#Controlled Semantic Coarsening

A.6.3.CSC · Stable · Architectural (A) · Normative unless marked informative · Part A - Kernel Architecture Cluster

#About this pattern

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

#How to use this pattern

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

Type: Architectural (A) Status: Stable Normativity: Normative unless marked informative

Placement. Controlled Semantic Coarsening is a specialization under A.6.3 U.EpistemicViewing for exact construction c : X -> Y, where exact source episteme X and exact receiving coarsened episteme Y concern the same exact EntityOfConcern and Y is admissible only for a narrower use under declared loss and return. A source publication occurrence, source set, model, graph, state representation, evidence set, source pack, text, file, or display can make X available, be designated by its claims, or participate through separately governed relations; none is the source endpoint merely by type or adjacency.

Builds on. C.2.1, A.6.3, A.6.3.CR, A.6.3.RT, E.17.EFP, A.6.P, E.8, E.10, E.19, and F.18.

Coordinates with. E.24.PUB for publication occurrence, form, carrier, audience, and bounded use; E.17.ID.CR, F.9, F.9.1, A.15, A.6.4, A.20, and A.21 at their own triggers.

Endpoint identity first. Recover exact claim content, exact EntityOfConcern, and effective U.ReferenceScheme for both X and Y. A changed discriminator identifies another episteme. Controlled coarsening stays under A.6.3 only when EntityOfConcern(X)=EntityOfConcern(Y) exactly; otherwise use A.6.4. A declared source set or source pack may be an additional input, but it substitutes for X only when that selected claim-bearing whole independently satisfies C.2.1.

#Relations

#Content

#Problem frame

Endpoint identity first. Recover exact claim content, exact EntityOfConcern, and effective U.ReferenceScheme for both X and Y. A changed discriminator identifies another episteme. Controlled coarsening stays under A.6.3 only when EntityOfConcern(X)=EntityOfConcern(Y) exactly; otherwise use A.6.4. A declared source set or source pack may be an additional input, but it substitutes for X only when that selected claim-bearing whole independently satisfies C.2.1.

Use this when. Exact Y is a summary, briefing, redacted account, dashboard account, lookup account, didactic compression, architecture-description account, framework introduction, or other claim-bearing coarsened episteme whose narrower use depends on visible loss and return to exact X. If the selected item is only a layout, tile, page, file, display, or carrier without recoverable C.2.1 identity, there is no Y yet; use the publication, carrier, extraction, or authoring governor and stop.

Plain recognition line. A short claim-bearing version is useful only while the reader can identify exact X, exact Y, what c leaves out, which use remains admissible, and when to go back.

Controlled Semantic Coarsening governs c : X -> Y: an exact same-EntityOfConcern A.6.3 construction with explicit claim-content rule, endpoint scheme relation, preservation, controlled loss, prohibited strengthening, narrower use, and return. It is not a tag, token, U.* kind, publication face, carrier, source set, bridge card, work plan, approval, or gate.

Start here when. Your first honest note is the six-row controlled-coarsening mini-card: exact source episteme X, exact receiving coarsened episteme Y, narrower admissible use, declared source-loss mode, non-admissible downstream use, and return trigger. The construction statement c : X -> Y and both C.2.1 identities are recoverable immediately beside it. Read orientation, reliance, operative claim, non-admissible use, and return through the shared E.17 terms; route another primary question to its direct governor.

Neighboring objects and patterns. Ordinary same-EntityOfConcern wording belongs under A.6.3.CR; material scheme change additionally opens A.6.3.RT; explanation-facing class discipline belongs under E.17.EFP; comparison under E.17.ID.CR; bridge or substitution use under F.9/F.9.1; changed EntityOfConcern under A.6.4. A system performs any actual coarsening Work under A.15.1. E.24.PUB separately governs any occurrence that makes selected episteme X or Y available through a form and carrier.

What goes wrong if missed. A helpful form, source set, model, graph, publication, or readable tile replaces an episteme endpoint; then a summary becomes evidence, redaction becomes closure, a dashboard becomes a causal verdict, or a briefing becomes work authority.

What this buys. Cheap coarsened epistemes remain usable without hiding endpoint identity, controlled loss, prohibited strengthening, or return. Publication/form/carrier changes and direct source relations remain inspectable instead of being absorbed into X, Y, or c.

Working decision sequence. Exact Y is useful for a narrower use but cannot carry all claims of exact X -> separate X, Y, construction, loss, narrower admissible use, non-admissible downstream use, and return trigger -> use Y for orientation, triage, disclosure, retrieval, comparison, or planning preparation -> expose the six-row mini-card -> return or hand off if reuse, reliance, citation, dispute, bridge, work, gate, privacy, or engineering-justification demand appears.

Ordinary use. If Y is admissible only for orientation, bounded disclosure, retrieval, workshop framing, preliminary triage, comparison, or planning preparation, use the mini-card and stop after endpoint and construction identity are recoverable.

Reliance-facing use. Open the claim-bearing coarsening account only when Y will be externally relied on, disputed, cited, used across schemes or bounded model-use structures, policy-bearing, bridge-adjacent, work-adjacent, gate-adjacent, privacy-sensitive, or engineering-justification-facing.

Stop condition. Stop at the mini-card when no stronger use is attempted and no concrete overclaim remains. The card does not create Work, publication, U.View, evidence, assurance, or authority.

Admissible-use examples.

Not this pattern when. Use the direct neighboring pattern when ordinary wording, representation-medium change without narrower-use coarsening, explanation fidelity, comparison, bridge/substitution, changed EntityOfConcern, work authority, approval, adjudication, or gate authority is primary.

#Problem

FPF often needs a coarsened form of a source-bearing side: a manager summary, a redacted disclosure note, a dashboard tile, a lookup surrogate, a workshop simplification, or a didactic compression. The coarsened form can be valuable, but it becomes dangerous when readers forget that its admissible use is narrower than the source-bearing side.

The core failure is not ordinary omission by itself. The failure appears when the coarsened rendering stays honest only under an admissible-use card like this:

• the source-bearing side remains governing;
• the coarsened rendering has a declared source-loss mode or reduced recoverability;
• the coarsened rendering makes only the narrower use admissible;
• downstream use is non-admissible from the coarsened rendering alone;
• downstream use reopens the source-bearing side or moves to the governing FPF pattern or authoritySourceRef destination that makes the requested use admissible.

Without a named pattern for that relation, neighboring patterns repeat partial coarsening rules locally. The repetition hides the shared constraint and makes it too easy for coarsened renderings to travel as if they were the source-bearing side.

#Forces

#Solution

Begin with exact A.6.3 construction c : X -> Y. X and Y are independently constituted C.2.1 epistemes about the same exact EntityOfConcern. State the exact claim-content rule from X and any named additional source epistemes to Y, relation between their effective reference schemes, preserved claims, controlled loss, prohibited strengthening, applicability, narrower admissible use, and return. A source pointer, declared set, model, graph, state representation, evidence set, publication, form, or carrier establishes none of these by itself.

Use these Plain terms only with that boundary:

• Source-bearing side means exact source episteme X. Additional exact source epistemes and governed relations may be cited by c; an open corpus or record neighborhood is inadmissible. A selected source pack or set can itself be X only if it independently has exact claim content, exact EntityOfConcern, and effective reference scheme.
• Coarsened rendering means exact receiving coarsened episteme Y. A visible summary, page, tile, publication form, or carrier expresses or exposes Y only through separately governed relations; it is not Y merely by readability.
• Narrower admissible use means the practical use for which the controlled-loss construction permits Y, such as orientation, retrieval, bounded disclosure, workshop framing, or preliminary triage.
• Non-admissible downstream use means the use Y does not make admissible alone, such as approval, audit closure, release gate, work plan, equivalence, bridge/substitution, accountability finding, or canonical technical claim.
• Return trigger means the condition that requires exact X, an exact source relation, local re-expansion, or another governing FPF pattern.
• Claim-bearing case means a coarsening use that will be cited, disputed, externally relied on, policy-bearing, bridge-adjacent, gate-adjacent, work-adjacent, privacy-sensitive, or assurance-facing.

The mathematical construction performs no Work. When a person or tool actually prepares Y, identify the system, exact role assignment, dated Work, enacted method, source-use or A.6.1 bindings, and any A.15.PROD inception claim separately. Work or generation does not prove conservativity or controlled loss.

Publication also remains separate. E.24.PUB identifies an exact occurrence that makes one selected episteme edition available to a declared audience for a bounded use through one exact publication form and U.PresentationCarrier. Plain published episteme names that contingent use, not a durable kind. Publication does not become X or Y, establish c, or widen the admissible use.

#Ordinary mini-card

For ordinary use, publish only the smallest card that keeps the coarsened rendering honest.

The six-row card remains lightweight, but exact c : X -> Y and both endpoint identities are recoverable beside it. The card makes only the named narrower use admissible; it never makes the non-admissible use admissible and only directs return to exact X, exact governed source relations, or the direct next governor.

The card may live inline. Inherited pins count only when they resolve to exact X; a nearby publication, file, source set, or title is not enough.

If exact Y is used only for local orientation and exact X plus c are immediately recoverable, keep the six-row card inline and do not create another durable coarsening object unless reuse, reliance, citation, or dispute appears.

#First check

Before using this pattern, ask:

1. Are exact source episteme X and receiving coarsened episteme Y independently identified by claim content, EntityOfConcern, and effective U.ReferenceScheme?
2. Does exact c : X -> Y state same EntityOfConcern, claim construction, endpoint scheme relation, preserved claims, controlled loss, prohibited strengthening, and applicability?
3. Does Y make only the named narrower use admissible, with stronger downstream use explicitly non-admissible?
4. Does the return condition resolve to exact X, exact governed source relations, or the direct next governor?
5. Are any source set, model, graph, state representation, evidence set, publication occurrence, form, carrier, actual Work, viewpoint, representation, and grounding facts kept separate and opened only when current?

If any answer is no, do not polish a coarsening story. If Y lacks C.2.1 identity, keep the item candidate prose/form/carrier and use its direct governor. If the A.6.3 law fails, block CSC or use A.6.4/another exact neighbor. A prospective repair request, work-plan entry, or source-gap note guides only future repair; it cannot backdate admissibility, Work, evidence, approval, gate passage, release permission, or engineering justification.

#Ordinary vs claim-bearing

Ordinary cases should remain light. A short orientation summary, redacted partner note, workshop simplification, or lookup handle does not need the full assurance record if the six-row card is recoverable.

Claim-bearing cases add only the fields that matter for the use under repair, dispute, reliance, citation, policy, bridge, work, gate, privacy, or assurance case. This list is not a daily gate for ordinary summaries, briefings, redactions, or lookup handles:

The fields below inherit the E.17:5.1e local-field rule. They are review aids for one coarsened-rendering case, not U.Kind, publication-face kind, RelationKind, KindBridge, EvidenceKind, GateDecision, SpeechAct, Commitment, U.Work, authoritySourceRef destination, or project-side FPF kind and reference named by value unless another governing FPF pattern explicitly instantiates that object.

• sourceEpistemeRef, receivingCoarsenedEpistemeRef, and viewingConstructionRefOrStatement first; separately identify any PublicationUnit, publication occurrence, publication face/form, interop publication form, or carrier that exposes either endpoint;
• coarsenedRenderingPublicationUnitIfAny when the coarsened rendering is carried by one PublicationUnit that is distinct from the publication, disclosure note, dashboard tile, or interop publication form on which it appears;
• governingPatternRef, projectSourceRecordRef, or one privileged reopen path, so a coarsened rendering cannot reset its own provenance;
• coarseningBranch, sourceLossMode, and admissibleUseValue as separate fields;
• recoverabilityAfterCoarsening when the source-loss mode affects claim admissibility, accountability, admissible-use value, or later citation;
• at least one kept claim bundle or distinction bundle, one coarsened or dropped bundle, and one reopen-only bundle when the case is disputed or later-cited;
• sourceRelationClass when the E.17:5.1b classes could diverge: source pointer, source availability, source retrieval, source use, source faithfulness, claim admissibility, contradiction, plausibility-only, omission, declared source-loss mode, added commitment, added linkage, independent verification, admissible use, non-admissible downstream use, or reopen trigger;
• uncertainty or abstention state when branch interpretation, preserved distinctions, source pin, or admissible use cannot yet be stated stably;
• independent-verification question when downstream testing, assurance, gate, or external reliance appears;
• audienceOverReadRisk, plus a light reader-reliance or user-evidence check when readers may mistake the coarsened rendering for authority it does not carry;
• whether local re-expansion is enough to repair the current rendering or whether downstream use still needs return to the source-bearing side or named authoritySourceRef destination.

#Branch and admissible-use discipline

coarseningBranch answers what sort of coarsening case this is. sourceLossMode names what was lost from the source-bearing side. admissibleUseValue answers which use of the coarsened rendering remains admissible. Do not infer any one of the three from the others.

Ordinary admissible use covers aggregation, quotient-like orientation, didactic or report summaries, and briefings only for the named narrower use. Source-pinned-only use covers surrogate, index, retrieval-hint, lookup, and handle forms; these may help find or orient to the source but do not provide claim admissibility themselves. authoritySourceRef-reopen-only covers the exceptional case where the coarsened rendering names the source whose named authority relation must be reopened; the coarsened rendering itself does not become the authoritySourceRef destination, evidence source, gate source, or work source.

Privacy or redaction cases are admissible here only when the card names the sharing boundary, the source-loss mode, what was withheld or coarsened, the main re-identification or accountability risk being reduced, the source-bearing review path, and the accountability or gate uses that remain non-admissible.

Exceptional interop-facing simplification is not ordinary coarsening. It is admissible here only when exact X, exact Y, and c stay recoverable and the account names the exact operative relation claim, such as bounded contrast, broader/narrower, partial overlap, proxy, or lossy normalization. If bounded comparison across exact source epistemes is primary, use E.17.ID.CR. Equivalence, substitution, projection, or Bridge use routes to F.9/F.9.1; scheme difference or publication adjacency proves none.

#Source-loss mode, recoverability, and anti-overread

The card must name the live sourceLossMode before a coarsened rendering is treated as admissible for its stated use. A source-loss mode is not a strength scale. It names which source-bearing distinction failed to travel into the coarsened rendering.

Recoverability and admissible use are separate. A recoverable coarsened rendering is not automatically admissible for downstream use, and a non-admissible use is not repaired merely by saying the source could be found.

A coarsening chain may not reset provenance. For X -> Y1 -> Y2, identify all three epistemes and both constructions, carry forward earlier loss and uncertainty, and state only the added loss at the second step. If that cannot be done, return to exact X.

Aggregation or quotient-like coarsening remains here only while exact Y concerns the same exact EntityOfConcern as X; a bounded selected set may appear inside claim content but is not an endpoint by itself. If several entities or alternatives become a new class-level or proxy EntityOfConcern, use A.6.4.

#Neighboring-pattern boundaries

Neighboring governing patterns may point here when a coarsened rendering relation becomes primary. They do not govern the shared coarsening relation by local repetition.

#Well-formedness constraints

Well-formedness constraint CSC-WF-1 (exact controlled-coarsening construction). A case is well formed only when it identifies exact X, exact Y, and exact c : X -> Y; the same EntityOfConcern; one declared narrower admissible use; one non-admissible downstream use; controlled loss; and one visible return to exact X, governed source relations, or direct next governor. A source publication, declared set, model, graph, state representation, evidence set, open corpus, folder, topic, search cluster, form, or carrier cannot substitute for either endpoint.

Well-formedness constraint CSC-WF-2 (no authority upgrade). A coarsened rendering does not gain evidence, bridge, work, approval, gate, or adjudication authority by repetition, fluency, audience convenience, citation, or publication on a more visible publication face or channel.

Well-formedness constraint CSC-WF-3 (source path continuity). A coarsening chain remains well formed only while exact original source episteme, every intermediate receiving/source episteme, every declared construction, accumulated loss, uncertainty state, and return remain recoverable.

#Archetypal Grounding

Tell. Controlled semantic coarsening is exact c : X -> Y under declared loss, narrower use, and return. It is not simplification as style, a source-set edge, or a publication/form/carrier change.

Show (System). Exact incident episteme IR-42-X contains trace, confidence-band, and alternative-branch claims. Exact orientation episteme IR-42-Manager-Y carries a controlled subset. A dashboard tile exposes Y; it may orient planning but cannot approve release, close audit, prove causality, or trigger Work.

Show (Episteme). Exact research-review episteme ResearchReview-X is used to construct exact retrieval episteme RiskHandle-Y. The visible handle is a form; its retrieval-only use returns to X because it does not carry evidence, alternatives, or source relations.

#Worked slices

Manager orientation summary. Exact source episteme IR-42-X states trace, confidence-band, alternative-branch, and incident claims about exact incident IR-42 under its effective incident-analysis scheme. Exact coarsened episteme IR-42-Manager-Y states the narrower cache-failover orientation claim about the same incident under its effective briefing scheme. ManagerCoarsening : X -> Y preserves the leading-concern claim, drops confidence bands and alternatives, blocks approval/audit/release/causal/work-order use, and returns to X. A dashboard tile and its carrier merely expose Y.

Redacted partner note. Exact source episteme IncidentDisclosure-X and exact receiving episteme PartnerDisclosure-Y concern the same incident. Their declared coarsening omits actor identity and trace path for bounded disclosure, preserves coordination claims, blocks accountability/legal/audit/readiness/gate use, and returns to X or the exact authority destination. The note form, redaction layout, and carrier are not either episteme.

Redacted functional-description publication. Exact source episteme FunctionalArchitecture-X states flow relations, method-selection limits, work-plan prerequisites, result-measurement requirements, and two exception claims about one exact system. Exact partner episteme FunctionalPartner-Y concerns the same system; PartnerFunctionalCoarsening : X -> Y preserves the main flow claim, removes exceptions and measurement detail, permits bounded coordination orientation, blocks work/gate/evidence/justification/control/release use, and returns to X. A partner table and carrier expose Y through E.24.PUB.

Coarsened narrative briefing. Exact source episteme ArchitectureCandidates-X states three candidate, two trade-off, and one unresolved-constraint claims about one exact system. Exact briefing episteme CandidateBriefing-Y concerns the same system. NAR governs its narrative ordering; CSC governs its declared omission of alternatives, orientation-only use, blocked selection/decision/implementation/evidence use, and return to X. The briefing form is neither endpoint.

Exceptional interop-facing simplification. Exact source episteme ExchangeComparison-X states the bounded source-local claims and exact comparison/Bridge dependencies. Exact orientation episteme ExchangeGloss-Y states the narrower broader-than gloss about the same comparison EntityOfConcern. InteropCoarsening : X -> Y does not establish equivalence, projection, substitution, or a Bridge; those uses require F.9/F.9.1 or return to X.

Bad fit: hidden work authority. Deployment may proceed; see summary S-3. This is not an admissible controlled coarsening card. The sentence tries to convert a coarsened summary into execution or gate authority. Use A.15, A.20, or A.21, and reopen the source-bearing side before any work or approval claim proceeds.

#Bias-Annotation

Lenses tested: Gov, Arch, Onto and Epist, Prag, Did. Scope: Universal for source-to-rendering relations that claim controlled semantic coarsening inside FPF.

This pattern favors Prag and Did by allowing useful coarsened renderings to remain cheap and readable. It also favors Gov and Arch by requiring non-admissible downstream use, source reopen, and neighboring-pattern application when release, policy, assurance, adjudication, bridge, work, evidence, or gate use is attempted. The mitigation for over-governance is the ordinary mini-card: ordinary cases stay light, and only dispute, citation, external reliance, policy, bridge, work, gate, privacy, assurance, release, or adjudication use adds claim-bearing fields.

#Conformance and counterexample replay

A check is retained only if it changes the next admissible use, blocks a concrete overclaim, or preserves the exact source-return path.

#CSC-Core

#Claim-bearing conditions

#Counterexample replay

After a bounded correction replay its local counterexample; after the batch run this complete table once. Do not repeat the whole host audit after every correction.

#Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

#Consequences

#Rationale

Controlled coarsening is useful because FPF work often needs cheap readable forms. It is risky because cheap readable forms often travel farther than their admissible use. The pattern therefore does not ban coarsened renderings; it makes the source-to-rendering relation explicit enough that later users know when to stop, reopen, or hand off to another governing FPF pattern or authoritySourceRef destination.

This pattern is narrower than a general simplification pattern. It applies only when the coarsened rendering remains tied to a source-bearing side and carries a narrower-use card.

The core memory aid is simple: exact coarsened episteme Y may help interpretation, but it must not become exact source episteme X. A publication occurrence, form, carrier, source set, model, graph, or evidence set may expose or be designated by an endpoint but cannot replace one. If admissibility is missing, a repair or return note guides only future work and does not backdate Y into source relation or authority.

#SoTA-Echoing: Adopted Or Adapted Invariants And Rejected Shortcuts

SoTA alignment rule. Read each row here as source idea -> local FPF invariant -> practical local test -> popular shortcut rejected. A source citation governs nothing by reputation; it counts only when the cited idea is translated into the Solution, conformance checks, boundary rules, worked slices, and Relations of this pattern.

Purpose. This section justifies the pattern's safeguards. It is not an additional operational checklist. The Solution, Conformance Checklist, worked slices, and Relations above carry the live pattern discipline.

Positive SoTA role. Use CSC when a coarsened readable rendering is still worth using in project work, but only for a narrower admissible use and without pretending that the rendering carries the source-bearing side's admissibility.

The practical implication is the same across these traditions: coarsened readable publication faces or renderings are valuable, but their admissible use depends on source relation, relation kind, validation evidence, audience, and reopen path. The worked slices in A.6.3.CSC:5.1 are the nearest recovery loci for those SoTA rows.

Semantic-web boundary. In the W3C row, Data on the Web, SHACL, and DCAT govern publication metadata, provenance, validation, cataloging, and interoperability. They do not by themselves make work occurrence, gate passage, bridge or substitution use, equivalence, release permission, or project claim admissibility admissible; those uses require the governing pattern or project-side FPF kind and reference named by value that carries that claim.

#Relations

• Specializes: A.6.3 U.EpistemicViewing as exact same-EntityOfConcern controlled-loss construction c : X -> Y between independently constituted epistemes.
• Coordinates with: A.6.3.CR, A.6.3.RT, A.6.3.NAR, E.17.EFP, E.17.ID.CR, F.9, F.9.1, A.15, A.6.4, A.20, and A.21.
• Does not replace: conservative retextualization, representation-scheme transition, structure-to-narrative rendering, explanation profiling, bounded comparative review, bridge-card discipline, stance overlay, changed-EntityOfConcern discipline, work authority, gate authority, or adjudication authority.
• Entry relation: neighboring patterns enter only when exact receiving episteme Y needs a narrower-use, non-admissible-use, controlled-loss, and source-return account; a readable form alone does not open CSC.
• Governing-pattern relation wording: this pattern is a specialization under A.6.3, not a bundle, suite, profile, overlay, or review pack. Its governing role is limited to the controlled-coarsening relation itself.

#Boundary with quantum-like state-representation coarsening

Use CSC first when exact source episteme X is used to construct less detailed exact episteme Y for a narrower use, including claims about a model, state representation, or evidence set. A dashboard row, partner-safe page, diagram, or coarse display is a form or carrier unless a claim-bearing Y is independently constituted. Ordinary controlled simplification remains CSC even when lossy.

Application sequence:

1. Identify X and Y by their C.2.1 identity triples and state c : X -> Y.
2. State the narrower use of Y before relying on its content.
3. State lost claims, distinctions, evidence paths, comparability, uncertainty, state dimensions, or alternatives.
4. State admissible and non-admissible uses in practical terms.
5. State return to exact X or its governed source relations.
6. If Y claims preservation of action, intervention, manipulation, explanation, or cross-abstraction structure, state the exact correspondence or causal-abstraction relation before relying on that claim.
7. Ask whether the shortcut depends on a QL cue such as incompatible probes, contextual probability, instrument-like update, an open-information-system update rule, or no faithful-enough export for the declared use. If not, stay in CSC.
8. If yes, coordinate with C.26 while leaving CSC as the controlled-loss/use boundary.

For ordinary use, start with this mini-form:

Use a fuller CSC/C.26 account only when Y will be reused, formalized, empirically compared, used in a high-stakes decision, or tied to comparative performance. Keep exact endpoints and construction, lost distinctions, admissible and non-admissible uses, return, and the surviving QL cue recoverable. Do not add QL wording for summary, anonymization, diagramming, audience adaptation, or ordinary coarsening alone.

#C.29 mathematical-lens use relation

When controlled semantic coarsening depends on mathematical abstraction, quotienting, coarse-graining, or a learned coarse representation, A.6.3.CSC still governs the source-bearing return condition, narrowed admissible use, non-admissible downstream claim, and coarsened rendering. The applicable C.29 output for the stated use (MathLensUse.LensCandidateNote, MathLensUse.OneLine, MathLensUse.MiniCard, or MathLensUse.FullCard when required) may be cited only for adequacy of the mathematical abstraction or coarse-graining lens. It does not make the coarsened rendering a bridge, replacement source, evidence record, or causal-use admissibility.

#A.6.3.CSC:End

---

Last Updated: 2026-08-03 — this section last modified in upstream FPF commit 9dd92159 (github.com/ailev/FPF)