FPF Reference

A.6.P:4.0b — Candidate‑Set Note (informative; review artifact)

Preface node heading:a-6-p-4-0b-candidate-set-note-informative-review-artifact:10677

Content

When endpoint identity (pronoun/deixis/metonymy/coarse kind) or relation-kind selection is ambiguous, reviews can collapse into “lexicon debates”. A.6.P treats this as an ontology reconstruction step with an explicit, checkable intermediate artifact.

Candidate‑Set Note template (informative).

Collision note. This “Candidate‑Set Note” is not the F.18 naming-process candidate set (NQD-front). It is a local disambiguation artifact for endpoint referents/facets and RelationKind selection during RPR repairs.

For each ambiguous role (relation kind, endpoint facet/kind, qualifier, mediator), record:

  • Trigger span: the exact surface token(s) in the draft (copy/paste).
  • Role being disambiguated: headKind | relationKind | endpointFacet(pᵢ) | endpointRef(pᵢ) | qualifier(qⱼ) | mediator.
  • Lane (A.7) (when endpoint‑side): Object | Description | Carrier (state explicitly when live contenders span lanes; lane‑mixing is a common source of “contract” category errors).
  • Candidate set: a short list of plausible head kinds, kinds/facets, and/or RelationKind tokens (not synonyms), each with the local cue(s) that made it plausible.
  • Selected facet/kind (and selected RelationKind, if relevant): the chosen candidate(s).
  • Why: the discriminating test(s) that were applied, plus pointers to the specific local evidence/witness cues used (carriers, claims, artefacts).
  • Consequence: which SlotSpecs become required/forbidden and which A.6.B hooks are now triggered (L/A/D/E).

Minimal one‑screen representation:

Candidates (kinds/facets/tokens)Selected facet/kindWhy (tests + cues)Consequence (slots + routing hooks)
C1 …; C2 …; C3 …………

Notes.

  • For metonymy, list both the literal candidate and the intended target candidate (and make the shift explicit).
  • Keep the candidate set small: include only live contenders, and state the elimination test for the others.
  • This note is informative: it does not replace routed L/A/D/E claims. It exists to prevent “lexicon instead of ontology”.