Outcome (Ontology-first)

This is a residual post-#29 inconsistency, not a reopening of #29.

The current A.2.6 normative layer is still locally inconsistent (categorical failure): it continues to type U.Scope / U.ClaimScope (G) as a characteristic in checklist and lexical phrasing, even though post-#29 FPF now normalizes G as a USM scope object.

1) Terms and normalization (scholastic)

• U.Characteristic: a measurable aspect governed by CHR / CSLC scale discipline.
• U.Scope: a USM scope object over U.ContextSlice with set algebra.
• U.ClaimScope (G): an episteme-side specialization of U.Scope; not a CHR characteristic.
• U.WorkScope: a capability-side specialization of U.Scope; not a CHR characteristic.

Normalization used in this issue: all scope terms are treated as scope objects / scope types, never as characteristics.

2) Ontology validation

Failure type: categorical.

Evidence

Current upstream/main still contains normative wording that types scope as characteristic:

• FPF-Spec.md:3840 — Do not name the characteristic ...
• FPF-Spec.md:4273 — Scope characteristics are set-valued ...
• FPF-Spec.md:4278 — deprecated aliases MUST NOT name the characteristic

This conflicts with the already accepted post-#29 ontology where G is a USM scope object, not a CHR characteristic.

Concrete counterexample

A set of context slices can be translated, intersected, widened, or narrowed while remaining the same kind of object. A characteristic, by contrast, is governed by scale/measurement legality. Calling the scope object itself a characteristic collapses object-kind and measurement-kind into one genus. That is a category mistake.

3) Logical analysis

• Hidden assumption: any reusable normative variable must belong to the CHR genus of Characteristic.
• Hidden assumption: set-valued scope can be safely named as a characteristic as long as arithmetic is avoided.
• Both assumptions fail after B.3/A.2.6/C.2.2 ontology inconsistency: G as characteristic vs scope object #29, because the accepted repair was not merely “no arithmetic on G”; it was “G is not a characteristic at all”.
• Salvage by trivialization risk: keeping the old noun characteristic while informally saying “set-valued” preserves the old category label and only weakens its consequences. That does not repair the ontology.

4) Modalities separated

• Alethic / typing: what G is.
• Deontic: what authors and guards MUST call it.
• Pragmatic: how scope objects are used in checklist and guard prose.

5) Structured argument (premises -> steps -> conclusion)

Premises

• P1: post-B.3/A.2.6/C.2.2 ontology inconsistency: G as characteristic vs scope object #29 FPF treats G as a USM scope object.
• P2: A.2.6 checklist and lexical lines still call scope a characteristic.

Steps

• S1: If P1 and P2 both hold in the same normative layer, one and the same thing is being typed under two incompatible genera.
• S2: Because this occurs in checklist wording, the inconsistency is not merely explanatory drift; it affects the canonical conformance layer.

Conclusion

A.2.6 still contains a residual categorical inconsistency after #29.

6) Minimal repair

In A.2.6 only:

1. Replace Scope characteristics are set-valued with Scope objects are set-valued or equivalent.
2. Replace all name the characteristic wording for scope aliases with name the scope object or name the scope type.
3. Leave the USM algebra unchanged.

Acceptance expectation

A.2.6 becomes fully consistent with E.10:8.9 L-CHR-STRICT and the ontology already accepted in #29, without touching B.3 or C.2/C.3.