Cognitive apprenticeship is a specialization of pedagogy whose distinctive move is externalizing the normally-hidden cognitive processes of experts — through modeling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection, and exploration in authentic contexts — so that learners can observe and progressively internalize tacit expertise. It inherits pedagogy's general commitment that an instructional agent deliberately structures the learner's encounter with content to cause durable capability change, and adds the specific commitment that the content being structured is precisely the unspoken procedural knowledge that traditional instruction leaves invisible.

Cognitive apprenticeship is a specific pedagogy that makes expert tacit cognitive processes observable so novices can practice and internalize them.


cognitive_dissonance is the SPECIALISATION of the general dissonance prime to the cognitive substrate — fixing the elements (beliefs/behaviour), the rule of fit (cognitive consistency), and the resolution mechanism (revise belief/behaviour/self-image, all flavours of RESOLVE). The general prime adds the sustain/reframe/distance options the cognitive child lacks and covers acoustic/colour/software cases with no self or arousal. Add dissonance as parent of cognitive_dissonance.

Cognitive_dissonance is the SPECIALISATION of the general dissonance prime to the cognitive substrate — fixing the elements (beliefs/behaviour), the rule of fit (cognitive consistency), and the resolution mechanism (revise belief/behaviour/self-image, all flavours of RESOLVE).


Cognitive dissonance is the homeostatic particularization for the variable of cognitive consistency among a person's beliefs, behaviors, and self-conceptions: when inconsistency exceeds the acceptable band, an aversive state arises and drives revision of one or more cognitions to restore consistency. Where homeostasis names closed-loop self-regulation around a setpoint generally, dissonance fixes the regulated variable as inter-cognitive consistency and the actuator as belief-change, behavior-change, or trivialization — a particular sensor-comparator-actuator loop operating on the psychological field of cognitions.

Cognitive dissonance is the specific shape homeostasis takes when cognitive consistency is the regulated variable and belief-or-behavior revision is the corrective response.


Cognitive entrenchment is a specialization of lock-in. The general pattern is that the forward-looking cost of switching from a current commitment exceeds continuing, because accumulated investment does not transfer to alternatives. Cognitive entrenchment instantiates this with the commitment being internalized mental models, procedures, and category structures from accumulated domain expertise; the non-transferable accumulation is the schema base itself. Revising toward novel representations costs more than continuing with proceduralized expertise, even when the domain has shifted and a different representation would now be superior.

Cognitive entrenchment is a specific kind of lock-in where accumulated expert schemas make revising mental structures costlier than continuing with them.


Cognitive entrenchment is the condition in which long expertise produces deeply internalized mental models, procedures, and category structures that resist revision when the domain shifts. The thing that becomes entrenched is the agent's representation of how the domain works — its components, relationships, and inferential rules — which is exactly a Mental Model. Cognitive entrenchment presupposes mental model as the object whose stabilization over time is the very phenomenon being named.

Cognitive Entrenchment presupposes Mental Model: the entrenched structure is precisely a deeply internalized mental model of the domain.


Cognitive flexibility is an adaptive capacity: detect frame-context misfit and switch the active frame from a held repertoire. A specialization of adaptation in agent-cognitive systems. Adaptation supplies the genus: Systems adjust to conditions. Cognitive Flexibility preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Switching the active frame from a held repertoire when a trigger detects the current one has stopped fitting the context. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association. The typical qualifier limits the claim to the characteristic route, not a constitutive requirement of every instance; exceptions must retain the child's identity through another mechanism.


Cognitive resource depletion is the time-dependent degradation of cognitive capacity through sustained resource consumption without restoration. The construct presupposes that there is a maintained mental capacity available beyond immediate need — a reserve that performance draws from and depletes through use. Reserve supplies that structural object: a deliberately maintained surplus held beyond expected need, used to absorb load. Without an underlying reserve to draw on, depletion would have nothing to deplete from; the inverted-U of performance decay over time presupposes a finite buffer being consumed.

Cognitive resource depletion presupposes reserve because depletion is the consumption of a deliberately-held mental capacity buffer.


Cognitive resource depletion is the time-dependent degradation of mental capacity under sustained use: as resources are consumed, available capacity falls below the demands of effortful self-regulation and deliberation. That is exactly the Scarcity condition — available quantity insufficient to satisfy simultaneous demands, forcing allocation choices. Cognitive resource depletion specializes scarcity by making the scarce resource a temporally dynamic capacity that depletes with use and replenishes with rest.

Cognitive Resource Depletion is a kind of scarcity: cognitive capacity becomes insufficient to satisfy simultaneous deliberative demands.


Coherence breakdown under external interaction presupposes coupling because the mechanism it names is the dynamic linkage between the coherent system and uncontrolled environmental degrees of freedom: that linkage is what entangles internal phase information with external noise and suppresses off-diagonal coherence. Without the prior availability of coupling as a channel through which state in one subsystem becomes input to another, the system could not be reached by the environment at all, and there would be no pathway by which its coordinated state could be degraded.

Coherence breakdown under external interaction presupposes coupling because it occurs precisely when the system becomes dynamically linked to its environment.


Coherence breakdown is the loss of phase alignment or internal coordination when a system couples to an uncontrolled environment, with quantum decoherence as the canonical mechanism. This presupposes dissipation: the systematic, irreversible transformation of organized energy or order into thermalized, un-recoverable form through interaction with many degrees of freedom. The environment's many degrees of freedom are precisely the dissipative sink into which off-diagonal coherence terms flow. Without dissipation's one-way leakage channel, environmental coupling would be reversible and coherence would not break down.

Coherence breakdown under external interaction presupposes dissipation because uncontrolled environmental coupling is the channel through which order leaks away.


Coherence breakdown under external interaction presupposes environmental coupling strength because the rate at which off-diagonal coherence is suppressed and internal coordination lost is set precisely by how strongly the system is coupled to its environment. Strong coupling means rapid decoherence; weak coupling means the coherent state can be sustained. Without the prior notion of a graded boundary-permeability quantifying how much information or energy crosses the system-environment interface, there is no parameter to govern the breakdown's onset, timescale, or severity.

Coherence breakdown under external interaction presupposes environmental coupling strength because its rate is fixed by how strongly the system couples to its environment.


Collective effervescence is a specialization of emergence. The general emergence pattern is the appearance at a higher level of organization of properties not present in lower-level constituents and not trivially predictable from them. Collective effervescence specializes by naming the constituents — co-present individuals — and the higher-level property — heightened shared emotional energy qualitatively distinct from individual affect, attributed to sacred symbols and generating durable solidarity. The same higher-level-novelty-from-interaction logic applies, with synchronized ritual gathering as the specific interaction rule and ritual energy as the specific emergent property.

Collective effervescence is a specialization of emergence in which gathered individuals' synchronized attention produces heightened shared affect transcending individual states.


Collective effervescence is the heightened emotional and energetic state arising when individuals gather, synchronize attention and movement, and orient to a sacred symbol — the structural conditions ritual supplies. Without ritual's machinery — rule-governed, repetitive, symbolically charged performance that aligns participants' attention and bodies — the conditions for effervescent intensification would not obtain. The ritual prime provides the synchronized symbolic substrate on which the effervescent state emerges as a recurring sociological mechanism rather than a chance crowd phenomenon.

Collective effervescence presupposes ritual because the heightened shared emotional state emerges specifically from the synchronized symbolic performance of ritual assembly.


Both are task-specific beliefs by an agent about its own capacity to organize and execute action, affecting effort, persistence, and target selection. The child requires the agent to be plural, the capability to be conjoint rather than additive, and the belief to be sufficiently shared to regulate coordinated group effort.

Collective efficacy is self-efficacy at the level of a collective agent, adding shared belief and conjoint capability for coordinated group action.


Collective memory is the specific shape representation takes when the target is a group's past — events, persons, narratives — and the medium is the distributed system of monuments, holidays, textbooks, rituals, and commemorative practices through which that past is held in common. It is a structurally-particularized instance of structured mapping from target to medium under a faithfulness convention, with the added commitments that the medium is socially distributed rather than individual, the mapping is reproduced across generations through transmission, and the representation feeds back to constitute the group's identity rather than merely standing for an external object.

Collective memory is the specific shape representation takes when a group encodes its shared past through institutions, rituals, and narratives.


Collective systemic learning is a kind of learning specialized by the locus of the durable update: the learning agent is an organization, team, consortium, or community rather than an individual mind. It inherits learning's general commitment to durable, experience-driven self-update of an agent's internal capability, and adds the specific machinery of system-level acquisition — knowledge capture, integration, embedded processes, structures, documentation, and culture — that makes the update organizational rather than personal and that lets the system as a whole adapt while individual members come and go.

Collective systemic learning is a specialization of learning in which the agent doing the updating is a multi-component system rather than an individual.


Color harmony presupposes unity and variety because its central achievement — a palette that reads as coordinated rather than discordant — operates by balancing unifying color relationships (analogous hues, shared saturation, consistent value range) against the variety needed to avoid monotony (complementary contrast, triadic span, accent introduction). Without unity-and-variety's prior structure of relational balance between coherence and differentiation, there is no evaluative dimension along which a palette can be judged harmonious. Color harmony inherits this balancing structure and specializes it to the hue, saturation, and value relations of a color set.

Color harmony presupposes unity and variety because harmonious palettes balance shared color relationships against the differentiation needed for visual interest.


A commitment is a reflexive (self-imposed) constraint-creation on one's own future; commitment is a kind-of constraint (the existing commitment_device already sits under constraint). Constraint supplies the genus: Limits possibilities to guide outcomes. Commitment preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: An agent binds itself in the present to a future course of action or to the truth of a proposition, creating a new constraint on future behavior that others can rely on. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.


commitment_device is the INTRAPERSONAL-TEMPTATION subcase: a present self foreclosing a tempted future self's options under time-inconsistent preferences. commitment is the general state, also covering binding to ANOTHER party and to a proposition's truth (a vow, a contract, a database COMMIT) with no present/future-self conflict. Re-parent commitment_device under commitment; it keeps its temporal_inconsistency;constraint parents as composition edges.

Commitment_device is the INTRAPERSONAL-TEMPTATION subcase: a present self foreclosing a tempted future self's options under time-inconsistent preferences.


A commitment device works by deliberately altering the future choice set so that tempting deviations become impossible or costly — voluntarily imposing a binding restriction on one's later admissible actions. Without constraint's machinery of binding restriction on admissible configurations, there would be no structural difference between announcing an intention and locking in a course: the device's whole logic is to convert a soft preference into a hard constraint. The parent prime supplies the binding-restriction structure that the commitment device deploys against time-inconsistent preferences.

A commitment device presupposes constraint because its function is to deliberately restrict the future feasible set of one's later self.


A commitment device is a deliberate restriction of one's future choice set imposed by the present self to bind a later self against tempting deviation. The strategy is only intelligible when later preferences are expected to differ from current ones in a predictable way — when the agent anticipates preference reversal as the future becomes present. Temporal inconsistency names exactly this pattern: the same information and goals produce reversed preferences as horizon shortens. Commitment devices presuppose this dynamic as the threat they are designed to neutralize through preemptive self-binding.

Commitment devices presuppose temporal inconsistency because the strategic self-limitation only makes sense when a later self will be tempted to deviate.


Every proposition admitted to the live common-ground substrate satisfies the technical common-knowledge recursion. Common ground is nevertheless a broader maintained interaction structure: grounding moves build and repair that epistemic invariant, its accumulated body licenses abbreviation, and silent drift creates a distinct failure mode. The invariant is therefore a constituent rather than the whole child or merely external context.

Common ground contains common knowledge as its core infinite mutual-recognition invariant, then adds grounding, maintenance, abbreviation, and silent-drift machinery.


The live epistemic condition is organized as K(p), K(K(p)), and arbitrary higher meta-levels. Each rung has a definite asymmetric position and nests the prior statement; the public event lifts a fact through that level structure to its limit. Hierarchy is therefore the tower's internal organization, while common knowledge adds agents, fact semantics, the lifting threshold, and channel fragility.

Common knowledge contains a hierarchy as its infinite tower of asymmetrically nested belief levels, with each higher rung depending on all lower rungs.


The N-by-N to N-by-1 collapse explains the medium's combinatorial value, while Network Effect explains adoption and persistence: every new adopter enlarges the set reachable through the medium and therefore raises its value to existing adopters. The live entry treats that self-reinforcement, adoption threshold, and lock-in as constitutive parts of the pattern.

Common-Medium Intermediation contains a Network Effect because the shared medium becomes more valuable to every participant as more participants adopt it, producing the threshold and lock-in in its signature.


Governance is the general architecture of authority, accountability, decision rights, and dispute resolution. Commons Governance inherits that architecture and adds a shared resource, a community of co-users or contributors, monitoring, congruent rules, graduated sanctions, and nested authority designed to sustain distributed stewardship.

Commons governance is governance specialized to durable community stewardship of a shared resource.


Every repair instance exchanges shared state over an unreliable channel, detects divergence in that stream, sends a meta-channel act through the same medium or a back-channel, and reinserts the repaired state. The conduit is external transmission infrastructure, not a repair protocol subtype or an object that depends on repair.

Communication repair presupposes a channel carrying both the primary exchange and the meta-channel traffic used to detect, repair, and resume after divergence.


Coordination aligns independently controlled agents or processes so their actions produce a coherent result. Communication repair instantiates that pattern after shared understanding diverges: participants detect the mismatch, pause the primary exchange, use a meta-channel act to restore alignment, and resume. It adds the differentia of an unreliable channel, detected divergence, a repair protocol, and a resumption gate. Every defined communication repair is restorative coordination, although most coordination is not repair.

Communication repair is coordination specialized to detecting and restoring divergence in shared understanding over an unreliable channel.


A repair episode observes the state produced by the primary exchange, compares the participants' interpretations, routes evidence of divergence back into the interaction, and uses the response to update shared state. Output from one pass therefore becomes corrective input to the next. The meta-channel, divergence detector, and resumption gate specialize that loop for communication, but without feedback there is no return path by which a misunderstanding can alter the exchange that produced it.

Communication repair contains a feedback loop in which detected divergence is returned through a meta-channel to change the shared state before the primary exchange resumes.


Every instance adaptively probes a deployed rule's discoverable boundary for low-cost configurations that preserve the forbidden payload. It adds a distributed adversary population, low-cost sharing, a public-good technique corpus, amortized discovery cost, and a collective learning rate that exceeds the principal's retraining or rule-revision cycle.

Community-distributed adversarial learning is adversarial boundary navigation performed by a sharing population whose pooled discoveries outpace the principal's rule-update cycle.


Commutativity says that a o b equals b o a for all elements, so the result of the operation is unchanged under the transformation that swaps the operand order. That is the precise structure of Invariance: a named feature (the operation's value) preserved under a named family of transformations (operand permutation). Commutativity specializes invariance by fixing the operation as a binary combiner and the transformation as the order-swap on its two arguments.

Commutativity is a kind of invariance: the result of a binary operation is preserved under the swap-of-operands transformation.


Commutativity is a specialization of symmetry in which the symmetry group is the swap of operands and the operation is left invariant under that swap: a circ b equals b circ a for all operands. It inherits the general symmetry commitment that a system is invariant under a specified group action, and specializes by fixing the group to the two-element permutation of operands of a binary operation. When this swap symmetry holds, sequencing collapses one dimension and unlocks reordering, parallelization, and algebraic manipulations unavailable in non-commutative settings.

Commutativity is a specialization of symmetry in which the transformation group permutes the operands of a binary operation.


Comparative advantage presupposes exchange because the principle recommends specialization based on relative opportunity costs precisely so that the specialized output can be exchanged for surplus from other specialists. Without exchange's bilateral conditional-transfer structure, specialization just produces lopsided autarkic outputs and no mutual gain. Exchange supplies the substrate on which the positive-sum claim is cashed out: the agents involved must trade for the comparative-advantage allocation to be welfare-improving rather than welfare-destroying, so the principle is parasitic on the availability of exchange.

Comparative advantage presupposes exchange because the welfare-improving specialization it recommends only materializes when surpluses are actually traded.


Comparative advantage is the specific shape opportunity cost takes when the choice context is the allocation of production across multiple agents, and the relevant comparison is each agent's opportunity cost of producing one good relative to another. It is a structurally-particularized instance of evaluating choices by the value of the best forgone alternative, with the added commitments that the comparison is interpersonal — not within one agent's options but across agents' relative trade-offs — and that the welfare result is positive-sum specialization-and-trade based on relative rather than absolute production efficiencies.

Comparative advantage is the specific shape opportunity cost takes when production decisions are compared across agents with different alternative-use profiles.


The comparative method is the specific shape comparison takes when it becomes a systematic research strategy in domains where controlled experimentation is impossible. Comparison's general anatomy — comparands, shared frame, alignment rule, output relation — is structurally particularized into selected societies, eras, or organizations as comparands; Mill's methods of agreement and difference as alignment rules; and inferences about what varies and why as outputs. The general operation is preserved; the specific shape is its disciplined deployment as inferential substitute for randomization through deliberate case selection.

The comparative method is the specific shape comparison takes when it becomes a substitute-for-experiment research design across selected cases.


'Equilibrium is the resting-state object comparative statics operates on; comparative statics is the second-order move of comparing two such states... the comparison operator that sits one level above the equilibrium noun.' It presupposes equilibrium. Equilibrium supplies the prerequisite condition: Balanced state. Comparative Statics operates against that background: Compare two equilibria before and after a parameter change, ignoring the path between them. If the parent condition is removed, the child relation becomes undefined or loses the mechanism asserted by this edge; the parent can obtain independently, so the relation is presupposition rather than subsumption.


The comparator that flags divergence between the redundant representations. After the cognitive_science frame is stripped away, the retained structural roles are those of Self Checking: A system detects errors in its own output by computing the answer through partially-independent paths and comparing. Comparison adds the local frame and commitments expressed in its identity: Place items in a shared frame along chosen dimensions to read off a relation between them. The parent pattern remains recognizable without that vocabulary, while the child is the framed realization of it. That preservation test establishes decomposition rather than taxonomic subsumption.


Coercion supplies the genus: Shaping another agent's choice by manipulating the costs and threats attached to their options, so the agent itself 'chooses' the coercer's preferred action — the common parent of forcing an action (compellence) and forcing restraint (deterrence). Compellence preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Imposing ongoing costs to force a positive action and keeping them live until compliance — the action-demanding counterpart to deterrence, structurally harder because compliance is publicly visible and deadline-bound. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.

Compellence is a specialization of Coercion, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.


Differentiation is a niche response only when the initial overlap makes success rivalrous and narrowing reduces that coupling. Without competition, different roles may reflect ordinary division of labor or arbitrary variety rather than competitive niche differentiation.

Competitive niche differentiation presupposes negatively coupled outcomes over an overlapping stake.


Participants concentrate on a narrower range of resources, users, functions, or performance axes and gain local fit at the cost of general reach. It inherits Specialization's narrowing and performance trade, adding the competitor-relative direction of that narrowing.

Competitive niche differentiation is specialization in which narrowing occurs along dimensions that reduce overlap with rivals.


Complement is the residual operation over an already specified universe and subset. It cannot be stated without elements, binary membership, and collection-as-object, but it is not itself the primitive Set and Membership pattern. It adds universe relativity, exhaustive residual formation, and double-complement closure.

Every Complement strictly presupposes a declared universe, a designated subset, and binary membership from which the residual is defined.


Strip the defined population, unit identity, measurement passes, provenance, census cost, and domain-specific downstream inferences. What remains is the requirement that the bounded structure contain no gap relative to its declared coverage criterion. Complete Enumeration is the applied discipline that attempts, audits, and exploits this criterion for population mapping; it is not itself a species of the achieved no-gaps property.

Removing population-mapping and measurement-program vocabulary from Complete Enumeration leaves Completeness as its no-required-unit-missing structural criterion.


Asymptotic Behavior supplies the genus: In the limit, only the dominant term matters, so behavior is classified by growth class rather than exact value and small or fast-decaying contributions are discarded. Complexity (Time/Space) preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Resource scaling with input size. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.

Complexity (Time/Space) is a specialization of Asymptotic Behavior, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.


Parent's own core_idea enumerates computational time/space complexity as one of its constitutive formalizations. Complexity supplies the genus: Measures system intricacy. Complexity (Time/Space) preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Resource scaling with input size. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.


Computational complexity is a specialization of constraint. The general pattern restricts admissible configurations to those satisfying a binding condition, with the feasible set as a first-class object. Complexity instantiates this with the binding condition being asymptotic resource growth: algorithms whose time or space scales as polynomial in input size are admissible for large instances, while exponential-time procedures are practically infeasible. The polynomial-versus-exponential boundary partitions the algorithmic feasible set, supplying a machine-independent admissibility criterion that governs which problems can be solved at scale.

Computational complexity is a specific kind of constraint, binding admissible algorithms to those whose resource growth rate keeps problems practically solvable.


Computational complexity is the specific shape scaling and scale dependence takes when the system in question is an algorithm and the property changing qualitatively with size is resource usage -- time or space. The qualitative-shift signature that scale dependence names appears as the polynomial-versus-exponential boundary: an algorithm efficient at small inputs may be infeasible at large ones not from implementation error but from asymptotic growth rate. Big-O classification is the scale-dependence taxonomy of computational systems.

Computational complexity is the specific shape scaling takes when the system is an algorithm and the resource cost grows with input size.


Composition presupposes Gestalt principles because the orchestration of visual or conceptual elements into a perceived unified whole — its central commitment — works through the perceptual mechanisms by which observers group discrete stimuli into structured wholes: proximity, similarity, continuity, closure, figure-ground, common fate. Without Gestalt's prior grouping operations, the compositional arrangement would register only as a collection of separate items rather than as a coherent ensemble. Composition inherits Gestalt's grouping-rule apparatus and deploys it intentionally, treating the perceptual rules as design levers for guiding attention, weighting elements, and producing coherence.

Composition presupposes Gestalt principles because deliberate arrangement of elements into a unified whole relies on the perceptual grouping rules Gestalt names.


Compression is a specialization of abstraction in which the purpose-relative retention is reduction of representational length: keep the information-theoretic content needed for exact or approximate reconstruction, drop the statistical or perceptual redundancy. It inherits abstraction's general commitment to purpose-relative retention of structure with explicit naming of what is kept and dropped, and specializes by fixing the purpose to storage or transmission economy and the projection to one that shortens symbol count, with the Shannon limit setting the floor on lossless reduction.

Compression is a specialization of abstraction in which the retained structure is information-theoretic regularity and the discarded structure is the redundancy.


Compression encodes information in a shorter representation by exploiting redundancy, deliberately losing or restructuring detail to retain the features that matter for reconstruction or downstream use. That is the move of Aggregation: collapsing many items into a unified form that keeps chosen features while suppressing granular detail. Compression specializes aggregation by tying the suppressed detail to redundancy or perceptual unimportance and by holding a reconstruction or fidelity criterion as the design constraint.

Compression is a kind of aggregation: it collapses redundant detail into a unified shorter representation while retaining chosen structure.


Compression seeks the shortest encoding of a source under a chosen fidelity criterion — exact reconstruction for lossless, bounded distortion for lossy — and trades coding cost against quality at the chosen operating point. That is the optimization triplet: decision variable (the encoding), objective (representation length), and constraint (fidelity). Compression specializes optimization to the encoding-length objective, with rate-distortion theory and entropy bounds setting the achievable frontier.

Compression is a kind of optimization: it minimizes representation length subject to a reconstruction-fidelity constraint.


Per dossier + file: computability is 'the boundary/meta-level relation that algorithm presupposes' — the existence-question (does an effective procedure exist at all?) over algorithm's central object. algorithm is the positive object, computability the partition between buildable and provably-unbuildable. Presupposes the notion of effective procedure.

Per dossier and file: computability is 'the boundary/meta-level relation that algorithm presupposes' — the existence-question (does an effective procedure exist at all?) over algorithm's central object.


Concentration (massing resources at a decisive point) is a specific allocation strategy within resource management's policy space. Resource Management supplies the genus: Allocation of finite assets. Concentration preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Massing a divisible resource or effort at the decisive point rather than spreading it thin — the deliberate creation of local superiority by accepting weakness elsewhere. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association. The typical qualifier limits the claim to the characteristic route, not a constitutive requirement of every instance; exceptions must retain the child's identity through another mechanism.


Calibrated Rule versus Moving World supplies the genus: A rule, model, or policy fitted to a past distribution of the world degrades as the world it was calibrated on drifts away from that distribution. Concept Drift preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A learned rule silently loses validity when the input–outcome relationship it was calibrated on changes underneath it. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.

Concept Drift is a specialization of Calibrated Rule versus Moving World, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.


Concept_drift is 'one substrate-specific case' — the ML instance (a data distribution shifting under a deployed model) of the substrate-neutral non-stationary-objective structure. Non-Stationary Objective supplies the genus: The target moves at a rate comparable to or faster than the system can converge on it, so tracking error replaces steady-state error. Concept Drift preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A learned rule silently loses validity when the input–outcome relationship it was calibrated on changes underneath it. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.


A learned rule loses validity OVER TIME — but the RULE is intact and the WORLD moved (the relationship degraded), distinct from the substrate physically decaying. Temporal Decay and Degradation supplies the prerequisite condition: System properties or capabilities systematically diminish over time. Concept Drift operates against that background: A learned rule silently loses validity when the input–outcome relationship it was calibrated on changes underneath it. If the parent condition is removed, the child relation becomes undefined or loses the mechanism asserted by this edge; the parent can obtain independently, so the relation is presupposition rather than subsumption. The typical qualifier limits the claim to the characteristic route, not a constitutive requirement of every instance; exceptions must retain the child's identity through another mechanism.


Conceptual blending presupposes analogy because constructing a blended space by selectively projecting elements from two or more input spaces requires a cross-space mapping that identifies correspondences between elements — exactly the structural role-alignment that analogy supplies. Without analogy's relational mapping between source and target domains, there would be no correspondence structure to feed selective projection, and the blend could not preserve a coherent generic space capturing what the inputs share. Analogy supplies the mapping operation; blending adds the further move of constructing a new integrated space with emergent structure not present in either input alone.

Conceptual blending presupposes analogy because cross-space projection into a blended space relies on prior structural mapping between the input domains.


Concurrent cross-functional collaboration is a specialization of coordination in which the actors being aligned are specialists from different functional disciplines and the alignment occurs simultaneously rather than through sequential handoff. Where coordination names the active alignment of independently controlled actors toward a coherent collective outcome generally, this specialization fixes the actor composition (cross-functional), the temporal structure (concurrent), and the medium of alignment (tight communication loops with shared decision authority around design integration).

Concurrent cross-functional collaboration is a specialization of coordination — specifically, coordination among diverse-discipline specialists working simultaneously on a shared design problem.


Concurrent cross-functional collaboration is justified only when the tasks being performed are reciprocally interdependent — when design, manufacturing, and operations decisions iteratively shape one another rather than feeding forward in a fixed sequence. Without task interdependence's machinery of workflow coupling, the simultaneous engagement of multiple specialists would be wasteful: tasks that are merely pooled or sequential need only sequential handoff. The reciprocal interdependence supplies the structural condition that makes concurrent engagement the efficient coordination form.

Concurrent cross-functional collaboration presupposes task interdependence because its simultaneous engagement is justified only when functional tasks have reciprocal couplings.


The controller can force acceptance of the coupled item only because it controls access to something the recipient cannot obtain on equivalent terms elsewhere; without that opportunity asymmetry the take-both-or-neither leverage disappears.

Conditional access requires unequal control over the desired item and therefore unequal feasible action sets.


Per dossier: 'record subsumption under probability.' Conditioning is the relativizing/re-normalization move on top of the base measure — a specialization (one of probability's six signature components promoted to a distinct relational primitive: measure re-normalization to an information context). Probability supplies the genus: Quantifies uncertainty and likelihoods. Conditional Probability preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Re-normalize a probability measure to the information context that is taken as given. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.


Behavioral conditioning depends on the closure of a loop between behavior and consequence: the organism emits a response, the environment delivers reinforcement or punishment, and the returned signal modulates the probability of the response on the next cycle. Without the feedback arrangement — output measured, returned along a path, coupled with a sign that strengthens or weakens — the contingencies that conditioning detects could not be detected, and the response-strengthening and extinction dynamics could not arise. Feedback is the structural substrate on which conditioning operates.

Behavioral conditioning presupposes feedback because learned associations are forged by routing the consequence of a response back to modulate the response itself.


Learning is the process by which an agent durably updates an internal capability — knowledge, skill, model, or behavior — as a result of experience. Behavioral conditioning is the specific family of learning mechanisms that detect statistical contingencies between environmental events (stimulus-response pairings, contingent reinforcement) and adjust behavior accordingly, with generalization, discrimination, and extinction as characteristic features. It inherits learning's durable-experience-driven-self-update structure and adds the specific mechanism — contingency detection through pairing — that produces the update. A specialization of learning keyed to associative contingency.

Behavioral conditioning is a specialization of learning; it is the family of contingency-detection mechanisms that durably update behavior through pairing.


A graded warrant marker summarizing how-much-to-trust once weighing is done; presupposes the verification/evidence-weighing whose verdict it compresses into a portable, separable label. Verification supplies the prerequisite condition: Check that an object conforms to its specification via a defined procedure yielding evidence and a verdict. Confidence Annotation operates against that background: A graded warrant marker attached to a claim that travels with it and tells downstream consumers how much weight to place on it. If the parent condition is removed, the child relation becomes undefined or loses the mechanism asserted by this edge; the parent can obtain independently, so the relation is presupposition rather than subsumption. The typical qualifier limits the claim to the characteristic route, not a constitutive requirement of every instance; exceptions must retain the child's identity through another mechanism.


A confidence interval is a procedure that produces interval estimates with a pre-specified long-run coverage probability under repeated sampling — a structure intelligible only within statistical inference's machinery of treating observed data as one draw from a probability model and reasoning about underlying parameters under sampling variability. Without that inferential framework, the long-run frequency interpretation that gives the interval its calibration would be vacuous, and the procedure would degenerate to bare data summarization. Statistical inference supplies the sampling-framework substrate the confidence-interval procedure operates in.

Confidence intervals presuppose statistical inference because they are an interval-estimate procedure whose calibrated coverage is defined within the inferential framework.


Confidence intervals are a specialization of uncertainty. The general pattern is the structural condition of incomplete knowledge about a parameter, with the commitment to specify the unknown, the evidence, the form of unknowing, and the calibration. Confidence intervals instantiate this with the evidence being sample data, the form being a sampling-distribution-derived interval, and the calibration being the pre-specified long-run frequency with which the procedure covers the true parameter. It is uncertainty formalized as a procedure-level coverage claim about the unknown, distinct from but complementary to Bayesian credible intervals over the parameter directly.

Confidence intervals are a specific kind of uncertainty quantification, supplying interval estimates with calibrated long-run coverage.


Confidentiality is the information-use species of constraint, restricting an authorized holder's admissible disclosures and downstream actions. A binding condition reduces the feasible set of actions to those satisfying it, regardless of which otherwise available action the holder prefers. The constrained actions are uses and disclosures of protected information by a party already authorized to possess it, under release and exception rules.


Drift is the divergence between a system-of-record (intended state) and the running state; it presupposes a maintained authoritative record against which reality could be compared — the traceability infrastructure whose absence-of-reconciliation it names. Traceability supplies the prerequisite condition: The infrastructure of bidirectional links that lets any element be followed backward to its origin and forward to its uses, turning opaque processes into auditable, queryable histories. Configuration Drift operates against that background: The silent, monotonic divergence between a system's recorded intended state and its actual running state, driven by accumulated out-of-band changes that bypass the record until a forced reconciliation exposes the gap. If the parent condition is removed, the child relation becomes undefined or loses the mechanism asserted by this edge; the parent can obtain independently, so the relation is presupposition rather than subsumption. The typical qualifier limits the claim to the characteristic route, not a constitutive requirement of every instance; exceptions must retain the child's identity through another mechanism.


Confirmation bias is a specialization of bias. Specifically, it instantiates the systematic-displacement-from-the-true-value pattern in the information-processing subclass: biased search, biased interpretation, and biased memory together skew evidence accumulation in the direction of the held hypothesis. It exhibits bias's defining signature -- a sign and direction surviving the accumulation of more data -- with the offset traced to the asymmetric handling of confirming versus disconfirming evidence, distinguishing this class within the broader catalog of cognitive biases.

Confirmation bias is a specialization of bias in which the systematic displacement favors processing that supports the prior belief.


Confirmation bias is the systematic tendency to favor information processing that supports prior belief — through biased search, biased interpretation, and biased recall — over symmetric testing. Functionally it is a fast rule that economizes on the costs of fully balanced evaluation at the price of characteristic directional error. That is the heuristic profile: a simplified procedure whose value depends on the trade-off between speed and accuracy. Confirmation bias specializes heuristic to belief-protecting evidence processing.

Confirmation Bias is a kind of heuristic: a fast rule favoring belief-consistent processing yields systematic error in evidence evaluation.


A commitment checkpoint splits a single fast DECISION into two separated acts (intent + costly re-affirmation) at the last reversible moment. It presupposes a decision it gates and a reversibility threshold; structural scaffolding around an existing choice.

A commitment checkpoint splits a single fast DECISION into two separated acts (intent and costly re-affirmation) at the last reversible moment.


Conflict of interest arises when a person or institution holds multiple duties, relationships, or financial interests pulling in incompatible directions, such that pursuing one undermines another. The structure is a particular case of role conflict: a single agent simultaneously occupies positions whose embedded expectation-sets cannot all be satisfied. Role conflict supplies the underlying multi-incumbency-with-incompatible-expectations pattern. Conflict of interest specializes it to fiduciary and incentive contexts, where the incompatible roles concern duties to principals or self-versus-other interests, with the same structural impossibility of simultaneous full compliance.

Conflict of interest presupposes role conflict because incompatible duties and interests pulling one agent in different directions instantiates the multi-role strain pattern.


Confounding distorts the estimated relationship between cause and effect in a consistent direction set by the common cause's structure, with the displacement persisting and often growing as samples accumulate rather than averaging out. That is the defining contrast between Bias and noise: bias is a persistent offset that more data does not erase. Confounding specializes bias to the causal-inference case, where the offset arises from non-causal paths between treatment and outcome rather than from estimator construction.

Confounding is a kind of bias: it produces a systematic, non-averaging displacement of the estimated causal effect from the true effect.


Confounding presupposes causality because the very claim that an observed association is distorted -- fabricated, attenuated, or reversed -- requires a true causal relation against which the distortion is measured. The confounder Z is a common cause of X and Y in the causal graph, and adjustment is required to recover the genuine X-to-Y causal effect. Without causality's four-component structure of cause, effect, productive connection, and counterfactual sensitivity, there is no causal target to be confounded and no formal criterion separating spurious association from genuine effect.

Confounding presupposes causality because the third-variable distortion is defined relative to the true causal relation it obscures.


Confounding occurs when a third variable that is a common cause of putative cause and effect distorts the observed association, fabricating, exaggerating, attenuating, or reversing it. The concept is meaningful only against a design that seeks to license causal or comparative inference: randomization, blocking, stratification, and matching all exist precisely to neutralize confounders. Confounding presupposes Experimental Design as the framework whose ambitions it threatens and whose protocols it forces.

Confounding presupposes Experimental Design: identifying and controlling third-variable common causes is the central problem the design must address.


A privileged intermediary executing an outsider's intent without authority is a specific misalignment-of-authority-and-intent instance of the principal-agent structure. Agency Problem supplies the genus: Misaligned incentives. Confused Deputy preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A privileged intermediary acts on its own authority while the intent originated with an outsider who lacks it, so authority is borrowed without intent being tracked. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association. The typical qualifier limits the claim to the characteristic route, not a constitutive requirement of every instance; exceptions must retain the child's identity through another mechanism.


Untrusted Input Execution supplies the genus: Attacker-influenced input crosses a data-to-control (or authority) boundary and a correctly-operating intermediary executes it with the intermediary's own authority, so the attacker borrows the defender's privilege without ever violating the intermediary's rules. Confused Deputy preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A privileged intermediary acts on its own authority while the intent originated with an outsider who lacks it, so authority is borrowed without intent being tracked. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.

Confused Deputy is a specialization of Untrusted Input Execution, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.


Complementarity supplies the genus: Two non-overlapping roles that jointly exhaust a whole and require each other. Conjugate-Observable Complementarity preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Certain observable pairs cannot be jointly specified to arbitrary precision because sharpening one structurally blurs its conjugate — a built-in trade-off of the system, not a measurement limitation. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.

Conjugate-Observable Complementarity is a specialization of Complementarity, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.


Trade-offs supplies the genus: Balancing competing priorities. Conjugate-Observable Complementarity preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Certain observable pairs cannot be jointly specified to arbitrary precision because sharpening one structurally blurs its conjugate — a built-in trade-off of the system, not a measurement limitation. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.

Conjugate-Observable Complementarity is a specialization of Trade-offs, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.


Uncertainty supplies the genus: Incomplete knowledge. Conjugate-Observable Complementarity preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Certain observable pairs cannot be jointly specified to arbitrary precision because sharpening one structurally blurs its conjugate — a built-in trade-off of the system, not a measurement limitation. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association. The typical qualifier limits the claim to the characteristic route, not a constitutive requirement of every instance; exceptions must retain the child's identity through another mechanism.

Conjugate-Observable Complementarity is typically a specialization of Uncertainty, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.


Conjugate variables presuppose measurement uncertainty and complementarity because the defining feature of a conjugate pair, beyond a formal coupling like a commutator or Fourier kernel, is that sharpening one side necessarily broadens the other. That joint under-determination is precisely what complementarity names: a structural trade-off in what can be simultaneously specified, not a contingent instrumental limit. Without the prior commitment that certain observables are complementary in this irreducible sense, the canonical pairing would reduce to a routine change of variables with no inherent measurement constraint.

Conjugate variables presuppose measurement uncertainty and complementarity because the pair only acquires its joint under-determination through complementary measurement structure.


Conjugate variables couple two descriptions of a system through a canonical transformation that preserves essential physics or information content while exchanging which features are local. This presupposes invariance: a named feature remaining unchanged under a named family of transformations, with the joint commitment to what is preserved and which operations preserve it. The conjugate transformation preserves the action functional, the commutator structure, or the total signal energy; what is preserved (the invariant) is what makes the two descriptions equivalent for physical purposes despite their different sharpness in different variables.

Conjugate variables presupposes invariance because the canonical transformation between the two descriptions preserves the underlying physical content.


Conjugate variables couple two complementary descriptions of a system via a canonical transformation or integral transform that preserves the essential physics while exchanging which features are local. This presupposes symmetry: invariance under a specified group of transformations, with the algebraic commitment that the stated transformation leaves the system unchanged in a specified sense. The canonical transformation is precisely such a structure-preserving group action on phase space; the Fourier kernel is a unitary transformation preserving total content. Without symmetry's transformation-group framework, the equivalence between conjugate descriptions has no algebraic substrate.

Conjugate variables presupposes symmetry because the canonical transformation mediating between the two complementary descriptions is a symmetry of the underlying physics.


A causal-graph property: a latent path whose state-conditional edges conduct only under an AND of factors. Presupposes a directed causal structure; left at composition since it is a property OF a causal graph, not an is-a.


'A network is the substrate — elements plus relations; connectedness is one PROPERTY of that substrate (is it one piece?).' It presupposes the network of elements-and-relations and reads only the reachability partition. Network supplies the prerequisite condition: Models interactions between components. Connectedness operates against that background: A whole that cannot be split into parts with no relation crossing between them. If the parent condition is removed, the child relation becomes undefined or loses the mechanism asserted by this edge; the parent can obtain independently, so the relation is presupposition rather than subsumption.


Coordination is the general alignment of independently controlled actors. Consensus is its strict agreement-forming species: participants begin with divergent proposals, a fault model bounds crash, omission, or Byzantine behavior, and a protocol must jointly satisfy agreement, validity, and termination. Ordinary coordination need not decide one value or confront FLP and quorum thresholds, so the additional commitments are genuine differentia.

Consensus is Coordination specialized to producing one shared decided value under an explicit fault model while satisfying agreement, validity, and termination.


Consent presupposes authority because its essential function is to confer legitimate decision-making power over a domain — body, property, data, action — that the consenting agent would otherwise control exclusively. Without authority's prior structure of recognized right-to-decide, the act of consenting would have nothing to transfer or authorize. Consent inherits authority's general apparatus of legitimate power to bind and supplies the specific mode by which that power can arise from below: through the autonomous, informed, voluntary authorization of the party whose domain is at stake, generating an obligation the recipient could not otherwise claim.

Consent presupposes authority because consent operates by granting another party legitimate authority over a domain that would otherwise be off-limits.


Every conservation event places the system's current condition and an earlier reference state in a shared frame, selects the dimensions that matter for preservation, and reads off the departure that the bounded intervention will arrest or reverse. Without that comparison there is no determinate decay trajectory, restoration direction, or traceable basis for preserve/restore/leave decisions. Comparison is required analytical machinery, not the genus of the intervention itself.

A conservation event presupposes comparing a system's current condition with an earlier reference state so that the decay to be arrested and the restoration direction are determinate.


Invariance names persistence under a specified transformation. A conservation law fixes that transformation to the system's evolution through time and fixes the invariant to an additive or otherwise measurable quantity. The system may redistribute or transform the quantity internally, but its closed-boundary total remains unchanged. Conservation Laws therefore specializes Invariance while adding quantity, boundary, flux-balance, and time-evolution commitments.

Conservation laws are the temporal specializations of invariance in which a specified quantity remains unchanged through a system's allowed evolution.


'Consistency is a META-property of a COLLECTION of constraints' — whether the intersection of all their admissible regions is nonempty. A lone constraint is never inconsistent; consistency presupposes a set of constraints. Constraint supplies the prerequisite condition: Limits possibilities to guide outcomes. Consistency operates against that background: A set of commitments cannot jointly derive a contradiction. If the parent condition is removed, the child relation becomes undefined or loses the mechanism asserted by this edge; the parent can obtain independently, so the relation is presupposition rather than subsumption.


'Concurrency is the CONDITION — multiple operations in flight; a consistency model is the CONTRACT specifying which observations of that concurrency are legal. Concurrency creates the problem the model governs.' It presupposes concurrency. Concurrency supplies the prerequisite condition: Manage simultaneous processes. Consistency Model operates against that background: An explicit contract over which observations of shared state are legal when updates are concurrent. If the parent condition is removed, the child relation becomes undefined or loses the mechanism asserted by this edge; the parent can obtain independently, so the relation is presupposition rather than subsumption.


A consistency model is explicitly an explicit contract specifying legal observations of shared state, fitting the general obligations-and-permissions bundle structure of contract. Contract supplies the genus: A multi-party bundle of obligations, breach criteria, and remedies under an accepted enforcement regime. Consistency Model preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: An explicit contract over which observations of shared state are legal when updates are concurrent. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.


Construct_validity is the PSYCHOMETRIC specialization (proxy=instrument, target=latent construct) of the cross-domain proxy->target fidelity genus. Proxy–Target Fidelity supplies the genus: How faithfully an observable proxy tracks the unobservable target it stands in for — the degree to which acting on, optimizing, or inferring from the proxy is acting on the target itself. Construct Validity preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Whether a measurement procedure actually captures the theoretical construct it claims to, rather than a correlated but distinct surrogate, across a three-layer construct-proxy-signal gap. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.


Constructivist learning is a kind of learning specialized by its account of how the durable update happens: the learner actively constructs knowledge through direct experience, reflection, and social interaction rather than receiving pre-formed content from an authority. It inherits learning's general commitment to durable, experience-driven self-update of an agent's internal state, and adds the specific epistemological commitment that meaning is produced bidirectionally through the learner's assimilation and accommodation of environmental encounters — contrasting with transmission models that treat the learner as a passive recipient.

Constructivist learning is a specialization of learning that frames the durable update as active meaning-making rather than passive reception.


Constructivist learning posits that learners actively construct knowledge through experience, reflection, and social interaction, building internal cognitive structures rather than receiving pre-formed information passively. The construction-and-revision activity requires that there be internal representations to construct: simplified, manipulable stand-ins for domain workings that support simulation and prediction. Mental model supplies that structural object. Without mental models as the target of construction, the assimilation-and-accommodation dynamic would have nothing to operate on and the bidirectional engagement between learner and world would have no internal substrate to revise.

Constructivist learning presupposes mental model because active knowledge-construction by the learner produces and revises internal representations of the domain.


Constructivism is the learner-centered pedagogical paradigm — a kind of deliberate structuring of the learner's encounter with content. Pedagogy supplies the genus: Deliberate other-directed structuring of a learner's encounter with content to cause durable change in their capability. Constructivist Learning preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Build knowledge from experience. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association. The typical qualifier limits the claim to the characteristic route, not a constitutive requirement of every instance; exceptions must retain the child's identity through another mechanism.


Decomposition supplies the prerequisite condition: Breaking a whole into parts that can be analyzed independently and recombined to reconstitute the whole, making complexity tractable through divide-and-conquer. Contact-Response Decomposition operates against that background: Impact decomposes into how much contact occurs between a system and a driver times how strongly the system responds per unit of contact, two independently actionable terms. If the parent condition is removed, the child relation becomes undefined or loses the mechanism asserted by this edge; the parent can obtain independently, so the relation is presupposition rather than subsumption. The typical qualifier limits the claim to the characteristic route, not a constitutive requirement of every instance; exceptions must retain the child's identity through another mechanism.

Contact-Response Decomposition typically presupposes Decomposition, whose structure must already obtain for the child mechanism to be meaningful or operational.


Epidemiological contagion is 'the warranted causal special case' — a property flowing along a link that genuinely is a causal channel. associative_property_transfer is the warrant-neutral parent covering causal, heuristic (halo), and fallacious (guilt-by-association) alike. Associative Property Transfer supplies the genus: A property flows along an associative link rather than along a causal or evidential one. Contagion preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Spread of a state from element to element through contact. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association. The typical qualifier limits the claim to the characteristic route, not a constitutive requirement of every instance; exceptions must retain the child's identity through another mechanism.


Containerization wraps units behind a standardized exterior so handlers are substrate-blind to contents, a specialized transport-oriented application of information hiding. Information Hiding supplies the genus: Deliberately concealing internal facts behind a stable public surface to control dependencies. Containerization preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Wrap a unit with its dependencies behind a standardized exterior so substrate-blind handlers can move it intact. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association. The typical qualifier limits the claim to the characteristic route, not a constitutive requirement of every instance; exceptions must retain the child's identity through another mechanism.


'a standardized published interface is one of containerization's named ingredients'; containerization uses an interface but adds dependency-bundling, standardization of external form, and substrate-blind handling. It presupposes the interface as a component. Interface supplies the prerequisite condition: A bounded, rule-governed surface across which two systems exchange information or control while hiding their internals, letting each evolve independently behind a stable contract. Containerization operates against that background: Wrap a unit with its dependencies behind a standardized exterior so substrate-blind handlers can move it intact. If the parent condition is removed, the child relation becomes undefined or loses the mechanism asserted by this edge; the parent can obtain independently, so the relation is presupposition rather than subsumption.


Containment is the bounded isolation of an entity, process, or hazard within a defined perimeter to prevent uncontrolled interaction with surroundings. The operation constitutively requires a boundary: a demarcation between contained and external with maintained integrity and controlled permeability. Boundary supplies the structural object — bounded entity, demarcation criterion, permeability — that containment then makes operative as a barrier to propagation. Without a boundary as first-class structure with maintained integrity, containment has no perimeter to defend and no inside-outside distinction to enforce.

Containment presupposes boundary because holding something within a perimeter to prevent spread requires that perimeter as a first-class structural object.


Containment draws and maintains a boundary that prevents a contained entity, process, or hazard from spreading or interacting uncontrolled with its surroundings. The perimeter functions as a binding restriction on admissible configurations: any state in which the contained item has escaped is ruled out regardless of other merit. That is the defining structure of a Constraint, here specialized to spatial-or-relational isolation of a propagating agent, energy flow, or contagious condition.

Containment is a kind of constraint: a maintained perimeter restricts the admissible reach of an entity, process, or hazard.


Context-Dependent Preference is Preference specialized to an ordering whose value relation is indexed by a comparison menu or evaluation procedure. Both define an ordering among alternatives that can guide selection or choice. The child requires unchanged focal options, an independently manipulated context generator, and a reproducible change in their ordering.


The operation cannot be identified from the focal signal alone. It requires surrounding state that changes or constrains what that signal carries, and then removes some of that state while leaving the focal token intact. Context supplies exactly the meaning-selecting relation that is being severed.

Context stripping presupposes Context because the operation is defined by removing surrounding state that selects the content of a fixed focal signal.


Context stripping maps an input consisting of a focal signal plus meaning-bearing surroundings into an output that preserves the focal signal while removing some of those surroundings. That is a rule-governed restructuring with an explicit invariant and an explicit alteration, so it is a strict specialization of Transformation.

Context stripping is a transformation that preserves a focal signal while projecting away part of the surrounding state that helped determine its content.


Contextual mode switching is a specialization of adaptation. The general pattern is a process by which a system changes its internal structure or behaviour in response to environmental change, preserving or improving fit. Mode switching instantiates this with the adaptation being movement among a maintained inventory of context-tuned modes (vocabulary, tone, procedure, tooling) triggered by contextual cues. The system maintains the modes as standing capacity rather than constructing each response from scratch, so the change-to-fit is realized as selection from a repertoire rather than incremental modification of a single default behaviour.

Contextual mode switching is a specific kind of adaptation where the agent shifts among pre-built behavioral repertoires in response to context cues.


Contextual mode switching organizes an agent's behavior as a repertoire of discrete modes, each a coherent bundle of vocabulary, tone, and procedure, with contextual cues triggering transitions between them. This is structurally a state-transition system: the modes are states, the cues are transition triggers, and the switching rule is the transition relation. Without an underlying commitment to discrete states with rule-governed transitions, the mode-bundles would not be separable nor the switches identifiable. Mode switching presupposes the state-machine architecture as its substrate.

Contextual mode switching presupposes state and state transition because switching between mode-bundles requires a discrete state space of available modes.


Continuity presupposes invariance because the no-sudden-jumps condition is exactly the claim that a specific feature -- nearness between input points -- is preserved under the application of the mapping. The preimage-of-open-is-open formulation makes this explicit: the topological structure of openness is the named feature, and continuous maps are the family of transformations that preserve it. Without invariance's joint commitment to what-is-preserved and under-which-operations, the continuity condition has no structural content; continuity is topological invariance under the map. Invariance supplies the prerequisite condition: Properties unchanged under transformation. Continuity operates against that background: Smooth change without jumps. If the parent condition is removed, the child relation becomes undefined or loses the mechanism asserted by this edge; the parent can obtain independently, so the relation is presupposition rather than subsumption.

Continuity presupposes invariance because the epsilon-delta condition is the preservation of nearness under the mapping.


Neighborhood supplies the genus: The local-context window of elements close to a focal point under a proximity structure. Continuity preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Smooth change without jumps. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.

Continuity is a specialization of Neighborhood, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.


'An interface that no authority enforces and whose violation carries no remedy is a contract's structural SKELETON without its binding force.' A contract = interface and normative obligation and breach criterion and remedy and accepted enforcement regime. It presupposes/enriches the interface. Interface supplies the prerequisite condition: A bounded, rule-governed surface across which two systems exchange information or control while hiding their internals, letting each evolve independently behind a stable contract. Contract operates against that background: A multi-party bundle of obligations, breach criteria, and remedies under an accepted enforcement regime. If the parent condition is removed, the child relation becomes undefined or loses the mechanism asserted by this edge; the parent can obtain independently, so the relation is presupposition rather than subsumption.


'Deduction is the whole family of truth-preserving inference; contraposition is one specific equivalence-rewrite within it (paired with modus tollens). It is an instance of deductive reasoning, not its scope.' A specialization of deductive_reasoning. Deductive Reasoning supplies the genus: General to specific conclusions. Contraposition preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Run an implication backward: from the absence of the consequence, infer the absence of the cause. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.


Contrast presupposes comparison because foregrounding a difference between elements requires them first to be brought under a shared frame and aligned along some dimension where the difference can register. Comparison supplies the relational machinery — comparands, dimensions, alignment rule — that makes any two items commensurable enough to register as different. Contrast then specifies that the output relation is one of perceptually or cognitively emphasized difference rather than mere relation; without the prior comparative operation, there is no shared axis along which the heightened difference can be read.

Contrast presupposes comparison because emphasizing a difference requires the prior operation of placing items under a shared frame.


An in-band-signalling FLAW of a contracted boundary where control and data share a substrate; presupposes an interface (the meeting point) whose control/data separation is marked by content not construction. Interface supplies the prerequisite condition: A bounded, rule-governed surface across which two systems exchange information or control while hiding their internals, letting each evolve independently behind a stable contract. Control / Data Channel Confusion operates against that background: A receiver interprets attacker-controlled data as authoritative instructions because the protocol separates control from data by content inspection rather than by structure. If the parent condition is removed, the child relation becomes undefined or loses the mechanism asserted by this edge; the parent can obtain independently, so the relation is presupposition rather than subsumption. The typical qualifier limits the claim to the characteristic route, not a constitutive requirement of every instance; exceptions must retain the child's identity through another mechanism.


Untrusted Input Execution supplies the genus: Attacker-influenced input crosses a data-to-control (or authority) boundary and a correctly-operating intermediary executes it with the intermediary's own authority, so the attacker borrows the defender's privilege without ever violating the intermediary's rules. Control / Data Channel Confusion preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A receiver interprets attacker-controlled data as authoritative instructions because the protocol separates control from data by content inspection rather than by structure. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.

Control / Data Channel Confusion is a specialization of Untrusted Input Execution, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.


A sample becomes a control only relative to a focal case, a defined contrast, and a shared measurement procedure. Remove that comparison and the same specimen is merely a sample, not a control. Comparison supplies the required relation; Control Sample adds matching, experimental role, and background-subtraction commitments, so the object-role is not itself a kind of the comparison operation.

A Control Sample presupposes the comparison in which it serves as the deliberately matched comparator for the case of interest.


State transition supplies the modeled dynamics; Controllability adds admissible inputs, target regions, finite horizons, reachability, rank tests, and actuator placement. State and State Transition supplies the prerequisite condition: Captures system condition and evolution. Controllability operates against that background: Ability to steer system. If the parent condition is removed, the child relation becomes undefined or loses the mechanism asserted by this edge; the parent can obtain independently, so the relation is presupposition rather than subsumption.

Controllability requires a state space and input-conditioned transition rule before reachability from an initial state to a target state can be evaluated.


A return is controlled only when the operator can steer progression through checkpoints and re-suspend it after a failure signal; without that reachable intervention set the process is merely observed reentry.

Controlled reentry presupposes enough intervention authority to advance, hold, reverse, or abort the staged return.


The staged pathway advances or aborts in response to telemetry and checkpoint criteria, so monitoring is an internal component rather than an optional accompaniment. Monitoring supplies an internal constituent: Continuously observing a system's state to detect deviation from expected behavior and trigger a response, separating genuine signal from routine noise. Controlled Reentry requires that role within this mechanism: Re-establishing a suspended activity or state through staged, monitored steps with the capacity to abort, because returning to normal is a separate engineered process and not a simple reversal of the exit. Remove the parent-role and the child loses a required internal operation, even though the parent can exist outside the child. The child is therefore built from the parent rather than being a taxonomic kind of it.

Continuous state observation and threshold checking are constitutive parts of controlled reentry.


Convection is a specialization of flow in which the transported quantity, typically heat or mass, is carried by coherent bulk-fluid displacement driven by density contrasts arising from temperature or composition gradients. It inherits the general flow commitment of directional transfer of a conserved quantity through a system with rates, conservation, and a driving gradient, and specializes by fixing the transport mechanism to self-organized buoyant circulation rather than diffusion, pressure-driven channel flow, or advection by an externally imposed velocity field.

Convection is a specialization of flow whose transport is carried by buoyancy-driven bulk motion of the fluid itself.


Convection is fluid transport driven by density differences that arise from spatial variation in temperature or composition — that is, from gradients of those scalar fields. Without gradient's machinery — the local rate and direction of steepest increase of a scalar field across space — there would be no density contrast to make lighter fluid parcels rise and heavier parcels sink, and no buoyancy-drag balance to organize the fluid into circulatory cells. The gradient prime supplies the spatial-variation structure that initiates and sustains convective motion.

Convection presupposes gradient because the buoyancy-driven fluid motion is initiated and sustained by density differences arising from gradients in temperature or composition.


Convection transports heat, mass, or momentum by the coherent motion of fluid driven by buoyancy from temperature or composition gradients, restructuring spatial distributions of those quantities into circulatory patterns. That fits the Transformation schema: input distribution mapped to output distribution under a rule, with certain properties preserved (mass, energy) and others altered (spatial profile). Convection specializes transformation by fixing the rule as buoyancy-driven bulk fluid motion organized into cells.

Convection is a kind of transformation: it maps an input distribution into a restructured output via the rule of buoyancy-driven bulk flow.


Every instance contains Multi-Path Convergence's distinct trajectories and common endpoint. It adds the exclusion of shared inheritance and transmission, comparable selection pressure, and the evidential inference from independent recurrence to solution fit.

Convergent evolution is multi-path convergence specialized to causally independent lineages facing comparable pressure and independently reaching the same solution form.


Optimization supplies the prerequisite condition: Finds best solution under constraints. Convexity operates against that background: Mixtures preserve membership and the average of values dominates the value of the average. If the parent condition is removed, the child relation becomes undefined or loses the mechanism asserted by this edge; the parent can obtain independently, so the relation is presupposition rather than subsumption.

Convexity presupposes Optimization, whose structure must already obtain for the child mechanism to be meaningful or operational.


Convolution is 'the UNIQUE linear, translation-invariant' function mapping — one fixed kernel applied identically everywhere. A sharply constrained specialization of function_mapping (an arbitrary input-output rule). Function (Mapping) supplies the genus: Relates inputs to outputs. Convolution preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Each output is a sliding, weighted local mixture of an input produced by one fixed kernel. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.


Conway's law is isomorphism applied GENERATIVELY across the producer/artifact divide — a structure-preserving homomorphism from communication topology to artifact decomposition, plus a causal direction and interface-cost coupling. A specialization of isomorphism. Isomorphism supplies the genus: Structure-preserving mapping. Conway's Law preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Any artifact built by a collective acquires a structure homomorphic to the communication topology of the collective that built it. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.


Cooperation presupposes social dilemma because the tension cooperation names — costly contribution sustained against the pull of defection — is constituted by the prior structural pattern of a social dilemma: a setting where each agent's dominant strategy yields a collectively worse outcome than universal contribution would. Without that gap between individually rational and collectively optimal action, there is no cooperation problem to solve; agents would reach the good outcome unaided. Cooperation inherits the social dilemma's structural conflict and names the question of what devices — reciprocity, norms, institutions — stabilize contribution against the standing temptation to defect.

Cooperation presupposes social dilemma because the cooperation problem only exists where individual rationality conflicts with the collective optimum.


The Cooperative Principle holds that conversational participants make contributions as required by the accepted purpose of the talk exchange, specified by maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and manner. The entire framework presupposes that interlocutors are jointly contributing to a shared purpose despite individual temptations to deceive, mislead, or free-ride on others' clarity. Cooperation supplies the structural commitment: agents take individually costly actions sustaining a joint outcome where defection is tempting. Conversational maxims specialize cooperation to linguistic exchange, with informativeness and truthfulness as the costly contributions sustained against private temptation.

Cooperative principle and Gricean maxims presupposes cooperation because conversational implicature operates on the assumption participants are jointly working toward purpose.


Pragmatics supplies the genus: What a signal means in context is the joint product of its literal content and patterned contextual machinery, not just what the signal literally encodes. Cooperative Principle and Gricean Maxims preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Cooperative communication. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.

Cooperative Principle and Gricean Maxims is a specialization of Pragmatics, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.


The Cooperative Principle and its maxims govern conversational contributions through shared expectations — be informative, truthful, relevant, clear — that participants assume and against which deviations are noticed and exploited as implicature. That is the structure of Social Norms — group-shared behavioral expectations, enforced by mutual sanction, sustained by joint internalization and enforcement — particularized to the domain of talk exchange. Gricean maxims are the specific shape social norms take when the regulated behavior is communicative cooperation under conversational purpose.

The Cooperative Principle and Gricean Maxims is the specific shape social norms take in conversational cooperation.


Coordination is the active alignment of independently controlled actors so their actions combine into a coherent collective outcome. The problem only arises where multiple loci of execution proceed in time-overlapping fashion — the structural situation that concurrency names. A single actor needs no coordination; coordination becomes necessary when separate processes run concurrently and their interleavings raise questions of ordering, contention, and consistency. Concurrency supplies the multi-process-simultaneity substrate; coordination is the alignment work that addresses the consequent ordering and synchronization problems.

Coordination presupposes concurrency because aligning independent actors into coherent collective outcome only arises when multiple processes proceed simultaneously.


Coordination presupposes dependency because the active alignment of independently controlled actors only becomes a problem when one actor's progress, output, or interpretation depends on another's. Without dependency's directed reliance — A cannot proceed unless a condition on B is met — there is nothing to synchronize: independent actors with no coupling can act in parallel without any coordination machinery. Dependency supplies the structural couplings that make coordination necessary; coordination then supplies the protocols, signals, and shared frames that resolve those couplings into coherent collective outcomes.

Coordination presupposes dependency because alignment of independently controlled actors is only required when their actions are mutually contingent.


The coordination layer that channels activated capacity — 'one stage of the four'. After the organizational_management frame is stripped away, the retained structural roles are those of Mobilization: Latent capacity is activated, channeled into directed action, and then sustained or returned to rest. Coordination adds the local frame and commitments expressed in its identity: Aligning independently controlled actors so their separate actions combine into a coherent collective outcome despite distributed decision-making and incomplete shared information. The parent pattern remains recognizable without that vocabulary, while the child is the framed realization of it. That preservation test establishes decomposition rather than taxonomic subsumption.


Coordination's whole rationale is to align actors whose tasks depend on one another — to manage the couplings through which one task's output is another's input, or both compete for shared resources. Without task interdependence's machinery of workflow coupling, the actors would be performing independent tasks with no need for active alignment, and the coordination infrastructure would have nothing to coordinate. Interdependence supplies the structural condition — coupling between tasks — that creates the requirement coordination addresses.

Coordination presupposes task interdependence because the active alignment of actors is only required when their tasks are coupled through inputs, outputs, or shared resources.


Stakes its identity on a precise difference from diseconomies of scale: ordinary diseconomies grow with the PRIMARY activity's scale, while this adds RECURSION — the scaffold generates its own meta-scaffold (governance-of-governance), a self-reinforcing growth term independent of the primary activity. The recursive specialisation of rising-overhead-with-scale. Diseconomies of Scale supplies the genus: Rising per-unit cost once scale grows past a point. Coordination-Overhead Inversion preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A support scaffold recursively reproduces its own coordination demand until the supporting layer consumes more capacity than the activity it was meant to support. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.


The coordination problem names the specific failure mode in which agents who wish to align on a joint outcome must choose among multiple equally-rational equilibria, which is intelligible only against the background of coordination's active-alignment infrastructure. Without coordination's machinery of shared protocols, synchronization, and joint action toward a goal none can achieve alone, there would be no joint outcome to align on and no selection problem to solve. Coordination supplies the goal-structure that makes equilibrium selection a problem at all.

The coordination problem presupposes coordination because the selection-among-equilibria difficulty arises only within the active-alignment infrastructure of coordination.


The coordination problem arises precisely when more than one stable equilibrium exists and agents must align on a single one. Without equilibrium's machinery of balance conditions and stability — the structural framework by which a system has rest points at which opposing forces balance — there would be no set of alternatives to select among and no question of which stable state the system settles into. The equilibrium prime supplies the multi-rest-point structure that the coordination problem treats as the selection space.

The coordination problem presupposes equilibrium because its core difficulty is selecting among multiple stable equilibria that all satisfy the balance condition.


A coordination problem arises when multiple stable equilibria exist and agents must align on one without the decision structure itself uniquely picking one. Which equilibrium gets selected typically depends on history — focal points inherited from prior interactions, lock-in from early adopters, accumulated convention. Path dependence supplies exactly this structural fact: outcomes are determined by the specific trajectory of choices, with early decisions constraining later ones. Coordination selection typically rides on this dynamic, though some coordination problems are resolved by salience alone without historical lock-in, so the presupposition is typical.

Coordination problems typically presuppose path dependence because focal-point and lock-in selection makes the chosen equilibrium history-dependent.


Confounding supplies the genus: Hidden variable interference. Correlated-Source Attribution Failure preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: When combined sources share underlying variation, joint inference stays strong while attribution to any individual source becomes unstable, sign-flipping, or arbitrary. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.

Correlated-Source Attribution Failure is a specialization of Confounding, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.


Correlation supplies the prerequisite condition: Systematic co-variation between variables, distinct from causation. Correlated-Source Attribution Failure operates against that background: When combined sources share underlying variation, joint inference stays strong while attribution to any individual source becomes unstable, sign-flipping, or arbitrary. If the parent condition is removed, the child relation becomes undefined or loses the mechanism asserted by this edge; the parent can obtain independently, so the relation is presupposition rather than subsumption.

Correlated-Source Attribution Failure presupposes Correlation, whose structure must already obtain for the child mechanism to be meaningful or operational.