| Project alignment | "We keep mixing responsibilities, working method, plans, and what actually happened." | A.1.1; A.15; A.15.2; A.15.3; B.5.1 | F.11 when method vocabulary or work vocabulary is itself unstable; F.9 when bridge discipline is live; F.17 as a typical vocabulary-stabilizing output | the right alignment pattern is opened, or a first shared work/term form is stable enough to proceed | not when the live entry question is already comparison, boundary-claim placement, or SoTA/generator scaffold design | I.2.1 gives compact-index-only posture; ToC cues stay sparse |
| Partly-said cue and language-state discovery | "Something important is there, but it is too early to publish as a settled claim, requirement, or work record." | C.2.LS; A.16; A.16.1; A.16.2; B.4.1; B.5.2.0 | endpoint claim, action, or quality patterns become first patterns to inspect only after the cue is mature enough | cue preserved, language-state cue typed, or entry plurality opened without endpoint hardening | not when the claim is already stable enough for a L/A/D/E-classified boundary claim set or endpoint record | I.2.2 worked walk-through; lexical cues may mention "vague cue", "not yet a claim" |
| Wording-use precision restoration | "The wording is doing real FPF work, but the head kind, relation, source posture, architecture object, characteristic, quality sense, function sense, or exact receiving pattern is hidden." | E.10; E.10.ARCH; exact realization pattern when the trigger is already known | C.2.P for source/publication/interpretation-transfer wording; A.6.P for relation force; C.30.P for architecture/structure wording; C.16.P for characteristic/scale wording; C.16.Q for quality/evaluative-characterization wording; A.6.F for function-like wording; F.18 when naming or mint/reuse is live | trigger is false positive, local lexical repair is enough, direct exact receiving pattern is opened, or one restoration note names the remaining admissible move | not a required toll booth when the exact receiving pattern is already recoverable and no wording-use repair is doing work | Worked cues: "source says"; "interpretation shows"; "architecture supports"; "quality score"; "function of"; "stronger claim"; "level/layer/tier"; quality-term precision-restoration queries enter through C.16.Q |
| Boundary unpacking and claim decomposition | "An agreement, API, protocol, SLA, acceptance, or compliance sentence mixes law, gate, duty, evidence, quality wording, or action." | A.6; A.6.B; A.6.C | A.6.RSIG if first-contact recognition of the boundary description is still live; A.6.P, C.16.Q, A.6.A when relation, quality/evaluative-characterization, or action wording is live | boundary claim pattern opened, quality-term repair exited, or an L/A/D/E-classified atomic claim set or Claim Register is ready for the next governing FPF pattern | not when the phrase is only a partly-said cue, or when a full L/A/D/E-classified claim set already exists | I.2.3 worked walk-through; ToC cues stay claim-bound and do not turn API wording into promise content, commitment, duty, evidence relation, quality verdict, or gate authority |
| Architecture vs diagram/module/model | "We have an architecture, module diagram, ports, functional architecture, TGA graph, LCA control description, modularity score, reusable structure, or bespoke residue, but we are not sure what object the description is about." | C.30.P when architecture/structure wording hides the live object; C.30 only when ArchitectureOf@Context, ArchitectureDescription@Context, or an architecture question card is already recoverable; A.6.M when module/interface relation is live; C.31 when modularity characteristics are live; C.31.RSA when reusable structure or residue accounting is live | C.30.ASV when a structural view is live; C.30.TGA-FLOW-REL and E.18 when flow graph relation is live; C.30.LCA when control structure is live; A.6.F when function wording is live; C.30.ILC when cross-scope residual is live | architecture-structure repair note, architecture question card, module relation repair note, modularity vector lite, or reusable-structure triage whose trigger is live | not a required sequence, not a list of all structure kinds or characteristics, and not when the phrase is only an ordinary label or only evidence/assurance/gate claim | Worked cues: "we have architecture"; "ports line up"; "the graph showed clusters"; "modularity score improved"; "bespoke residue fell"; "LCA proves safety" |
| Admissible comparison, candidate-pool policy, selection, and selected-set publication | "We need comparison, a shortlist, a live pool, a call-planning distinction, or a selected set without forcing one winner too early." | A.19:0; A.17-A.19; A.19.CN; C.18; C.19; G.0; G.5 | C.11 when the entry question narrows to one local decision doctrine; C.24 when the next honest C.24 object is CallPlan or CheckpointReturn; A.19.CPM and A.19.SelectorMechanism when comparator/selector structure is live | candidate-pool policy, comparison substrate, local choice, call-plan, or selected-set publication pattern identified honestly | not when a selector mechanism or selected-set publication pattern is already settled elsewhere | I.2.4 worked walk-through; lexical cues may include "shortlist not winner" and "acceptable option set" |
| Generator, SoTA, or portfolio scaffold | "The work is to publish a reusable search, harvest, generator, selector, or portfolio scaffold, not one recommendation." | A.0; G.0; G.1; G.2; G.5 | B.5.2.1 and C.17-C.19 when creative search, novelty, or explore/exploit policy is already central; G.10 or G.11 when shipping or refresh is live | generator or scaffold entry question opened, or portfolio or set publication pattern identified | not when the entry question is only one local comparison or one one-off recommendation | I.2.5 gives compact-index-only posture unless repeated misclassification makes depth necessary |
| Same-entity rewrite, explanation, and comparative interpretation | "We need to restate, explain, render, repair, or compare the same claim-bearing PublicationUnit without quietly changing what it is about." | A.6.3.CR; A.6.3.RT; E.17.EFP; E.17.ID.CR | E.17.AUD.LHR and E.17.AUD.OOTD when pressured-head repair or PublicationUnit stability is live | same-entity rewrite, representation transition, explanation-facing rendering, or bounded comparative interpretation opened | not when the entry question is one new U.Episteme, new rule track, or independent PublicationUnit | I.2.6 worked walk-through; ToC cues include "same unit, different audience" |
| Temporal claim adequacy under effort, window, and resistance | "This should speed up, slow down, recover sooner, stabilize, keep cadence, or improve throughput under a changed effort, tool-use, rollout, or policy." | C.27; C.16 when only measurement is live; A.3.3 when reusable transition law or formal model is live | B.1.4, B.1.6, C.18.1, C.19, C.22.1, C.24, C.25, C.26, C.26.3, or G.9 as the other question requires | ordinary prose, Dyn0, Dyn1 with C.16 when measurement construction or comparability is live, Dyn2TemporalClaimAdequacyCard, Dyn2TemporalClaimProfile, or an exact FPF pattern relation | not when the phrase is only a speed metaphor, one state interpretation or snapshot, one measured rate, an external promise, a benchmark harness, or a residual QL cue without an intervention-sensitive temporal claim | I.2.7 state-to-rate-to-Dyn2 worked walk-through; lexical cues: speed, velocity, rhythm, cadence, throughput, recovery, braking, stabilization |
| Causal-use and counterfactual-support repair | "We want to say this caused that, this intervention would work, this policy would have prevented harm, this fairness result is causal, or this method is better on a counterfactual benchmark." | C.28; A.10; B.3; D.5; G.5; G.9 | C.16 when only a measurement result, score, or interpretation is live; C.27 when only state, rate, or intervention-sensitive temporal adequacy is live; C.26 when the phrase is only a residual quantum-like modeling cue; A.15 or A.3.2 when the question is only method, work-plan, or work-occurrence structure; A.6 when a mixed causal/deontic boundary sentence is split | causal-use triage/card names causal-use position, claim kind, estimand, support posture, support verdict, supported use, and unsupported use; or the wording is downgraded to association, measurement result, temporal, simulation-only, QL, method, work-plan, work-occurrence, or boundary-claim interpretation | not when the sentence only records observed association, one measurement result, one work occurrence, one schedule, one boundary duty, or one simulation trace with no causal-use claim | I.2.8 worked walk-through; lexical cues: caused, would have prevented, effect, intervention, counterfactual, target trial, policy optimality, causal fairness, causal evidence, counterfactual data, method improves |
| Quality-read question framing before review or improvement | "Are we asking for blockers to floor, exceptional improvements, trade-off check, missing questions, or absorption impact?" | E.22; E.21; E.9.DA; E.19 | C.16/A.17-A.19 when characteristic or scale legality is live; E.10/A.6.P/C.2.P/F.18 when wording or names carry FPF force; A.10, B.3, A.21, or A.15 when a quality result is overread as project evidence, assurance, gate, or work authority | QualityReadQuestionFrame names object/version, object-under-improvement evaluation, read purpose, declared floor or improvement aim, protected trade-offs, open-question classification rule, absorption-impact classification rule, and non-use boundary | not when the object-under-improvement evaluation read is already exactly framed and only needs execution under E.21, E.9.DA, E.19, C.25, a declared characteristic space, rubric, review profile, or another exact quality pattern | Worked cues: "review this"; "quality review"; "raise it to 5"; "what did absorption improve?"; "did optimizing this hurt usability?"; lexical cues: floor read, exceptional improvement, Pareto trade-off, open question, absorption impact |
| Object-under-improvement evaluation setup before improvement | "We want to improve something, but we cannot yet say better for whom, by what values, against what cases, or when to stop." | A.19.ECS; A.19; E.22; E.23 | exact object-under-improvement evaluations such as E.21, E.9.DA, E.2.DA, F.18, or C.25 when they already exist; A.17, A.18, and C.16 when characteristic, scale, coordinate, or measurement legality is live; C.18, C.19, G.5, G.9, or G.11 when OEE/NQD semantics are live | object kind under improvement, use, contrast cases, coordinates, value meanings, missingness, protected trade-offs, status, and stop or reopen condition are declared, or an existing exact evaluation is selected | not when the only live question is one already-framed read, one local work task, or one project evidence, assurance, gate, decision, or work claim | Worked cues: "what is better?"; "which scale set?"; "our rubric is arbitrary"; "all candidates get low scores"; "when do we stop improving?" |
| Repeated quality-improvement loop | "The object has an evaluation and candidate repairs; now we need repeated read, change, re-read, and stop without treating activity as improvement." | E.23; E.22; exact object-under-improvement evaluation such as E.21, E.9.DA, E.2.DA, or C.25 | A.19.ECS when the evaluation is missing or inadequate; C.19/G.5 when proposal or candidate-pool selection is live; A.10, B.3, A.20, A.21, or A.15 when the loop result is overread as evidence, assurance, decision, gate, or work | loop opens only with object version under improvement, object-under-improvement evaluation, expected value movement, protected trade-offs, cost boundary, and local stop or reopen condition | not when a single quality read is enough, or when the real work is generator design, selected-set publication, project approval, or external certification | Worked cues: "do another pass"; "raise this to exceptional"; "did the fix move the coordinates?"; "we closed all checklist items"; "all fives but improvement can continue" |
| Evaluation CharacteristicSpace FPF pattern publication form | "We already have or are constructing a reusable evaluation characteristic space, and the question is how to publish it as an FPF pattern without losing usability." | E.8.ECSPF; A.19.ECS; E.8; E.21 | E.22 and E.23 when the published evaluation is used for quality reads or improvement loops; F.18, E.9.DA, E.2.DA, and C.25 as examples of object-kind-specific evaluations; exact neighbour patterns when evidence, assurance, gate, work, decision, naming, measurement, OEE/NQD, or mathematical-lens claims are live | FPF pattern publication form states evaluated object kind, use, first evaluation use, coordinate payload, worked cases, non-use boundary, and reopen condition by value | not when the evaluation is local, temporary, one-project-only, or not reusable enough for FPF publication | Worked cues: "make this rubric a pattern"; "where do value meanings go?"; "the table is right but unreadable"; "the FPF pattern publication form is being judged instead of the evaluated object" |
| FPF-level Pillar adequacy and whole-FPF improvement | "We are improving FPF as a corpus, release candidate, pattern cluster, or language ecology, not only one pattern or one DRR." | E.2.DA; E.2; E.23; E.22 | E.21 when the object under improvement is one pattern version; E.9.DA when it is one DRR decision-adequacy claim; F.18 when lexical quality is live; J.4 when discoverability is the active entry question | FPFObjectUnderImprovementRef, use scope, active Pillar coordinates, evidence loci, protected trade-offs, stop condition, and reopen condition are declared | not when the live issue is local pattern quality, one DRR, one term name, or one project-side evidence, assurance, gate, decision, or work claim | Worked cues: "improve FPF itself"; "does this help the Pillars?"; "pattern got better but FPF got harder"; "all local fives but corpus discoverability worsened" |
| Pattern-quality stop, repair, and non-scalar improvement | "We have a pattern draft or update, but we are arguing whether it is good enough, what still blocks use, or whether improvement can stop without turning quality into one score." | E.21; E.19; E.8; C.25; C.16.Q | C.16/A.17-A.19 when measurement or characteristic legality is live; F.18 when durable naming is live; C.2.P when epistemic precision repair changes recognition or action guidance; E.17.AUD when publication/projection stability is live; project-side evidence, assurance, gate, work, or release patterns when pattern quality is being overread as project approval | scoped PatternQualityQBundle names pattern version, reader/use/window, activated blockers/coordinates, status, stop or first repair; or the wording is downgraded to authoring, review, naming, measurement, publication, or project-side evidence, assurance, gate, work, or release claim | not when the live question is only how to author an E.8 body, run an E.19 review profile, declare a generic measurement/characteristic space, or certify a project/application result | Worked cues: "quality 87/100"; "good enough to land"; "first move missing"; "review passed therefore safe"; lexical cues: pattern quality, stop condition, quality score, Goodhart, administrative proxy quality, first admissible move |
| DRR decision adequacy before authoring | "Can I draft from this DRR without inventing missing FPF decisions, receiving-locus requirements, source-use payload, or accepted-decision carry-through?" | E.9.DA; E.9; E.10 when repaired wording is live | E.21 when the object version under quality read is an authored FPF pattern version; E.19 when the live question is admission or refresh review; A.10, B.3, A.21, or A.15 when the claim is project evidence, assurance, gate, or work; C.16/A.17-A.19 when measurement or scale legality is live | ordinary-cost E.9.DA result or DRRDecisionAdequacyRead names DRR version, declared authoring use, receiving-locus disposition record, source-use or accepted-decision carry-through, status, first drafting move or first repair, and strongest non-admissible overread | not when the question is ordinary pattern-quality first pass, local wording repair, or project-world certification | Worked cues: "DRR has sources but no decision"; "which hosts receive content?"; "review passed but DRR still vague"; lexical cues: DRR adequacy, source-use carry-through, receiving-locus disposition, first drafting move |
| Rows are for likely first practical entries, common wrong first guesses, or | | | | | | |
public/retrieval-facing entry points. A pattern does not need a J.4 row merely | | | | | | |
| because it exists. A row belongs here only when the pattern is a practical entry | | | | | | |
| point or when its first-pattern choice commonly changes. The pattern text itself | | | | | | |
still needs a pattern-local Problem frame and any live wrong-pattern boundary to be clear. | | | | | | |
A J.4 row usually stays bounded: 3-6 first patterns to inspect, 1-3 nearby or | | | | | | |
| reclassification cues, one short not-this-entry sentence, and one short admissible | | | | | | |
| entry-stop phrase. The row remains compact enough to scan in one pass and | | | | | | |
| specific enough not to smuggle a required ordered sequence. | | | | | | |