effect
    E24UK-NAR-AIPR-01U.ActionInvitationPrecisionRestoration; rejectA.6.A governs a pattern move and the exact actionInvitation(...) relation; the title does not admit another kind
    E24UK-NAR-EPUB-01U.EpistemePublication; rejectan episteme keeps C.2.1 identity while an exact EpistemePublicationRelation may obtain; Plain published episteme names that participation and not another kind

    Generic reuse and local-kind are decision exits, not accepted example results. Close reuse only with an exact ReusedUKindRef that resolves to this registry; close local-kind only with one exact current C.3.2 LocalKindDeclarationRef. If either reference is absent, keep the candidate unsettled.

    Consumer repair follows the disposition, not one replacement word. Method-description claims retain U.MethodDescription; exact viewpoint and view claims retain U.Viewpoint and U.View only under E.17.0 membership. Every lexical or source use of the rejected spelling U.EpistemePublication is recovered by its claim as the selected U.Episteme, exact EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence, publication form, or U.PresentationCarrier; the rejected kind has no occurrences to retype.

    Thus dependent describes an admission and identity architecture. It is not a shorthand for every object named in a record, every participant of a relation, or every qualifier used to interpret an episteme.

    Accepted Root Settlement For U.Relation

    FPF has already admitted U.Relation; project users do not repeat this ontology decision. The root kind classifies individuable obtaining relation occurrences. A direct relation can obtain before a system explicitly individuates, names, describes, or references one occurrence, but admission under this root requires the direct relation pattern to supply an occurrence-identity rule.

    Admission conditionU.Relation settlement by value
    governed individualsthe extent contains exactly those obtaining relation occurrences for which a direct relation pattern supplies an occurrence-identity rule
    stable identity or membershipA.6.REL supplies the common discipline, and each exact direct relation pattern states how one occurrence is reidentified and distinguished from another. Participant identity, maximal continuous obtaining, constituting work, or another domain discriminator is used only when that defining passage selects it.
    reviewable witnessA.6.REL supplies the common occurrence discipline; the direct relation pattern supplies relation-participant meanings, the obtaining condition, and the relation-specific identity rule
    action-facing needcomparisons, qualifications, change claims, nested relations, and receiving direct relations can depend on one occurrence being distinguishable from another
    non-duplicationrelation-kind-specific assertions do not provide one common kind for a relation occurrence used as the EntityOfConcern of an episteme or as a participant of another direct relation
    direct governing locusA.6.REL governs the root occurrence distinction and progressive individuation; each direct relation pattern defines or constrains whether its relation obtains and how its occurrences are identified
    shared E.24-family settlementE24UK-AR-URELATION-R11-01 is the accepted reconstructed root result. This by-value settlement records primary subject kind U.Relation, A.6.REL plus each needed direct relation pattern as the minimal rule set, named receiving reliance, and the non-use boundary below. IdentityBearingDirectRelationIfSelected = none: admission invents no relation among the U.Relation kind, a relation kind, or another relation occurrence. Because this result predates separate output identifiers, the registry does not fabricate an OnticSettlementResult suffix; reopen it into the current shared schema if a receiving use requires a separately identified ontic output.
    by-value dependenceA.1 part-relation admission, relation-occurrence descriptions, and direct relations whose participant kind admits U.Relation rely on this root by value

    The admission does not force explicit materialization of every obtaining relation. Ordinary engineering prose can stop at the direct relation sentence. A system performs explicit-individuation work only when a named receiving episteme, direct relation, or operation-application assertion depends on occurrence identity. The accepted Tech label U.Relation is governed separately through its F.18 NameCard; the label does not establish the extent.

    Apply the positive extent rule before classifying a nearby object. Predicate content is a rule; an assertion or occurrence description is a C.2.1 episteme; a designator or reference stays under F.18; a reusable form stays under E.24.PUB; and a row, graph edge, or diagram element stays under C.29. None is the obtaining occurrence. Connect it to the occurrence only through its explicit assertion, description, designation, reference, publication, or representation relation.

    The rule is not lexical. An individuable publication-relation occurrence is itself a U.Relation when E.24.PUB defines that relation and states its obtaining and identity conditions. A row that represents the occurrence remains a representation element. Reidentify the current object by the rule that defines or tests it instead of inferring membership from words such as relation, edge, link, record, or reference.

    Accepted Root Settlement for U.Kind

    The subject of this decision is the still-unsettled C.3 proposal for reusable intensional classification distinctions—not U.Kind assumed in advance. One atomic decision evaluates the connected C.3 ontology unit and the public root kind from the same evidence.

    Shared fieldExact value
    decision identityE24-CO-UKIND-R5-01; C.2.1 identifies this decision episteme by its own ClaimGraph, EntityOfConcern, and scheme. Its EntityOfConcern is the exact pre-judgment source construct at C.3:4–6, identified before admission by that located passage and its candidate-domain, membership, boundary, and continuity content. The decision ClaimGraph is the common-input and output claims in this section; its scheme is FPFCoreReferenceScheme.
    receiving use and visible resultC.3 typed judgments, C.3.1 kind continuity and subkind comparison, and E.24.UK admission need one reusable kind individual rather than a signature, label, extension, or assertion
    primary subject and rulecandidate public subject kind U.Kind, not yet admitted in the inputs; C.3:4–6 and C.3.1:4–6 recover a kind through candidate domain, operative membership condition, intended member/non-member boundary, and continuity rule
    candidate public spellingU.Kind; this is naming pressure carried by the decision, not admission evidence
    proposed durable kindgoverned individuals are exactly those reusable intensional distinctions; the durable membership and extent rule is the cited C.3/C.3.1 rule under FPFCoreReferenceScheme; one-off groupings, declaration components, source labels, schemes, extensions, assertions, and forms are nearest non-members
    existing coverageno admitted kind, direct relation, KindSignature, source class, or local extension supplies this cross-pattern meta-kind; a project-specific kind may still be one member without gaining its own public U.* name
    relation and declaration inputMinimalGovernedRelationSet = none, because the membership rule itself identifies this root and no direct relation is needed for its identity; IdentityBearingDirectRelationIfSelected = none; no reusable declaration is consumed to admit the root
    reliance and boundaryC.3.1–C.3.4 and E.24.UK rely on the exact kind individual; reopen when the candidate domain, operative membership distinction, member/non-member probes, continuity rule, named reliance, or shared settlement law changes
    ontology outputE24-OS-UKIND-R5-01, an OnticSettlementResult selecting the connected C.3 kind-reasoning ontology unit through local exact ref C3KindReasoningOntic.R5 (not a public Tech label), primary subject kind U.Kind, the cited identity rule, an empty minimal relation set, named reliance above, and the same non-use/reopen boundary
    admission outputE24UK-AR-UKIND-R5-01, a UKindAdmissionResult with AdmissionDisposition = root, SubjectPatternLocator = C.3, membership-and-extent result C.3:4–6 plus continuity result C.3.1:4–6, and BranchSpecificResultRef = E24-OS-UKIND-R5-01
    decision modeatomic ontic-plus-U-kind; both outputs are evaluated from these common inputs and accepted together

    The decision and its two outputs are three distinct C.2.1 epistemes. Each output has the same pre-judgment source construct as EntityOfConcern, its own ClaimGraph consisting of the applicable output claims above plus the exact decision reference, and FPFCoreReferenceScheme. The sibling ontic result is recorded in the admission result for navigation; it was not a premise used to admit U.Kind.

    A project-specific kind can now be an individual of U.Kind without becoming another durable public subject kind. Proposing a public U.* name for that individual requires another E.24.UK decision.

    Accepted Same-individual Dependent Settlement for U.SubkindOf

    The subject here is the still-unsettled C.3.1 proposal for an ordered kind-participant relation—not U.SubkindOf assumed in advance. The accepted relation occurrence keeps its U.Relation identity and gains the dependent membership only when C.3.1's obtaining rule holds.

    Shared fieldExact value
    decision identityE24-CO-USUBKINDOF-R5-01; C.2.1 identifies this decision episteme by its own ClaimGraph, EntityOfConcern, and scheme. Its EntityOfConcern is the exact pre-judgment source construct at C.3.1:4.1–6, identified before admission by that located passage and its participant, obtaining, applicability, and occurrence-identity content. The decision ClaimGraph is the common-input and output claims in this section; its scheme is FPFCoreReferenceScheme.
    receiving use and visible resulttyped compatibility, monotonic classification use, bridge order-preservation claims, and declaration constraints need an exact obtaining relation rather than a hierarchy edge or assertion
    primary subject and ruleadmitted root subject kind U.Relation; the ordered narrower and broader participants are exact U.Kind individuals admitted through E24UK-AR-UKIND-R5-01. C.3.1 defines criterion-entailment or exhaustive deliberately closed-domain obtaining, declared applicability, and participant-determined occurrence identity.
    candidate public spellingU.SubkindOf; this is naming pressure carried by the decision, not admission evidence
    proposed durable kindU.SubkindOf; governed individuals are the same obtaining relation occurrences already under U.Relation; membership uses the C.3.1 rule under FPFCoreReferenceScheme, and every positive member is that same root relation occurrence
    existing coverageroot U.Relation supplies common occurrence identity but not the narrower/broader predicate; a hierarchy edge, implication expression, current extension, sample, assertion, scheme/signature edition, or KindBridge does not supply the obtaining occurrence
    minimal relation setdirect kind candidate U.SubkindOf; participant meanings are exact narrower and broader U.Kind individuals; obtaining and occurrence identity are stated in C.3.1:4.1–6; direct governor C.3.1; enabled uses are the receiving uses above
    other inputsIdentityBearingDirectRelationIfSelected = none; the candidate relation is the governed subject, not an extra edge that identifies the ontology unit. No reusable RelationSignature is consumed.
    reliance and boundaryC.3.1–C.3.4 rely on the exact occurrence; reopen when participant meanings, obtaining branch, applicability, occurrence identity, root inclusion, named reliance, or shared settlement law changes
    ontology outputE24-OS-USUBKINDOF-R5-01, an OnticSettlementResult selecting the C.3.1 subkind-reasoning ontology unit through local exact ref C3SubkindReasoningOntic.R5 (not a public Tech label), primary subject kind U.Relation, the C.3.1 direct rule, the one-relation minimal set above, named reliance, and the same non-use/reopen boundary
    admission outputE24UK-AR-USUBKINDOF-R5-01, a UKindAdmissionResult with AdmissionDisposition = same-individual-dependent, SubjectPatternLocator = C.3.1, membership-and-extent result C.3.1:4.1–6, root inclusion through E24UK-AR-URELATION-R11-01, and BranchSpecificResultRef = E24-OS-USUBKINDOF-R5-01
    decision modeatomic ontic-plus-U-kind; both outputs are evaluated from these common inputs and accepted together

    The decision and its two outputs are three distinct C.2.1 epistemes. Each output has the same pre-judgment source construct as EntityOfConcern, its own ClaimGraph consisting of the applicable output claims above plus the exact decision reference, and FPFCoreReferenceScheme. The sibling ontic result is recorded for navigation, not used as prior evidence. Scheme and signature editions qualify interpretation, applicability, and assertions; they are neither participants nor occurrence-identity discriminators.

    Practitioner-first Admission Tree

    1. Recover the candidates and criterion. Identify the decision subject, candidate individuals, stable membership or identity rule, intended extent, nearest non-member, and named action-facing use. For a relation kind, use the rule that defines its participant meanings, obtaining, applicability, and occurrence identity, and cite the PatternID that locates that rule; an A.6.RCD application may record a derived or primitive candidate only with a proposed direct subject settlement. If no subject or criterion is recoverable, keep the inquiry open.
    2. Try an admitted durable kind. If one accepted result already preserves those individuals, the criterion, extent, boundary, and use, record reuse through that exact result and stop.
    3. Try bounded classification. If one project or context needs only typed membership or quantification, record local-kind through one exact C.3.2 declaration and stop.
    4. Test the need for a new durable kind. Continue only when repeated cross-pattern use needs one stable membership law that existing durable kinds and direct relations cannot preserve. Run the eight tests and name each downstream question, its defining or testing rule, and the PatternID that locates that rule.
    5. Choose the positive form. Use root for independently identified individuals, same-individual-dependent when one root individual gains an additional stable membership predicate and inclusion law, or identity-dependent when a distinct individual has an already governed dependence relation to one root individual plus all discriminators. Fill the shared E.24-family settlement; use one atomic co-decision if ontic and kind are both new. Apply A.11 and A.8 when kernel status is claimed.
    6. Close or reject, then name. A missing branch law or positive-test condition blocks admission. Otherwise record reject and recover the non-kind object under the rule that defines or tests it. Only after one disposition and governed object are stable may F.8, F.5, F.18, or F.17 expose a public name.

    The subject pattern remains a locator, not an authority: C.3 states the membership and continuity rules for kinds; A.6.REL states the common relation-occurrence discipline; each direct relation pattern states participant meanings, obtaining, applicability, and occurrence identity; A.6.0/A.6.5 define reusable declarations; E.24 defines ontic-settlement predicates; and F.8/F.5/F.18/F.17 constrain names after ontology is settled.

    Source Ontology Conversion Guide

    Use this short conversion guide when a source ontology, schema, standard, class hierarchy, or top-level ontology uses words such as type, class, category, object type, entity type, kind, or subtype. BFO-style, ISO-style, OWL/RDF, database-schema, programming-language, and discipline-local type systems are source ontologies or representation regimes; they do not become FPF U.* names by translation.

    First recover the source construct by value:

    • source name and source ontology or schema;
    • source identity rule, membership rule, extent rule, or recognition rule;
    • source relations such as is-a, part-of, realizes, participates-in, depends-on, or equivalent local relations;
    • intended source use: classification, query, modeling, exchange, validation, reasoning, implementation, or documentation.

    Then select the FPF object:

    Source construct useFPF recovery
    claim quantification, membership, extent, subkind, kind bridge, or bounded local classificationC.3 U.Kind, C.3.1 U.SubkindOf, and typed-reasoning rules; record local-kind only through one exact current C.3.2 declaration referenced by LocalKindDeclarationRef
    public durable FPF kind needed across patternsuse E.24.UK with the shared E.24:4.0a settlement; reuse an accepted ontic settlement when present, and use one atomic co-decision with separate settlement and admission outputs when both ontic and kind are new
    a reusable coordination of one primary governed subject kind, its identity rule, minimal independently governed relation set, optional identity-bearing direct relation selected by the exact subject predicate and occurrence-identity rule, declarations actually reused, and dependent-use relianceuse the E.24:4.0a ontic settlement; do not invent a universal core relation or a relation whose participants are kinds, patterns, declarations, or the ontic
    imported formal symbol or declared range in a signature or mechanismA.6 U.Signature identified by <content, EntityOfConcernRef, effectiveReferenceScheme> with direct SubjectKind and RangedValueKind declarations, a symbol bound by that signature, a Concept-Set row, or an admitted durable U-kind
    source-name alignment between exact F.17 cellsF.9 Bridge, F.17 term row, F.18 naming, and explicit loss notes
    quoted source construct with no current FPF classificatory, ontic, naming-alignment, or implementation useretain source wording with its exact local sense and quote-only or reduced-use boundary under E.10 and E.10.ARCH
    implementation or serialization categoryrepresentation, publication form, record field, schema field, or direct implementation artifact handled under the rule that defines or tests its use

    A source "type" may become an FPF kind and may require an ontic, but only after these tests. If the source construct only supplies local classification or exchange syntax, keep it as C.3 typed reasoning, bridge material, representation material, or source wording. Do not create a rival FPF type layer beside durable U-kind governance and E.24 ontic settlement.

    Structural Location Rule

    A U.* spelling in a pattern title, host filename, monolith heading, or ToC row is stronger than a prose occurrence. Structural locations orient readers to the governed object.

    Use this rule:

    • Prose occurrence: recover the local claim, the rule that defines or tests it, and that rule's PatternID locator.
    • Table row or record field: recover whether it is one SlotSpec, one assertion or description field, one reusable-form element, or an already governed object.
    • Heading: retain U.* only when the section's primary EntityOfConcern is that object or the heading directly references an already admitted U-kind.
    • Pattern title or host filename: retain U.* only when the pattern's primary EntityOfConcern is that root or dependent U-kind.
    • ToC row: retain U.* only when the row points to the passage that carries the accepted settlement; otherwise name the direct governed object or repair the wording with E.10.

    Do not keep a false U.* structural name for memory or search convenience. Use a Plain label, local heading, Name Card, Concept-Set row, relation name, record field, or quoted source wording when that is the actual object.

    Failed U-kind Admission Dispatch

    When positive admission fails, take the first truthful exit: reuse with one accepted result, local-kind with one C.3.2 declaration, or reject with the actual object handled under its defining or testing rule. A participating entity keeps its intrinsic kind; a declaration component stays an A.6.5 SlotSpec; a designation or claim field stays in its episteme; a structure, publication form, or representation stays under A.22, E.24.PUB, or C.29; and a measure or source expression stays with its measurement or wording-use rule. Public naming waits until that recovery is complete.

    Archetypal Grounding

    Five Replays Through One Decision Sequence

    Use the same five steps in every replay: (1) identify the decision's EntityOfConcern and named use; (2) test an existing durable kind, direct relation, and bounded C.3 classification; (3) state governed individuals, membership or identity, intended extent, and the nearest non-member; (4) run all eight conditions, the shared E.24-family settlement, and the A.11/A.8 branch when current; (5) record one result reference, naming result, non-use boundary, and reopen condition. A future genuinely new candidate must complete this sequence before its public name is admitted.

    In each closed replay, the E24UK-* reference identifies the exact admission-result episteme or reconstructed result. The five steps summarize that result and, when a current shared decision exists, point to its separate ClaimGraph; the effective reference scheme is FPFCoreReferenceScheme. A stopped replay names the exact blocker instead of pretending that an admission result exists.

    Reconstructed root — U.Relation.

    1. Subject and use. The EntityOfConcern is the A.6.REL source construct for the common kind of individuable obtaining relation occurrences. C.2.1 and receiving direct relations need to refer to one exact occurrence without turning an assertion, row, or graph edge into that occurrence.
    2. Coverage. No other admitted durable kind covers all and only those occurrences. A bounded C.3 kind would not supply the cross-pattern root used by direct relation patterns.
    3. Membership. An individual enters the extent only when its direct relation pattern establishes obtaining and supplies an occurrence-identity rule under A.6.REL. Predicate content, an assertion, description, designator, reference, tuple, or edge is the nearest non-member.
    4. Eight tests and settlement. Governed individuals, stable occurrence identity, direct-pattern witness, action-facing occurrence use, non-duplication, A.6.REL plus the direct relation pattern, accepted result E24UK-AR-URELATION-R11-01, and by-value reliance are all present. A.11 retains one common root rather than duplicating it for every direct relation; A.8 does not promote relation-specific names into additional universal roots. This reconstructed result has no fabricated settlement suffix.
    5. Result and flip. E24UK-AR-URELATION-R11-01 records root; NC-U-RELATION retains the Tech label U.Relation. Reopen when the common occurrence criterion, direct identity discipline, dependent use, or settlement law changes. If an already admitted kind is found with the same governed extent and use, the disposition changes to reuse.

    Same-individual dependent — U.WorkPlan.

    1. Subject and use. The EntityOfConcern is A.15.2's WorkPlan kind-source construct; MaintenancePlan_Q3 is a member witness, not the decision subject. Planning and readiness patterns need one durable way to recognize substantive intended-work epistemes.
    2. Coverage. U.Episteme already supplies individual identity, but it does not by itself distinguish epistemes that substantively coordinate intended work. A one-project classification would be tested under C.3 before durable admission.
    3. Membership. C.2.1 identifies MaintenancePlan_Q3; A.15.2's plan-membership predicate classifies that same individual as U.WorkPlan and implies its root U.Episteme membership. A calendar image or ticket title without substantive intended-work claims is the nearest non-member.
    4. Eight tests and settlement. Identified epistemes, C.2.1 identity, the A.15.2 membership witness, planning use, non-duplication, A.15.2 as direct locus, accepted reconstructed result E24UK-AR-UWORKPLAN-RG-01, and by-value A.15 reliance are present. Under A.11's test, the result is a same-individual dependent kind rather than a second root or plan object; no new A.8 universal root is claimed. This replay does not invent a separate settlement identifier.
    5. Result and flip. E24UK-AR-UWORKPLAN-RG-01 records same-individual-dependent; the existing Tech label U.WorkPlan is retained and this replay mints no new name. Reopen when C.2.1 identity, A.15.2 membership, the planning use, or settlement law changes. If only one bounded project needs the distinction and one exact C.3.2 declaration suffices, the disposition changes to local-kind.

    Same-individual structure specializations — BoundedModelUseStructure and the A.22 conditional crossing-analysis rule.

    1. Subject and use. The decision subjects are the A.22 source constructs for base U.Structure and its two model-use specializations. A.1.1 and crossing-analysis consumers need durable membership without turning a context, team, subsystem, description, or view into another structure individual.
    2. Coverage. U.Structure supplies the one base identity. The two specialization conditions add stable action-facing membership to that same individual; neither needs an independent root or an identity-dependence relation to a context-like bearer.
    3. Membership and near-misses. A.22 first identifies PressControlUse_S from exact constituents PressControlModel-5, Press-3, and PressControllerCode-17; selected obtaining ModelApplicabilityRelation, ModelUseRelation, and ModelExpressionCoherenceRelation occurrences; an exact applied safety-control constraint claim whose proposition refers to the claim scope used by that selection; and the named use “decide whether operating use and controller-code maintenance belong to one bounded model-use organization.” That claim may state a proposition about the scope or its A.2.6 membership predicate; neither the bare scope nor the membership outcome is the constraint claim. Only then may the same PressControlUse_S satisfy BoundedModelUseStructure. The supplier-to-billing material currently supplies only a proposed six-part crossing organization—source SupplierUse_S, target BillingUse_S, direction, required fit, permitted loss, and claim scope. SupplierToBillingTranslation_R and SupplierBillingCrossing_S are not asserted: no compatible exact crossing predicate and current facts make the crossing obtain, so the A.22 relation-occurrence discriminator and base identity are unavailable. Only after that predicate is defined, current facts satisfy it, and all four A.22 discriminators are established may the same identified structure satisfy the conditional crossing-analysis specialization. PressControlTeam, a BillingContext label, ContextMap_v3 as a U.View, its diagram, and its publication occurrence identify none of those structures and grant no specialization membership.
    4. Eight tests and settlement. Governed base-structure and bounded-model-use individuals, A.22 identity and positive bounded-model-use membership witnesses, action-facing model-use needs, non-duplication, A.22 as direct locus, the relevant settlements, and by-value reliance are present. For the conditional crossing-analysis specialization, this replay settles only the same-individual-dependent membership rule and its action-facing need; it has no positive witness and no public F.17 row while the direct crossing governor is absent. A.2.6 contributes only when an applied constraint refers to an exact claim scope. That constraint, not the bare scope, membership outcome, or its representation, occupies the third discriminator.
    5. Result and flip. E24UK-AR-USTRUCTURE-R12-01 records root; E24UK-AR-BMUS-R12-01 records the current named same-individual-dependent specialization; E24UK-AR-A22-CROSSING-RULE-R12-01 records only the conditional same-individual-dependent crossing-analysis rule without asserting a current member or public term. Each specialization implies U.Structure membership only for the same individual that satisfies its exact A.22 condition. If the four base discriminators cannot be recovered, stop at the exact description or representation. If base identity is established but one specialization condition fails, retain only the base U.Structure; do not repair the failure with a context label, another structure identity, holonhood, or view typing. Reopen only when the A.22 identity or specialization condition, the A.2.6 applied-scope interface, the named reliance, or the shared settlement law changes.

    Identity-dependent candidate — blocked by a missing identity-dependence relation.

    1. Subject and use. The EntityOfConcern is A.2.2's capability kind-source construct; Pump37MaintenanceCapability_2026 would be one capability individual distinct from holder system Pump37. The intended use is reidentifying the capability through its holder while evidence, assignment, and work change.
    2. Coverage. U.System cannot classify the distinct capability individual, and a local kind would not replace a missing identity rule.
    3. Membership and missing relation. A.2.2 contains a holder-indexed tuple, but no rule for a two-place capability-to-holder identity-dependence relation, obtaining condition, or identity effect. A holder field or reference is not that relation.
    4. Failed tests. Stable identity, reviewable witness, and shared-settlement condition 7 fail at the same missing governor. The A.11 and A.8 tests are not run, and naming does not begin.
    5. Result and flip. E24UK-BLK-U-CAPABILITY-01 is the resolvable result; there is no accepted identity-dependent admission to reconstruct. Reopen only when A.2.2 defines the exact dependence relation and its identity effect. If recovery shows only a capability assertion, evidence item, fit assessment, or record field rather than a distinct governed individual, the disposition changes to reject.

    Rejected near-miss — U.EpistemePublication.

    1. Subject and use. The EntityOfConcern is the proposed kind source construct for an episteme made available to an audience; the use is to speak plainly about that availability.
    2. Coverage. U.Episteme already identifies the episteme, while E.24.PUB defines the exact publication occurrence, selected edition, audience, use, and publication-form boundary.
    3. Failed membership. Publication participation can begin and end without reidentifying the episteme and supplies neither a stable dependent-membership predicate nor a distinct individual. An unpublished edition of the same episteme is the discriminating near-miss.
    4. Failed tests and settlement. Stable membership and non-duplication fail; E24-OS-EPISTEME-ONTIC-01 and the E.24.PUB rules already identify the needed objects and publication relation. Applying the A.11 duplicate-kind test records rejection; do not apply A.8 or begin naming.
    5. Result. E24UK-NAR-EPUB-01 records reject. Use Plain published episteme only in a claim that identifies or permits recovery of the obtaining EpistemePublicationRelation; admit no U.EpistemePublication name. Reopen only if a later cited rule defines a stable classificatory distinction not reducible to publication participation.

    Broad rule-content provision/support candidate

    A proposal groups phrases such as "this pattern defines or constrains the result", "the framework supports the claim", and "service provision" under one public kind. The phrases do not identify common individuals: one locates defining claim content, another may describe evidence or source use, and the third may designate dated Work, a Method, promise content, or an operational bearer. They share neither an identity or membership rule nor a receiver that needs the proposed instances as one kind.

    Recover each material occurrence first under C.2.1 and its exact subject relation. Then return reject for the broad candidate. Each result cites the corresponding assertion through RejectedCandidateRecoveryRef; it does not cite the shared word list or migration table. Genuine Work, source, evidence, publication, authority, access, and direct-relation claims survive unchanged in their own meanings. An unrecovered occurrence stays unchanged. The rejection admits no U.Provision, U.Support, generic SupportRelation, governance occurrence, or rule-locus description kind.

    Type And Kind Governance Passage

    A passage that says a proposed type must pass A.8 or A.11 is a kernel-level U-kind admission question. A passage that says U.Kind and U.SubkindOf are used for typed reasoning remains under C.3 rules. A naming passage in F.5 or F.8 waits until the governed object and admission decision are stable.

    Lower-level Heading

    A lower-level heading containing U.* does not admit kindhood by heading shape. Recover whether the heading names an already admitted root or dependent U-kind, a declaration-local SlotKind, a claim-bearing U.Episteme, a relation-defined participant meaning, or a publication object. Keep the recovered object and the rule that defines or tests it; rename the heading when it advertises a different kind.

    Bias-Annotation

    This pattern blocks punctuation-bias and taxonomy-bias. A U.* spelling, title, filename, table row, or imported type word is not enough to create a durable FPF kind. Recover the governed individuals, their identity or membership rule, and the PatternID that locates that rule first. When the candidate instead names participation in a relation, a SlotSpec, an assertion or description field, a selected U.Structure, an E.24.PUB form, or a C.29 representation element, retain that exact object and its defining or testing rule. For a structure specialization, first recover the same base individual through A.22's four discriminators; a context, system, team, subsystem, label, scope, method, work, result, view, representation, publication, or use creates neither that base identity nor dependent membership. Only then decide whether any durable U-kind distinction remains.

    Conformance Checklist

    CheckClosure condition
    CC-E24UK-1Before the shared E.24-family decision is filled, one exact local kind, proposal episteme, or source-construct entity is selected as its EntityOfConcern; if none is identifiable, the work remains inquiry and stops before an admission disposition.
    CC-E24UK-1aThe proposed criterion, governed individuals, intended extent and non-member boundary, public spelling, and dependent claims remain in the decision ClaimGraph. An extension, member list, rule bundle, title, or spelling never substitutes for the EntityOfConcern.
    CC-E24UK-2Durable membership follows the admitted kind's direct predicate and reference scheme; its extent contains exactly the independently identified candidates for which that predicate holds.
    CC-E24UK-2aA C.3 local projection cites the durable predicate in its own KindSignature criterion and creates neither durable admission nor an automatic U.SubkindOf edge.
    CC-E24UK-2bU.Kind is admitted only through atomic decision E24-CO-UKIND-R5-01 and its separate outputs E24-OS-UKIND-R5-01 and E24UK-AR-UKIND-R5-01. Its individuals have a recoverable candidate domain, operative membership condition, intended member/non-member boundary, and continuity rule; locality, spelling, scheme, declaration, current extension, assertion, and publication decide neither kind identity nor membership by themselves.
    CC-E24UK-2cU.SubkindOf is admitted only through atomic decision E24-CO-USUBKINDOF-R5-01 and its separate outputs E24-OS-USUBKINDOF-R5-01 and E24UK-AR-USUBKINDOF-R5-01. It is a same-individual dependent kind under U.Relation; its occurrence has exact ordered kind participants and obtains only by exact criterion entailment or exhaustive evaluation over a deliberately closed finite domain. A hierarchy edge, sample, or assertion is not the occurrence.
    CC-E24UK-3Every positive result created under the current E.24:4.0a schema cites one exact accepted OnticSettlementResult, plus the kind's direct membership, extent, and branch-specific law. A reconstructed RG result remains at its exact admission-result reference and by-value basis; before a new consumer requires a separately identified ontic output, replay it through the current schema rather than inventing a suffix. No owner label or universal head relation substitutes for either basis.
    CC-E24UK-3aRoot U.Relation classifies only individuable obtaining relation occurrences. A.6.REL supplies the common discipline; each admitted direct or derived relation kind has a direct subject settlement for participant meanings, obtaining, applicability, and occurrence identity. An A.6.RCD local-claim or predicate-definition result does not count as kind admission; only a derived or primitive candidate that carries the proposed direct subject settlement can be tested by the E.24/E.24.UK admission rules.
    CC-E24UK-3bThe claim-bearing decision episteme records exactly one typed AdmissionDisposition value — root, same-individual-dependent, identity-dependent, reuse, local-kind, or reject — and only the detail fields conditional on that value; it creates no project-side relation occurrence, and naming begins only after disposition.
    CC-E24UK-3cThe practitioner-first admission tree tests exact existing-kind coverage and bounded C.3 classification before new admission; a failed new admission closes only as local-kind with one exact C.3.2 declaration or as reject with the actual object and direct governor recovered under section 4.6.
    CC-E24UK-3dWhen both a new ontic and a new public U-kind are needed, one atomic E24FamilySettlementDecision returns separate settlement and admission result refs from common inputs. Neither output is prior evidence for the other, and neither is accepted while the other branch remains unresolved.
    CC-E24UK-4A same-individual dependent kind states its root kind, direct membership predicate, and the implication from dependent to root membership for the same individual. An identity-dependent kind states an already governed two-place dependence relation to one exact root-kind individual plus every additional discriminator; a root reference alone never closes either case.
    CC-E24UK-4aU.MethodDescription preserves C.2.1 identity and uses the exact stable A.3.2 membership condition: one admitted U.Method is the exact EntityOfConcern and at least one substantive claim concerns that method as a way of doing; mention-only content, use adequacy, C.29 representation, publication occurrence, publication form, U.PresentationCarrier, approval, and work do not establish membership. U.Viewpoint and U.View likewise preserve C.2.1 identity and use the exact stable E.17.0 membership predicates; structure selection, bundle membership, a describing use or its selected viewpoint, direct authoring, A.6.3 construction, form, carrier, publication, query execution, evaluation, and work do not substitute for those predicates.
    CC-E24UK-4bU.EpistemePublication is rejected; Plain published episteme is relation-defined wording in a claim that states obtaining participation and identifies or permits recovery of the exact EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence. The Plain wording is neither a reference nor a designator and does not resolve.
    CC-E24UK-4cEvery retained public example resolves through one exact E24UK-AR-* admission-result reference. The registry row is navigation: an R5 result follows to its complete shared decision and sibling output; a reconstructed result follows to its cited direct subject passage and by-value row. Neither kind is accepted from a label, row shape, or unresolved decision.
    CC-E24UK-4dUnder the effective reference scheme, ViewpointId i designates exact viewpoint episteme P and resolving U.ViewpointRef r that uses i yields P; i, r, and P remain distinct, and neither designation nor resolution grants membership. Membership follows only from E.17.0's predicate. A named describing use may select P, but the use and selection remain separate from designation, reference resolution, conformance, and membership.
    CC-E24UK-4eBootstrap co-decision E24-CO-UONTIC-BOOT-01 returns distinct outputs E24-OS-UONTIC-BOOT-01 and E24UK-AR-UONTIC-BOOT-01 without presupposing an admitted U.Ontic or making the schema, pattern, decision episteme, or kind an ontology-unit instance. Any prerequisite kind without a resolvable accepted result remains in the open table.
    CC-E24UK-4fBase U.Structure identity is context-independent and comes only from the four A.22 discriminators. BoundedModelUseStructure and A.22's conditional crossing-analysis specialization are same-individual dependent predicates over an already identified structure and add no second root identity. Only the bounded-model-use name currently has an F.17 public row. An A.2.6 scope or membership outcome affects identity only through an exact applied constraint that refers to it; the bare value or outcome is not a discriminator. A context, system, team, subsystem, label, scope, method, work, result, description, view, representation, publication, or use alone creates neither the base structure nor specialization membership.
    CC-E24UK-5Structural locations retain U.* only with settlement evidence or direct reference to an already admitted U-kind.
    CC-E24UK-6A world-side relation participant retains its independently governed kind. The cited direct relation pattern states what that participant means in the relation; a relation kind or occurrence does not own a ClaimGraph.
    CC-E24UK-6aA reusable declaration component remains one A.6.5 SlotSpec; its SlotKind does not become a U-kind.
    CC-E24UK-6bA participant designation or other assertion or description field remains inside the receiving U.Episteme.
    CC-E24UK-6cA selected structure, reusable form, or representation element remains under A.22, E.24.PUB, or C.29 respectively.
    CC-E24UK-7F.8, F.5, F.18, and F.17 are used only after the governed object and admission decision are stable.
    CC-E24UK-8E.24 remains the head ontic pattern; use E.24.UK for detailed U-kind admission without duplicating that procedure back into E.24.

    Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

    Anti-patternFailureRepair
    U-dot by punctuation. A heading or filename contains U. and therefore survives as a kind.Public spelling outruns admission.Apply the durable U-kind test; otherwise rename to the governed object.
    Participation or SlotKind becomes kind. An entity receives a new U-kind because it participates in a relation, or a RelationSignature SlotKind is read as a world-side kind.Participation meaning and reusable declaration are collapsed.Keep the entity's independently governed kind, state the direct relation, and keep the SlotKind only inside its A.6.5 SlotSpec.
    Source type import. A BFO, ISO, OWL, database, or programming-language type is copied as an FPF U-kind.Source ontology and FPF ontic admission rules become mixed.Use the source conversion guide and name the FPF governed object.
    Searchable title wins. A memorable heading remains public even though the body governs a record, publication form, relation structure, or local frame.Discoverability replaces ontology.Keep the searchable phrase in entry or retrieval material if useful, and put the governed object in the public pattern name.
    Dependent kind promoted. A dependent distinction is admitted as an independent root U-kind, or a root reference is treated as proof of dependence.FPF grows duplicate roots, hides the root-inclusion law, or claims an unidentified dependence.For the same individual, state the dependent membership predicate and its implication to root membership. For a distinct individual, cite an already governed exact dependence relation and its discriminators; otherwise stop admission at the missing governor.
    Structure specialization re-rooted. A context, system, team, subsystem, model-use label, scope, method, work result, view, diagram, publication, or named use is treated as if it created a base structure or one of its specializations.The A.22 four-discriminator identity is bypassed, and description, representation, use, or a pending label is mistaken for structure membership.Identify the exact U.Structure under A.22 first. Add BoundedModelUseStructure only when its A.22:4.1c condition holds; apply the conditional crossing-analysis rule only after independently governed crossings and all four base discriminators exist. Otherwise retain the actual context-like, epistemic, representational, publication, or use object under its defining or testing rule.
    Contingent qualification promoted. Temporary participation in a publication or another direct relation is given a durable U-kind.The same individual appears to change kind merely because a relation starts or ends.Keep the exact relation occurrence and use Plain relation-defined wording; for publication use Plain published episteme and E.24.PUB.

    Consequences

    Positive consequences:

    • public U.* names become reliable orientation signals;
    • dependent durable U-kinds can be named without pretending to be independent roots;
    • model-use structure specializations can be named without duplicating A.22 base identity or collapsing contexts, systems, views, representations, publications, or uses into structures;
    • type and kind wording is handled through C.3, E.24.UK, A.8, A.11, F.8, and F.5 rather than preserved as overlapping ontology;
    • structural names are settled before they become misleading public names.

    Costs:

    • pattern authors must read the governed object before keeping a convenient U.* spelling;
    • some familiar host filenames, headings, and ToC rows must be renamed;
    • structural inventory work becomes part of U-kind governance, not an afterthought.

    Rationale

    FPF needs U-kind names to stay rare and load-bearing because they orient many patterns at once. Without a separate U-kind governance rule, ordinary type words, source-ontology classes, slot labels, filenames, and memorable headings create a second ontology beside E.24 ontic settlement and C.3 typed reasoning.

    The admission rule keeps durable classification connected to direct ontology without making every local class public. E.24 and E.24.UK share one settlement; C.3 handles bounded classification. A same-individual dependent kind adds one membership predicate and root-inclusion law to an existing individual. An identity-dependent kind instead requires a governed relation to a distinct root-kind individual plus all discriminators. Missing branch evidence blocks admission, and no public name, reference field, or owner label substitutes for it.

    SoTA Decision for Durable Kind Admission

    The bounded question is practical: when should a reusable distinction become a durable public kind, when is a local classifier or direct relation enough, and what identity commitment does each choice add? Compare alternatives at the effort of repairing or authoring one FPF pattern—not at the effort of adopting a whole enterprise ontology.

    Current lineStrong contributionFailure mode or extra effort for this questionFPF decision and receiving locus
    gUFO, 2026, with its current type typology, intrinsic and relational aspects, situations, and higher-order types; standardization is still at ISO/IEC CD 21838-5Rich distinctions expose whether one bearer gains a classification or a distinct dependent individual needs grounding.Using the whole typology first adds a foundational-ontology mapping and can choose an imported category before the FPF receiving use and local alternative are known.Adapt the same-individual/distinct-individual question in the admission tree and the WorkPlan, capability, role, phase, and quality cases. Reject automatic import of the taxonomy or its labels as FPF admission.
    Current BFO 2020 artifacts, maintained for the ISO 21838 top-level-ontology lineStrong formal separation of dependence, continuant mereology, process, role, and disposition.Adopting the whole upper ontology is expensive for a bounded FPF authoring decision, and its categories do not decide whether one FPF name deserves durable public reliance.Adopt the warning that dependence is not parthood and require an exact dependence rule for the capability case. Reject BFO classification or official status as the admission gate.
    Modular ontology-design-pattern work, including MODL, and the emerging LLM-assisted ontology-engineering directionReusable small modules reduce duplicated modeling; the newer direction makes modularity important when assisted changes become cheap and frequent.Pattern discovery and adaptation still cost work. The LLM paper states a research direction, not evidence that this pattern's eight conditions or result architecture is best.Adopt existing-governor reuse and bounded modules in steps 2–4. Treat LLM assistance as a reopen pressure only, never as the load-bearing admission basis.
    Current operational OBO Foundry principlesScope, versioning, textual definition, reuse, identifiers, and operational conformance make shared ontologies maintainable.These governance and publication checks do not by themselves settle world-side kind identity, membership, dependence, or the difference between a local classifier and durable FPF kind.Adapt explicit scope, reuse, version, and reopen boundaries in the decision and registry. Reject conformance to a publication regime as proof of admission.
    OWL 2 semantics and ISO 704:2022OWL cleanly separates classes, individuals, properties, and semantics-free labels; ISO 704 separates objects, concepts, definitions, and designations.These are mature lineage baselines, not a current low-effort method for deciding FPF's durable/local/non-kind boundary or its identity dependence.Adopt class/individual/property separation, same-individual inclusion, and naming-after-object recovery. Reject a class axiom, label, definition, or designation as sufficient admission.

    Selected non-dominated contribution. None of these lines supplies the same progressive cost boundary. E.24.UK first reuses an accepted kind, then tries one bounded C.3 classification, then recovers a direct relation or other non-kind object, and only then admits a new durable kind for repeated cross-pattern reliance with an exact membership or dependence rule. At comparable authoring effort, this reduces ontology commitment while preserving exact identity, non-member, reliance, and reopen tests. The gain is not universal superiority over a foundational ontology; it is a better effort/traceability trade for FPF pattern repair.

    The shared E.24 decision is part of that gain. It prevents the ontic and public-kind questions from being answered by two incompatible cards. In the U.Kind and U.SubkindOf cases, one atomic decision returns two sibling results. In the capability case, the missing dependence rule stops only that admission. In the WorkPlan case, the same episteme gains dependent membership without a second plan. A role or phase near-miss stays with a direct relation or local kind; HighRiskPump@Turnaround2026 stays a local C.3 distinction; and public spelling waits for F.18 after the object is settled. A source may model a pressure quality or an obligation-bearing relation as a separate dependent individual. FPF does so only when a direct rule identifies that individual and its exact dependence. A measurement value, assertion, participant pair, agreement document, or relation record cannot admit it by representation alone.

    The main remaining failure risks are also explicit. The progressive route can under-admit a distinction if a bounded use hides later cross-pattern reliance, or over-admit it if repeated wording is mistaken for stable membership. Reopen when a stronger current alternative offers the same identity assurance at lower effort, when an admitted kind loses its member/non-member or continuity test, or when a worked counterexample changes the same-individual, identity-dependent, local-kind, or non-kind decision.

    Relations

    • Shares settlement with: E.24 through the one E24FamilySettlementDecision schema in E.24:4.0a. E.24.UK records the UKindAdmissionResult; E.24 records the OnticSettlementResult. An existing result may be reused, while a case needing both new outputs is one atomic co-decision with neither output used as prior evidence.
    • Uses for relation admission: A.6.REL states the common occurrence discipline. Each direct relation pattern states participant meanings, obtaining, applicability, and occurrence identity. An A.6.RCD application may record a residual claim or a derived-or-primitive candidate with its proposed direct subject settlement; local-claim and predicate-definition results remain claim content and do not admit a relation kind.
    • Uses for neighboring objects: A.6.0 defines reusable signature identity; A.6.5 defines SlotSpec declarations; C.2.1 defines admission-decision, assertion, and description episteme identity; F.18 supplies the naming rule for selected Tech labels and designators; C.29 defines mathematical and data-model representation use.
    • Coordinates with: A.22 for admitted structure identity and dependent structure predicates; A.1.1 for bounded model-use relations; A.2.6 for claim-scope membership; C.3, C.3.1, and C.3.2 for admitted U.Kind individuals, the admitted U.SubkindOf direct species, declaration, admissibility, and judgment; E.24.CD for candidate detection; E.24.PUB for publication distinctions; direct kind patterns for every other admission; and E.10, F.8, F.17, and F.18 for wording and naming after settlement.
    • Does not replace: the rule that defines or constrains the classified individuals, their identity or membership, intended extent, and action-facing use, or the PatternID that locates that rule.

    E.24.UK:End

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