#Evidence Graph Referring (C-4)

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

#About this pattern

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

#How to use this pattern

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

Type: Kernel pattern Status: Stable Normativity: Normative

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

#Keywords

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

#Relations

#Content

#Problem frame

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

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

First useful move. Write: “Work W_use relies on claim episteme E as a premise for use U; E states local result R; the cited source publications, carriers, work, and direct relations are S; currentness is T; the bounded A.10 disposition is D.” If a field lacks a direct governor, mark that exact gap.

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

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

Not this pattern when. A.10 does not own measurement, formal, causal, diagnostic, conformance, comparison, selection, acceptance, gate, permission, commitment, work, or decision results. It does not establish representation correspondences. Use each direct pattern for its result, A.15.1/A.6.1 for performed work and actual bindings, C.2.1 for the result episteme, G.11 for currentness, C.29 for representation, and B.3 when an assurance claim or material-reliance threshold is current.

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

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

#Problem

Source-backed reasoning fails in recurring ways:

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

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

#Forces

• Minimality vs consequence. Orientation needs a small path; material reliance needs the exact fields that change the decision.
• Carrier identity vs claim content. The same content can appear in several carriers and editions; a carrier can be authentic while the claim is false or stale.
• Reusable method vs performed work. A method describes a repeatable way; actual use requires dated work and exact bindings.
• Provenance vs result ownership. A.10 must make a result traceable without becoming the result's governor.
• Graph convenience vs ontic discipline. A graph can represent many relations compactly but cannot make them obtain.
• Contestability vs confidentiality. Reliance must be challengeable while sensitive carriers may require scoped, redacted, hashed, or role-mediated access.

#Solution — recover exact objects before drawing the path

#Start with the relied-on claim and direct owner

Name the exact C.2.1 episteme whose content is being relied on. Its ClaimGraph states one local result or proposition, subject, interpretation basis, polarity or status when current, and uncertainty or qualification when relevant. The local result remains with its direct governor: C.16 for measurement, C.28 for causal support, A.19 for comparison or selection, G.4 for an acceptance-clause application, A.21 for a gate decision, C.11 for a decision, and the exact formal, diagnostic, conformance, identity, permission, commitment, or role pattern for those results.

A carrier, citation, provenance entry, or A.10 classification does not constitute the result episteme or the domain result. When their identity or inception is live, use C.2.1 and A.15.PROD respectively.

#Ground source, carrier, publication, and representation

Recover the exact source episteme or source publication, the carrier or publication face that exposes it, edition/version, bounded claim content, and any copy, extraction, transformation, or publication occurrence between source and use. E.17 governs publication; C.29 governs representation correspondences. The descriptive graph points outward to those independently governed objects and relations.

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

#Separate method, work, participants, and local result

U.MethodDescription is an episteme about one exact U.Method. It may state generic participants, parameters, effects, and operating conditions. It has no actual-participant slots and no intrinsic design-time intention, proof criterion, test criterion, or claim that work occurred.

Performed source production, measurement, verification, interpretation, transformation, query, review, publication, or later reliance is one or more dated U.Work occurrences. Each occurrence has an occurrence designator, temporal extent, performer through U.RoleAssignment, enactsMethod, affected or evaluated referent, resources, and actual participants through direct subject relations or A.6.1 operation-application bindings. A compatible signature, plan, description, log schema, or graph node establishes none of those bindings.

For every cited result, name its direct governor and its C.2.1 result episteme separately. The provenance path may represent the exact work, participants, produced entities, subject results, result epistemes, and outcomes only after their direct relations are established.

#Build a descriptive evidence-provenance path

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

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

#Classify bounded reliance

The canonical local RelianceDisposition member set is exactly: pass, degrade, abstain, reopen, evidence-needed, safety-case-required, and blocked-current-use. For ordinary reliance below B.3's material-reliance threshold, use one of the first five or blocked-current-use for one named use. pass supports only the exact bounded use; degrade supports only the named narrower or reversible use. safety-case-required only records that the B.3 material-reliance threshold was crossed and routes the user to B.3; it is not an A.10 assurance result. No disposition is claim truth, CV.Status, gate decision, selector outcome, approval, permission, release, assurance, or work authorization.

When an assurance claim is made or the material-reliance threshold is met, enter B.3 with the minimum reliance safety assurance record. A.10 continues to supply the exact source and provenance paths but does not issue the assurance result.

#Currentness, actual use, and graph limits

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

Actual use requires another dated work occurrence and one exact premise, reference, decision-use, operation-argument, or other direct relation to the result episteme. Storage, indexing, citation, graph membership, visibility, or co-location does not establish performed use.

Part-whole, temporal, production, publication, representation, provenance, participation, and reliance relations remain independently governed. The A.10 graph may cite them together for replay but never substitutes one for another.

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

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

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

Minimum evidence-provenance path for routine reliance:

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

Adversarial misuse guard. Do not let carrier authenticity, provenance, copied approval, generated summary, stale screenshot, credential status view, or dashboard export convert into claim truth or currentness. Treat each as a rival explanation to test against issuer or source-maintenance role assignment, method trace or work trace, time window, and relying context.

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

Case repairs:

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

Missing source-relation repair assignment. If the relying actor cannot recover or verify the source relation, assign the repair to the accountable project-side responsibility assignment: issuer or performer, verifier assignment, status-source relation, evidence-producing work assignment or evidence-producing system, gate-decision source relation, role-assignment source relation, status register entry, boundary claim relation, or source-currentness relation. The A.10 result should name the missing source relation or missing source-bearing record and blocked use rather than making the relying actor reconstruct a relation they cannot issue or verify.

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

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

Incident-learning fields for evidence and currentness overread: visible carrier or publication face, intended claim or effect, missing evidence-provenance field, evidence carrier named by value, source-maintenance role assignment, method trace, work trace, and time relation needed, rival explanation that made the overread plausible, current safe disposition, and upstream repair action for instrumentation, source U.EpistemePublication refs, source relation refs, status, currentness, claim-bound source relations, credential view, model documentation, data documentation, or provenance and attestation label.

Contestability and redress relation: when an evidence-provenance path or source-currentness relation affects person or team status, access, responsibility, a compliance relation, or a release decision, the A.10 result should name the disputed claim, evidence carrier, source-maintenance role assignment, verifier assignment, status relation maintainer, freshness relation, revocation relation, privacy-minimized evidence ref, safe interim disposition, and review or redress relation. A disputed display remains contested until the source-order relation or currentness relation is resolved.

Positive repaired evidence-use statement. When the source account is complete, write the smallest bounded statement: named relied-on claim, carrier/source and accountable role assignment, producing or interpreting dated work, method and actual bindings when relevant, direct provenance/citation/currentness relations, exact later work and use relation, RelianceDisposition, unsupported attempted use, and reopen condition.

What this does not authorize: A.10 does not approve, authorize, pass a gate, release, create permission or commitment, assign a role, record work, establish a domain result, assert a representation correspondence, or raise assurance. It supplies source recovery, provenance, and bounded reliance for the exact neighboring objects named by value.

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

Use this subsection when a visible carrier, publication face, source U.EpistemePublication ref, source relation ref, or display is being relied on for a named claim or act. First recover the claim kind, its direct governor, the source/provenance path, and the bounded use. Broad words such as source, metric, confidence, conformant, safe, ready, certified, approval, or permission are recovery prompts, not relation names.

This is a local reliance-use classifier, not a Core evidence-kind ontology. Use only the row that decides the attempted use. The path represents exact direct relations and the RelianceDisposition records one bounded A.10 judgment; neither becomes a general evidence or authority relation. Affordability card: orientation or source-finding remains a cue and stops here; bounded reliance states one bounded evidence use, unsupported attempted use, window, and reopen condition; threshold reliance applies the minimum governing pattern only when the B.3 material-reliance threshold is met: behavior, safety, release, compliance, public or protocol behavior, access, resource allocation, people status, team status, operational action, or controlled-object regulation would materially change. Plain wording remains ordinary unless it changes bounded use, source relation, evidence, gate, assurance, work, decision, or neighboring governing-pattern claim.

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

Common wrong first classification: a visible carrier, source U.EpistemePublication ref, source relation ref, or display is approval, permission, safety, or readiness. First honest entry: recover the A.10 evidence-provenance path for one bounded claim or use; approval, permission, safety, readiness, gate passage, and work authority stay with their governing patterns when those relations are being claimed.

Plain disposition palette: RelianceDisposition=pass means proceed only inside the bounded evidence use; RelianceDisposition=degrade means use only a narrower or reversible version; RelianceDisposition=abstain means do not decide yet; RelianceDisposition=reopen means changed or contested evidence relation defeated the previous evidence-use classification; RelianceDisposition=evidence-needed means ask for the named missing evidence at the named decision point; RelianceDisposition=safety-case-required means apply B.3 because the B.3 material-reliance threshold is met; RelianceDisposition=blocked-current-use means block the current attempted use until the evidence-provenance path or governing source relation changes.

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

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

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

If publication or observation of a cue changes the represented situation or represented source condition, recover the probe-coupled boundary before treating the cue as passive evidence. This sentence does not import quantum-like vocabulary; it only prevents passive-evidence overread for dashboards, warnings, labels, and public status displays.

Minimum contest relation with possible redress: a contest relation exists only when the affected party or accountable review role can identify the disputed claim or source, affected use or harm, accountable review role, evidence or argument allowed in challenge, possible disposition change, outcome record, and reopen trigger. A feedback channel, complaint form, or appeal label without those recoverable values is not enough to change the disposition.

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

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

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

Worked source-overread slices:

#Causal evidence relation values in evidence-provenance paths

Evidence graph paths used for causal-use claims must carry the C.28-governed CausalEvidenceSupportBasis value without redefining causal estimands or causal-use authority. In this subsection, SupportBasis is a C.28 field-value name; it is not the loose FPF prose word "support".

The C.28 values that A.10 may carry in an evidence-provenance path are:

observationalAssociationSupportBasis
interventionalActionSupportBasis
realizedCounterfactualSampleSupportBasis
identifiedCounterfactualEstimateSupportBasis
simulationOnlyCounterfactualOutputBasis

[A.10](/generated/patterns/A.10) consumes this value set from [C.28](/generated/patterns/C.28); it does not add causalAssumptionOnlySupport or noCausalEvidenceSupport as causal-evidence values. Assumption-only and no-evidence-use cases are represented by causal assumptions, a [C.28](/generated/patterns/C.28) causal-use verdict, bounded use, unsupported attempted use, or abstain in [C.28](/generated/patterns/C.28)/[B.3](/generated/patterns/B.3), not by a second causal-evidence vocabulary.

No unsupported causal-use shift:

observational-association evidence -> interventional-action claim requires CausalIdentificationProfile.
interventional-action evidence -> counterfactual-comparison claim requires CausalIdentificationProfile for
  identifiedCounterfactualEstimateSupportBasis, CounterfactualSamplingRealizabilityProfile for
  realizedCounterfactualSampleSupportBasis, or bounded-use treatment.
Simulation-only counterfactual output may be used only for the bounded claim stated for that simulator output when model assumptions, validation, bounded use, and unsupported attempted use are declared. It does not become interventional evidence or realized counterfactual sample evidence by vocabulary, validation, or evidence-role relabeling alone.

Evidence-provenance path micro-examples:

What changes in practice: an A.10 path may cite a C.28 causal-support result and its sources, but C.28 still owns the causal-use question, estimand, identification, realizability, and verdict. The path does not create a causal evidence relation by carrying the reference.

What this does not authorize: A.10 does not identify causal effects, create an estimand, certify target-trial emulation, or decide counterfactual sampling realizability. It makes the C.28 result episteme, cited sources, provenance, currentness, bounded reliance, and later-use relation recoverable.

#Archetypal Grounding

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

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

Credential display. The current pre-existing case repair remains decisive: a credential view can support credential-currentness only under its issuer/trust root, holder binding, verifier, status source, revocation and window. Permission, commitment, role assignment, status assertion, entry predicate, and gate passage remain with A.2.8.PER, A.2.8, A.2.9, A.2.1, A.6.B, and A.21 as applicable. Display presence creates none of them.

#Bias-Annotation

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

#Conformance Checklist

1. Claim: the exact relied-on C.2.1 episteme and proposition/local result are named.
2. Direct owner: every measurement, formal, causal, diagnostic, conformance, comparison, selection, acceptance, gate, permission, commitment, role, or decision result points to its own governor.
3. Carrier/source: source episteme/publication, carrier, edition, publication/copy/transform chain, and direct provenance or citation relations are recoverable.
4. Work: each producing, interpreting, transforming, evaluating, or relying occurrence is dated U.Work with role assignment, method, actual direct/A.6.1 bindings, and resources.
5. MethodDescription boundary: the description contains only generic method claims; it supplies no actual participants, occurrence, use, proof/test event, or result.
6. Result boundary: domain result, result episteme, carrier, provenance entry, outcome, and later action remain distinct.
7. Graph boundary: every asserted edge names an independently governed direct relation; no edge establishes work, participation, production, result, currentness, reliance, or representation by graph membership.
8. Time/currentness: edition, window, supersession, revocation, source order, and G.11 result are explicit when they affect use.
9. Reliance: bounded use, unsupported attempted use, local RelianceDisposition, rival explanation, and reopen trigger are present; B.3 opens only at its own threshold.
10. Contest/privacy: the affected party can challenge the claim and disposition, while sensitive carrier access is minimized without erasing recoverability.

#Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

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

#Consequences

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

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

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

#Rationale

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

#SoTA-Echoing

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

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

#Relations

• Builds on: C.2.1 for claim/result epistemes; E.17 for publication and carriers; A.15.1 and A.6.1 for work, roles, declarations, and actual bindings; A.15.PROD when episteme inception is live.
• Coordinates with: A.2.4 for first-use evidence/status classification; G.11 for currentness; C.29 for representation; B.3 for assurance; C.16 for measurement; C.28 for causal use; A.19 for comparison/selection; G.4 for acceptance declarations and applications; C.11 and A.21 for decision/gate results.
• Constrains: provenance and reliance descriptions only. A.10 does not create another pattern's result, occurrence, participation, representation, currentness, assurance, permission, commitment, gate, or decision.

#Older source text interpretation and neighboring-pattern notes

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

• A manifest or source register is a carrier/publication or provenance description; recover the exact source, edition, claim, and direct relations it represents.
• A creator, observer, producer, verifier, or maintainer participates only through dated work, U.RoleAssignment, and exact direct/A.6.1 bindings.
• A method-instantiation note is not work. Recover the exact U.Method, generic MethodDescription claims, dated occurrence, enactment, ordering, participants, and result separately.
• A work result, measurement result, validation result, or verification result label routes to the exact domain result and C.2.1 episteme; the legacy field name establishes neither.
• Resource rosters remain separate from carriers and provenance records.

When older text also claims approval, permission, gate passage, assurance, causality, comparability, representation, publication effect, or decision, apply the neighboring direct governor and let A.10 retain only source recovery, provenance, bounded reliance, and contestability.

#Evidence carriers for quantum-like statements

Use A.10 when a quantum-like statement is being relied on. Name the minimal claim, source episteme/publication, carrier, producing or interpreting dated work, method, actual bindings, time/currentness, rival explanation, bounded use, unsupported attempted use, and RelianceDisposition. Route ordinary measurement to C.16, probe/frame effects to the relevant C.26 pattern, Bridge loss to F.9, representation to C.29, and material assurance to B.3.

The quantum-like label has no evidence weight. A descriptive graph may represent the exact source and use relations only after their direct governors establish them.

#C.29 mathematical-lens use relation

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

#A.10:End

Last Updated: 2026-08-04 — upstream FPF commit 7ba40a95 (github.com/ailev/FPF)