Outcome (Ontology-first)

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

The didactic layer in C.2 / C.3 still reintroduces the old ontology by teaching G as if it were a characteristic / coordinate-like member of the same genus as F and R, even though post-#29 FPF now normalizes G as a USM scope object.

1) Terms and normalization (scholastic)

• U.Characteristic: a measurable aspect under CHR / CSLC legality.
• Coordinate: a value in a declared characteristic space.
• U.ClaimScope (G): a USM scope object over U.ContextSlice; it is not a CHR characteristic and not a coordinate in a characteristic space.
• Didactic layer: explanatory framing that teaches readers what the ontology is.

Normalization used in this issue: F and R are characteristics; G is a scope object; CL is an edge/relation property.

2) Ontology validation

Failure type: categorical.

Evidence

Current upstream/main still teaches the old grouping in several places:

• FPF-Spec.md:28329 — three point-characteristics
• FPF-Spec.md:28335 — G described as how much structure it manages
• FPF-Spec.md:28352-28354 — Coordinates and the triangle / point-values
• FPF-Spec.md:31145 — characteristic 1 (USM, G)

Concrete counterexample

A reader taught that G is a point-characteristic or coordinate is invited to think of it as a value in the same geometric regime as F and R. But a scope object can be intersected, translated, widened, or narrowed by set-algebraic laws without becoming a CHR coordinate. The same entity cannot be both a set-valued scope object and a point-characteristic in one univocal teaching layer.

3) Logical analysis

• Hidden assumption: every member of the assurance tuple must be pedagogically teachable as a point-characteristic.
• Hidden assumption: calling G a coordinate is harmless if later prose adds “set-valued applicability”.
• Both fail because the category label in the didactic layer shapes the reader’s ontology before the caveats arrive.
• Salvage by trivialization risk: keeping the old coordinate/characteristic vocabulary while adding local clarifications about scope leaves the old genus in place and only weakens its consequences.

4) Modalities separated

• Alethic / typing: what kind of thing G is.
• Didactic / pedagogical: how readers are taught to classify it.
• Deontic: what the canonical explanatory layer may or may not say.

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 normalizes G as a USM scope object.
• P2: C.2 / C.3 still teach G as point-characteristic / coordinate-like.

Steps

• S1: If P1 and P2 both hold, then the explanatory layer reintroduces the very category error the normative layer is trying to eliminate.
• S2: Because C.2 / C.3 are teaching-layer entry points, the inconsistency propagates to reader understanding even if later formulas are locally repaired.

Conclusion

C.2 / C.3 still contain a residual categorical teaching drift after #29.

6) Minimal repair

In C.2 / C.3 only:

1. Replace three point-characteristics / point-values wording with two characteristics (F,R) + one scope object (G).
2. Replace how much structure it manages with an applicability-based definition of G over U.ContextSlice.
3. Replace characteristic 1 (USM, G) with scope object 1 (USM, G) or equivalent.
4. Leave A.2.6 and B.3 untouched in this PR.

Acceptance expectation

C.2 and C.3 stop teaching G as characteristic/coordinate/axis and become didactically consistent with the ontology already accepted in #29.