The distinction between rights and freedoms structures normative entitlements as claim-entitlements against duty-bearers versus absences of constraint. Both halves require an authority structure: rights need a legitimate power that recognizes claims and binds duty-bearers; freedoms need a power that refrains from constraining and protects against constraint. Authority supplies the recognized capacity to create binding obligations and to underwrite the institutional infrastructure of courts and enforcement. Without an authority structure, rights have no duty-bearer and freedoms have no protector — both collapse to mere assertions.

Rights vs. freedoms presupposes authority because enforceable claims and protected liberties require a legitimate power to recognize and uphold them.


Rights vs. freedoms is a specialization of normativity: both rights (enforceable claims producing correlative duties) and freedoms (absences of constraint) are normative entitlements held to be required, permissible, or protected relative to a standard. It inherits normativity's commitment to the ought-side — evaluation, criticism, and guidance against a norm — and particularizes it by drawing the structural distinction between active claim-entitlements with duty-bearers and passive absences of interference. Both halves are normative-statement types, not descriptive ones.

Rights vs. freedoms is a kind of normative framework that distinguishes claim-entitlements from constraint-absences within the ought-side of a domain.


Risk is defined as exposure to a quantifiable distribution of possible outcomes that includes adverse ones, the Knightian distinction from sheer uncertainty. The defining condition is that probabilities are assignable to outcomes, so that expectation, variance, and decision rules can operate. Probability supplies exactly that apparatus: the calibrated numerical quantification of uncertainty obeying coherence laws over a sample space. Without a probability assignment, the unknown remains uncertainty rather than risk, so risk presupposes probability as the measurement substrate on which its second valuation component then operates.

Risk presupposes probability because risk requires an assignable distribution over outcomes that turns mere unknowing into something measurable.


Uncertainty is the structural condition of incomplete or contested knowledge about a system's state, future, or governing rules. Risk is the specific case where the unknown has been rendered measurable — a probability distribution can be assigned over outcomes — and where some outcomes are valued as harmful. It inherits uncertainty's incomplete-knowledge structure and adds two specifications: quantifiability and stakes. This is the Knightian fork: where probabilities are assignable, uncertainty hardens into risk. A specialization of uncertainty keyed to measurability plus adverse-outcome valuation.

Risk is a specialization of uncertainty; it is the case where the unknown distribution has been quantified and attached to stakes.


Risk aversion presupposes expected utility because the property of preferring a sure outcome to an uncertain prospect of equal expected value is formally captured as concavity of the utility function inside the expected-utility integral. The Arrow-Pratt measures of risk aversion are derivatives of the utility function whose probability-weighted aggregation defines expected utility. Without expected utility's probability-weighted-aggregation machinery, there is no formal way to compare a gamble's certainty-equivalent against its expected value, and no quantitative apparatus for the risk premium that risk aversion describes.

Risk aversion presupposes expected utility because the certainty-over-gamble preference is formally defined as concavity of the expected-utility value function.


Risk aversion presupposes preference because the property of preferring a sure outcome to an uncertain prospect of equal expected value is a feature of the agent's preference ordering — specifically the concavity of the utility function representing those preferences over risky prospects. Without preference as the underlying ordering on the choice set, there is no ranking to exhibit the certainty-over-gamble bias, no concavity to measure, and no risk premium to quantify. Preference supplies the ordering primitive; risk aversion is the curvature feature that ordering displays under uncertainty.

Risk aversion presupposes preference because preferring a sure outcome to an uncertain prospect of equal expectation is a property of the preference ordering.


Risk aversion is the property of preferences that makes an agent prefer the certain wealth E[W] to the random wealth W for non-degenerate gambles, expressed via a concave utility function. The preference only has content when a quantifiable distribution of outcomes is in place — without a probability assignment over harmful possibilities, there is no gamble to be averse to. Risk supplies exactly this: uncertainty rendered measurable and attached to stakes. Risk aversion is then the agent-side preference shape that operates on that measured object, so it presupposes risk.

Risk aversion presupposes risk because the preference for sure outcomes over equal-expected-value gambles requires a measurable risk to be averse to.


Loosely a constrained kind of spread (a hazard re-emerges along a return path), but the dossier argues propagation does not prevail — migration adds conservation and drawn-boundary relocation and measurement asymmetry that propagation lacks. Propagation supplies the genus: The systematic spreading of a signal, effect, or state from a source through a medium or network, where the medium's structure governs how fast it moves, how it attenuates, and which paths it follows. Risk Migration preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: An intervention that blocks a hazard at one site without absorbing the generative pressure behind it does not eliminate the hazard but relocates it across a permeable boundary to a less-monitored region, often where controls are weaker and measurement does not follow. 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.


Risk migration operates on a pre-existing hazard exposure — it relocates a conserved generative pressure across a boundary. Risk supplies the prerequisite condition: Exposure to a known distribution of possible outcomes. Risk Migration operates against that background: An intervention that blocks a hazard at one site without absorbing the generative pressure behind it does not eliminate the hazard but relocates it across a permeable boundary to a less-monitored region, often where controls are weaker and measurement does not follow. 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.


Risk pooling is the variance-shrinking particularization of aggregation: many uncertain exposures are collapsed into a single pooled outcome whose statistical properties are governed by the law of large numbers. Where aggregation names the deliberate loss of granular detail to retain chosen features generally, risk pooling specifies that the features being retained are mean exposures while the suppressed detail is idiosyncratic individual variance — a particular choice of what to aggregate over and what summary statistic is operative.

Risk pooling is the specific shape aggregation takes when independently uncertain exposures are combined so that the variance of the pooled outcome shrinks.


Risk pooling aggregates many independently-uncertain or weakly-correlated exposures so the variance of the pooled outcome shrinks below the sum of individual variances. The whole construction requires risks in place as quantified objects — without a probability assignment over adverse outcomes for each participant, there is nothing whose variance can be aggregated and the law-of-large-numbers shrinkage has nothing to operate on. Risk supplies exactly the measurable-distribution-with-stakes object; pooling is one of the principal operations defined on that object, presupposing it as input.

Risk pooling presupposes risk because aggregating exposures to shrink relative variance only operates when there are measurable risks to pool.


Pooling is one mechanism by which a counterparty can bear the transfer cheaply (not required — a deep-pocketed indemnitor pools nothing). After the economics_finance frame is stripped away, the retained structural roles are those of Risk Transfer: Shifting an adverse-outcome distribution from one party to another for a price, so the loss lands on whoever can bear it best. Risk Pooling adds the local frame and commitments expressed in its identity: Aggregating many independent or weakly correlated exposures so that the variance of the pooled outcome shrinks below the sum of individual variances, letting participants share a more predictable collective risk. 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.


The risk-return tradeoff is the proposition that higher expected returns are systematically associated with higher risk exposure across financial decisions under uncertainty. The relation is only coherent when risk is already in place as a measurable quantity — variance, downside exposure, systematic-factor loading — that can be traded against expected return. Risk supplies the quantifiable distribution of outcomes with adverse ones marked as harmful; the tradeoff then operates on that distribution as the axis against which returns are priced. Without risk as a measured object, no tradeoff relation can be stated.

Risk-return tradeoff presupposes risk because the proposition that returns rise with risk only makes sense once outcomes form a measurable distribution.


Trade-offs is the general structural situation in which improving one valued dimension requires worsening another within a feasible set. Risk-return tradeoff is the specific case in finance and investment where the two valued dimensions are expected return and risk exposure (variance, downside, systematic-factor loading), and the feasible set is the efficient frontier on which higher expected returns can only be obtained by accepting higher risk. It inherits the multi-dimensional-coupling structure of trade-offs and adds the specific dimensions and feasible set that define investment choice.

Risk-return tradeoff is a specialization of trade-offs; it is the financial case where expected return improves only by accepting more risk.


Risk transfer is a SPECIALIZED exchange — what changes hands is an adverse-outcome distribution against a price, with three sustainability conditions (alignment, symmetry, solvency) generic exchange lacks. Exchange supplies the genus: Reciprocal transfer between parties under mutual commitment, with each side's movement keyed to the other's. Risk Transfer preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Shifting an adverse-outcome distribution from one party to another for a price, so the loss lands on whoever can bear it best. 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.


Operates on a pre-existing risk exposure; presupposes risk. Risk supplies the prerequisite condition: Exposure to a known distribution of possible outcomes. Risk Transfer operates against that background: Shifting an adverse-outcome distribution from one party to another for a price, so the loss lands on whoever can bear it best. 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.


Ritual is a specialization of performativity. Specifically, it instantiates the constitutive-rather-than-descriptive pattern in the rule-governed-and-symbolically-charged subclass: prescribed sequences performed under correct conditions transform participants' standing (marriage, ordination, mourning, naming) rather than reporting an antecedent fact. Like other performatives, ritual efficacy is felicity-rather-than-truth and depends on appropriate setting, authority, and form; ritual is the subclass anchored by repetition, symbolic structure, and tradition that makes the performative act a recurrent communal institution.

Ritual is a specialization of performativity that uses prescribed repetitive action to bring about transformations of social or sacred state.


Ritual is a specialization of recurrence: rule-governed performative activity that reappears across time on prescribed occasions, with the periodicity and triggers being constitutive of the practice rather than incidental. It inherits recurrence's structural property that a pattern or event reappears with predictable spacing or trigger-response structure, particularized to symbolically-charged human performance. The transformative and traditional dimensions of ritual rest on the recurrence pattern: efficacy accumulates only because the form is repeated.

Ritual is a kind of recurrence in which symbolic performative actions reappear at predictable intervals or in response to identifiable triggers.


Ritual is a specialization of social norms: rule-governed prescribed behavior whose violation invites disapproval, correction, or exclusion, sustained jointly by internalization and enforcement within a community. It inherits the structural commitments of social norms — shared expectation, deviation-sanction, distributed knowledge, mutual reinforcement — particularized to the symbolic-performative case where the prescribed action is meaningful in itself. The formal repetition and tradition of ritual is precisely the norm-content and norm-enforcement pattern applied to symbolic acts.

Ritual is a kind of social norm in which the prescribed pattern of behavior is enforced by community expectation and sanction.


Remove all closed paths from the rate graph and matter can only progress into terminal sinks; return, bidirectionality, and cycling among legitimate phases disappear. Cycle supplies an internal constituent: A closed path in a network that returns to its origin, opening return, foreclosing ordering, and creating a loop invariant. Rock Cycle requires that role within this mechanism: The same persisting substance moves among a small set of distinct phase-states via named transformations, its identity preserved through phase change while its properties change qualitatively in each phase. 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.

The rock-cycle pattern contains at least one closed transformation path through which the persisting substance can return to a prior phase-state.


Competition imposes no constraint on the beats-graph topology and can be transitive (a pecking order); rock_paper_scissors is 'the specific subcase where the beats-relation closes into a directed cycle.' A specialization of competition by relation-topology. Competition supplies the genus: Rivalrous pursuit of a scarce prize where one party's gain is another's loss. Rock-Paper-Scissors (Intransitive Cyclic Dominance) preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A beats-relation that closes into a cycle rather than a ranking, so no option dominates and the system is governed by rotation and coexistence. 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.


Site supplies the genus: A persistent, addressable position whose identity is given by its capacity to host or contain entities, surviving the turnover of whatever occupies it. Role preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A bundle of expected behaviours attached to a social position. 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.

Role is typically a specialization of Site, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.


Role conflict is the strain produced when one person simultaneously occupies multiple positions whose embedded expectations cannot all be satisfied. The conflict only arises because each position carries a bundle of behaviors, rights, and obligations attached to the slot rather than to the person — exactly the structural decoupling that defines role. Without slot-bound expectation-sets, simultaneous incumbency would not generate incompatible demands; the conflict is parasitic on the very position-incumbent separation that makes roles a recurring social device.

Role conflict presupposes role because incompatible expectation-sets can only collide once positions carry bundles of expectations independent of their occupant.


Fluidity is not generic behavioral variety. The relevant alternatives must be occupant-independent functional positions with distinguishable expectations, and the same occupant must be able to enter more than one of them. Role supplies those persistent slots.

Role fluidity presupposes Role because it changes the mapping between persistent occupants and position-defined functional expectations.


Rule of law commits to no element being exempt from the system's governing rules, including the element that generates or enforces them. This self-binding is precisely the reflexive loop in which a system's own outputs become inputs that shape its behaviour: the law-making apparatus is folded back into the law-governed domain. Without the reflexive arrangement that lets a rule-generating element be inside its own scope rather than above it, the supremacy and equality clauses Dicey crystallized cannot operate; the doctrine collapses into mere positive rule-issuance from an unbounded sovereign.

Rule of law presupposes reflexivity because the rule-making power must itself be bound by the rules it generates.


Rule of law is the specific shape symmetry takes when the system is a legal order and the transformation group is permutation across legal subjects (and the rule-maker themselves). The defining commitment that the same rule yields the same treatment independent of identity, rank, or power is exactly invariance under the swap-of-persons transformation -- the symmetry of equal application. The reflexive self-binding of rule-generating elements extends the symmetry to include the legislator and enforcer within the same group, making the order symmetric under the broadest permutation of legal agents. After the law_governance frame is stripped away, the retained structural roles are those of Symmetry: Invariance under transformation. Rule of Law adds the local frame and commitments expressed in its identity: No element of a system is exempt from its governing rules, including the element that generates or enforces 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.

Rule of law is the specific shape symmetry takes when the transformation group is permutation of legal subjects and the invariant is rule-treatment.


Rule_of_least_power 'prescribes WHICH constraints to prefer (those that bound expressiveness)' — a design discipline of choosing the most constrained mechanism sufficient for function. Presupposes constraint as its object. Constraint supplies the prerequisite condition: Limits possibilities to guide outcomes. Rule of Least Power (Minimum Sufficient Capability) operates against that background: Choose the least expressive mechanism that still solves the problem, because unused capability is structural debt that weakens analyzability and safety. 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.


Rules of engagement contain a bounded grant of authority for unforeseeable, time-pressured cases plus an escalation path at the permission boundary; this is Authority Delegation Under Uncertainty operating as one constituent of the larger rule.

Pre-positioned authority and its escalation edge are constituents of a rules-of-engagement structure.


Rules of engagement specialize delegation by pre-committing the permitted decision space, authorizing autonomous action inside it, and auditing boundary-respect rather than prescribing each decision. Delegation of Authority supplies the genus: Assign responsibility. Rules Of Engagement preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Pre-committed conditional permissions that let an operator act autonomously inside a bounded space. 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.

ROE is a specialized delegation: the principal delegates the pre-decided boundary conditions within which the operator decides freely.


The sacred is the specific shape boundary takes when the demarcation runs between an inviolable category and the ordinary, with crossings governed by prohibition rather than permission. The boundary components map directly: the bounded entity is the sacred object, place, or practice; the demarcation criterion is collective conferral of set-apart status; permeability is regulated by ritual purification and taboo; and crossings unauthorized by ritual incur contamination rather than ordinary disapproval. The sacred-profane binary is boundary maintenance charged with ultimate symbolic weight.

The sacred is the specific shape boundary takes when what is demarcated is set radically apart from the profane and protected by prohibition.


The strategy becomes necessary only when the available defensive resource cannot cover every contested position; absent scarcity, deliberately yielding the periphery supplies no structural advantage.

Sacrificing the periphery presupposes a binding resource shortage that prevents defending core and periphery together.


'It is an equilibrium of a specific INDEFINITE kind; calling it stable or unstable without naming the directions discards exactly the saddle structure.' A saddle is the mixed-sign-geometry specialization of equilibrium. Equilibrium supplies the genus: Balanced state. Saddle Point preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: An equilibrium stable in some directions and unstable in others. 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.


Salience is a local-contrast-against-surround computation (signal against background) applied to capture processing capacity — a specialization of contrast. Contrast supplies the genus: Emphasized difference. Salience preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A bottom-up, relational score by which items stand out from their surround before deliberate attention is allocated. 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.


Sampling representativeness is a specialization of bias reasoning: it names the principle that prevents the persistent, sign-having displacement of sample estimates from population parameters. It inherits bias's structural definition — systematic offset between an estimating procedure's expected output and the quantity it should recover — and particularizes it to the selection-mechanism case where non-probability sampling introduces a recoverable-but-non-vanishing bias. Probability sampling is precisely the bias-elimination procedure for the selection step.

Sampling representativeness is a kind of bias control that prevents systematic displacement of estimates away from population parameters.


Sampling representativeness is the particular form experimental design takes when the inferential target is a defined population from which units are drawn. The principle requires that every unit have a specified non-zero selection probability, permitting design-based inference without untestable assumptions about how sampled units mirror unsampled ones. The general architecture of principled-comparison-and-inference is specialized here to the population-generalization problem, with probability sampling as the specific mechanism that calibrates sample statistics to population parameters.

Sampling representativeness is the specific shape experimental design takes when inference from observed units must generalize to a defined target population.


Sampling representativeness presupposes probability because its calibrated inference from sample to population rests on every unit having a specified non-zero selection probability — a probabilistic assignment obeying the coherence rules. It inherits probability's apparatus — sample space, events, numerical assignment in [0,1] — to construct the selection mechanism that licenses design-based inference. Without probability's framework, "representative" collapses to untestable assumptions about resemblance rather than a calibrated inference apparatus.

Sampling representativeness presupposes probability because design-based inference rests on each unit having a known, non-zero selection probability.


The sanctuary effect is a specialized competition/contest geometry: rivalry on a NON-uniform field of control with a regenerative base the controller cannot reach. is a specialization of a contest where the geometry (not the rivalry) is the prime. contrasts it with bare competition as adding the non-uniform-field ingredient. Competition supplies the genus: Rivalrous pursuit of a scarce prize where one party's gain is another's loss. Sanctuary Effect preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: An adversary persists indefinitely because it regenerates inside a low-contestation zone the controller cannot reach, so suppression-only effort yields a positive steady state rather than elimination. 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.


Sandboxing is 'sharper than mere isolation or containment' — it is containment PLUS the deliberate intent to EXERCISE the candidate under observation with a graduation rule. Containment is bound-without-exercise; the sandbox adds exercise+observability+non-promotion, a specialization of containment. Containment supplies the genus: Holding a hazard, process, or agent within a deliberately maintained perimeter to prevent its spread or uncontrolled interaction with the surroundings. Sandboxing preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Exercise an untrusted candidate inside a bounded, observable enclosure. 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.


Satisficing accepts the first option that meets an aspiration level rather than searching the whole choice set for the global best. The strategy only makes sense when exhaustive optimization is not feasible — when information, computation, or time is binding. Bounded rationality supplies exactly that condition: real decision-makers operate under such limits and therefore search locally rather than globally. Satisficing is one of the canonical local-search rules that bounded agents employ; it presupposes the bounded-rationality diagnosis of the agent's situation as the reason aspiration-based stopping is rational at all.

Satisficing presupposes bounded rationality because stopping at good-enough only makes sense for agents who cannot afford exhaustive optimization.


A heuristic is a simplified rule that yields a good-enough solution much faster than exhaustive analysis, at the cost of accuracy in some cases. Satisficing is one such rule: set an aspiration level, search options sequentially, and stop at the first that meets the threshold. It inherits the heuristic's favorable speed-accuracy trade-off and its ecological-fit justification, and adds the specific machinery of aspiration thresholds and sequential search with stopping. A specialization of heuristic keyed to acceptance-by-threshold rather than ranking-by-quality.

Satisficing is a specialization of heuristic; it is the rule of accepting the first option that meets an aspiration level rather than searching exhaustively.


Scaffolding commonly places task structure, prompts, partial solutions, or guidance outside the learner so performance can exceed unaided capability. It specializes that offloading pattern with a lifecycle commitment: the external support is temporary, calibrated to performance, and designed to be withdrawn. The qualifier is typical because motivational, emotional, or purely social scaffolds need not offload a cognitive operation.

Scaffolding is typically Cognitive Offloading specialized to temporary external support that is deliberately withdrawn as capability grows.


Scaffolding provides temporary, calibrated support with the defining intention that responsibility will pass to the learner or supported system. Fading is the withdrawal machinery inside that arc: prompts, guidance, or assistance are reduced along a schedule that tracks growing competence until unaided performance is reached. Without Fading, the support remains a continuing aid rather than scaffolding engineered for its own obsolescence.

Scaffolding contains Fading as the internal withdrawal phase that tapers temporary support until independent performance.


Scaffolding is a specialization of pedagogy whose distinctive move is providing temporary, calibrated supports that enable a learner to accomplish tasks just beyond independent capability, then progressively withdrawing those supports as the skill is internalized. It inherits pedagogy's commitment to deliberate, calibrated structuring of the learner's encounter with content to cause durable capability change, and adds the specific architecture of an installed-then-removed support — modeling, prompts, partial solutions — engineered for its own obsolescence as the learner takes over the work.

Scaffolding is a specific pedagogy that supplies temporary, calibrated supports for tasks beyond independent capability, then withdraws them as competence grows.


Scaffolding presupposes the zone of proximal development because its operational logic — providing temporary supports that enable tasks just beyond independent capability, then progressively withdrawing them — only makes sense in the ZPD-defined gap between actual and potential developmental levels. It inherits the ZPD's commitment that calibrated social mediation converts potential capability into internalized competence, and operationalizes the mediation as the modeling, prompting, and partial-solution moves that traverse the zone.

Scaffolding presupposes the zone of proximal development because the temporary supports are calibrated precisely to that productive gap.


Scalability presupposes scale because the property of accommodating increased load -- request rate, data volume, geographic reach -- is meaningful only relative to a specified scale dimension and the recognition that the system's governing dynamics may differ at different bands. Without scale's commitment to size, resolution, and aggregation-level as first-class specifications, there is no axis along which to scale and no diagnosis of where the bottleneck shifts. Scalability is the engineered property that preserves favorable performance behavior across the relevant scale dimension.

Scalability presupposes scale because the property of accommodating growth is defined relative to the chosen scale dimension and band-specific ontology.


Scale invariance is a specialization of invariance. Specifically, it names the case in which the family of transformations is the rescaling group x to lambda-x and the preserved feature is the system's statistical or geometric structure, signaled mathematically by the power-law form f(lambda-x) = lambda-alpha f(x). Like every invariance claim, it commits jointly to what is preserved and under which operations; scale invariance is the subclass where the operations are dilations and the absence of a characteristic scale is what makes the invariance hold.

Scale invariance is a specialization of invariance whose preserved feature survives the rescaling-by-lambda transformation group.


Scale invariance is the property that a system, structure, or distribution is unchanged under dilation x -> lambda x, reflecting the absence of a characteristic scale. That is precisely a symmetry claim: invariance of a named feature under a specified group of transformations, here the multiplicative group of rescalings. Scale invariance specializes symmetry by fixing the relevant group as rescaling and the preserved feature as the system's statistical or geometric structure across length, time, or energy scales.

Scale Invariance is a kind of symmetry: structure is preserved under the rescaling transformation x -> lambda x.


Scaling and scale dependence is the structurally-particularized form scale takes when the band-specific ontology and its governing laws differ across levels — what works at one scale fails at another because different forces, frictions, and feedback loops become binding. It inherits scale's commitment that the system at one scale is a qualitatively different object than at another, particularized to the diagnostic and design case where scale-appropriate intervention is required and one-size-fits-all designs become actively pathological.

Scaling and scale dependence is the specific shape scale takes when system properties change qualitatively, not just in magnitude, with size.


Scapegoating presupposes the in-group/out-group partition because its mechanism depends on concentrating diffuse collective tension onto a target whose marking as outside-the-we makes the punishment feel like a discharge for those inside. The target must be available as out-group: someone whose suffering does not register as the in-group's own. Without the prior partition between a "we" extended loyalty and a "they" extended hostility, there is no structural slot for the surrogate victim to occupy, and the displacement-concentration-discharge sequence has no asymmetric channel to flow through.

Scapegoating presupposes the in-group/out-group partition because the displaced blame must land on a target marked as outside the "we."


Scapegoating is a specialization of responsibility attribution. Both operations map outcomes back onto sources, apportioning blame; scapegoating specializes by concentrating the assignment on a single marked target whose punishment discharges the collective's distress, regardless of actual causal contribution. The general structure of directed-assignment-from-effects-to-sources persists, but the counterfactual and normative gates are bypassed in favor of displacement and concentration. The assignment operation itself remains, while its quality controls collapse — making scapegoating a pathological specialization rather than a separate phenomenon.

Scapegoating is a specialization of responsibility attribution in which diffuse collective blame is concentrated onto a single chosen target.


Constraint is a condition that restricts admissible configurations or allocations to those satisfying it, defining the feasible set as a first-class object. Scarcity is the particular shape this pattern takes for resources: the available quantity is insufficient to satisfy all simultaneous demands, so allocating to one use necessarily denies it to another. The supply-demand mismatch becomes the binding restriction on admissible allocations. A structurally-particularized instance of constraint whose specific source is the finite-supply-versus-competing-demand relation that makes the question of who gets what arise at all.

Scarcity is the specific shape constraint takes when the binding restriction is finite supply relative to competing demands on a resource.


Scenario planning is a specialization of foresight whose distinctive move is building a small set of three to five internally consistent, structurally distinct futures by systematically varying the most critical and uncertain driving forces. It inherits foresight's commitment to structured anticipation of plural possible futures informing present perception and choice, and adds the specific architecture of a 2×2 matrix of key uncertainties and qualitatively different narrative trajectories — supplying the central narrative-stress-testing component of the broader foresight methods stack.

Scenario planning is a specific foresight method that constructs a small set of internally consistent stories spanning critical uncertainties.


Scenario planning is the specific shape modal reasoning takes when the alternative possibilities reasoned over are a small set of internally consistent future trajectories, each constructed by varying the most critical and uncertain driving forces shaping the decision environment. It is a structurally-particularized instance of evaluating claims across a structured space of possibilities, with the added commitments that the modal space is bounded to a handful of qualitatively different stories rather than infinite worlds, the construction is driven by critical-uncertainty axes, and the output is a strategy stress-tested for robustness across the scenarios it spans.

Scenario planning is the specific shape modal reasoning takes when alternative futures are constructed as a small set of plausible, structurally distinct stories.


Scheduling is a specialization of allocation. The general allocation pattern assigns limited supply across competing claims under feasibility and criterion. Scheduling specializes by including time as a key dimension of the limited resource: tasks are assigned to time slots and resources subject to precedence, deadlines, and capacity, optimizing makespan, lateness, or throughput. The same assignment-under-scarcity logic of allocation applies, with time slots as the additional structural feature and ordering-over-time as the central decision variable distinguishing scheduling from pure resource division.

Scheduling is a specialization of allocation in which the limited resources include time slots and assignments must honor precedence and deadlines.


Scheduling assigns tasks to time slots and resources subject to precedence, deadline, and capacity constraints while optimizing an objective such as makespan, lateness, or utilization. That fits the optimization triplet exactly: decision variables (assignments), an objective (the cost or throughput criterion), and constraints (precedence, deadlines, capacity). Scheduling is the specialization of optimization in which the decision space is the assignment of work over a temporal-and-resource lattice.

Scheduling is a kind of optimization: it assigns tasks to time slots and resources to minimize cost or maximize throughput under constraints.


Scheduling presupposes prioritization because whenever multiple tasks compete for a limited resource at a given moment, the scheduler must order them, and that ordering is precisely a prioritization: a ranking of competing claims by some criterion of value, urgency, or feasibility. Prioritization supplies the general apparatus of ranking and committing to that ranking when resources are scarce; scheduling adds the additional structure of mapping the ranked items to time slots and respecting precedence, deadlines, and capacity constraints. Without prior ranking, scheduling has no tiebreaker.

Scheduling presupposes prioritization because assigning tasks to time slots under constraints requires a ranking when items compete for the same resource.


A schema is the structurally-particularized form abstraction takes in the cognitive-representation case: the concrete original is the population of category instances encountered, the purpose is efficient recognition and prediction of novel-but-familiar situations, and the projection retains typical features and variable roles while dropping idiosyncratic detail. It satisfies abstraction's three-part specification — concrete original, purpose, projection — particularized by the slot-and-filler structure that enables top-down processing of incoming data.

A schema is the specific shape abstraction takes when experience with a category is retained as a type-level pattern with slots.


The pattern requires an inside and outside: cases for which the schema has a prompt, category, or slot, and cases it cannot express. Boundary supplies that demarcation; the child adds systematic non-elicitation outside it and the false-completeness effect produced by exhaustive work inside it.

A coverage boundary separating cases expressible inside the schema from cases it cannot generate is an internal constituent of the blind spot.


Coverage / Reachability supplies a source set, a required-target set, and the obligation that every target be reached. Schema-Bounded Blind Spot adds the deeper failure in which the finite schema helps define the visible target set, leaving an out-of-schema case absent from the very audit that would reveal the gap.

A schema-bounded blind spot exists only relative to an intended coverage claim connecting elicitation prompts or categories to the cases that should be surfaced.


Schema supplies the finite organizing and eliciting structure. The child adds the open target space, the consequential case outside the schema's expressive coverage, and the false-completeness effect created by diligent use within it.

A schema-bounded blind spot requires a schema whose finite prompts or categories determine which cases can be generated for consideration.


Ratchet Effect supplies the genus: Direction-asymmetric coupling plus a locking element produces accumulating one-way displacement under bidirectional forcing. Scope Creep preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A perimeter ratchets outward through small additions each judged against a drifting current baseline rather than the original charter, with no owner of the trajectory. 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.

Scope Creep is a specialization of Ratchet Effect, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.


Screening presupposes information asymmetry because its entire structure is a response to an unobservable type held by the agent: the uninformed party designs a menu of contracts such that agents of different types self-select, revealing the hidden information through choice rather than through verification. Without the prior distributional fact that one side knows something material the other cannot observe, there would be no need for self-selection mechanics. Screening inherits information asymmetry's structure of unequal private knowledge and supplies one of the canonical mechanisms — menu-based separation — by which the uninformed side recovers what it cannot directly see.

Screening presupposes information asymmetry because the menu-design strategy it names is a response to unequal private knowledge held by the other side.


Screening is a specialization of mechanism design in which the designer is the uninformed party facing agents of unknown type, and the desired outcome is type-revelation through self-selection. It inherits mechanism design's general inversion — start with the target equilibrium, search for rules implementing it under private information and self-interest — and specializes by fixing the rule class to menus of contracts and the objective to separating types. The participants' best responses, calibrated by their hidden types, deliver the information the designer needs without direct verification.

Screening is a specialization of mechanism design in which the designer is the uninformed party building a menu to elicit hidden types through self-selection.


A script is 'the specifically temporally-and-causally ordered SCHEMA'; a schema is the generic slot-and-filler bundle that may or may not be ordered. Script inherits schema's slot machinery and adds ordered sequence and breach-on-next-step. Genus=schema. Schema supplies the genus: Structured knowledge framework. Script preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A stored representation of a familiar situation as a temporally and causally ordered sequence of events with role-slots, props, and conditions, against which encounters are interpreted and deviations detected as breaches. 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.


Search and retrieval presupposes a problem space because navigating from a query toward relevant items requires a formal representation that specifies what counts as a state, what operators move between states, and what counts as reaching the goal of matching the query. Without problem-space machinery — initial state, goal state, operators, intermediate-state lattice — there is no structured space to navigate, no precision-recall trade-off to manage, and no notion of search efficiency. Problem space supplies the representational substrate on which search and retrieval algorithms operate.

Search and retrieval presupposes a problem space because locating items requires a representation specifying states, operators, and goal criteria.


Search and retrieval is the process of locating relevant items from a larger set, navigating a space to match a query. Every realistic retrieval system faces structurally coupled valued dimensions — precision (excluding false positives), recall (capturing true positives), and query latency — that cannot all be maximized at once. Trade-offs supplies the structural pattern in which improving one valued dimension worsens another within a feasible set; retrieval design presupposes this multi-dimensional coupling as the standing condition that any indexing, ranking, or pruning choice must navigate.

Search and retrieval presupposes trade-offs because every retrieval system must balance precision, recall, and latency against each other.


Second-order cybernetics is the structurally-particularized form reflexivity takes when the observation apparatus itself is treated as part of the system: the observer's models of the system, and of their own observing, become inputs that shape the system's dynamics. It inherits reflexivity's structural pattern — a system's representations of itself shape its behavior — particularized to the cybernetic case where the system under regulation explicitly includes the regulator-observer coupling as a first-class analytical concern.

Second-order cybernetics is the specific shape reflexivity takes when the observer is included as a participant in the system being observed.


A design-stage failure: lifting a load-bearing constraint that was a silent prioritizer floods the successor with a postponed-ambitions stockpile. Presupposes a feasibility-constrained design process. Design for Implementation supplies the prerequisite condition: Real-world feasibility. Second-System Effect operates against that background: When load-bearing constraints are lifted but capability is retained, a stockpile of postponed ambitions floods the successor, producing overengineering. 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.


Segmentation and boundary drawing is the particularization of boundary to the act of partitioning: a continuous domain is divided into discrete categories by placing boundaries that determine what is treated as the same versus different. Where boundary names the conceptual demarcation between an entity and its outside generally, segmentation fixes the operation — partitioning a continuum — and emphasizes the design-choice character of where the lines fall, with small boundary shifts producing large changes in category assignment.

Segmentation and boundary drawing is the specific shape boundary takes when a continuous domain is partitioned into discrete categories by boundary placement.


Segmentation and boundary drawing presupposes classification because the work of partitioning a continuous domain — placing boundaries that decide where one category ends and another begins — only makes sense relative to a category structure being assigned. Classification supplies the deliberate process of sorting items into discrete categories according to defined rules; segmentation supplies the upstream operation of placing the boundaries themselves within a continuous substrate. Without classification's category-structured target, there would be nothing for the boundary placements to be boundaries between, and small boundary shifts would not propagate into changed classification outcomes.

Segmentation and boundary drawing presupposes classification because partitioning a continuous domain into discrete categories requires a category structure to draw boundaries within.


Selection bias is a specialization of bias. Specifically, it instantiates the systematic-displacement-from-the-true-value pattern by locating the mechanism in the unit-selection process: when entry, retention, or data-contribution is associated with both exposure and outcome (self-selection, survivorship, conditioning on a collider), the resulting estimate is offset in a consistent direction that more data does not erase. It exhibits bias's defining signature -- a sign and direction surviving the infinite-sample limit -- with the offset traced to selection rather than measurement or estimation.

Selection bias is a specialization of bias in which the distortion arises from how units enter, remain in, or contribute data.


Selection bias presupposes statistical inference because the bias it names is a distortion of the inference from sample to population: associations observed in a recorded sample may misrepresent the target population when entry, retention, or measurement is itself associated with exposure and outcome. Without the prior commitment that finite samples are being used to draw conclusions about an underlying population or mechanism, there is no inferential move for selection to bias. The concept is parasitic on the inferential frame whose validity it threatens.

Selection bias presupposes statistical inference because it names a distortion in the very inferential move from sample to population.


Vantage-Induced Omission supplies the genus: An apparatus's structural vantage makes some regions of a landscape reachable and others constitutively invisible, so its output is mistaken for the landscape rather than the landscape-restricted-to-its-vantage. Selection Bias preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Skewed sampling. 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.

Selection Bias is a specialization of Vantage-Induced Omission, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.


Inclusion makes the observed set unrepresentative because it depends on a result-bearing variable. The differentia is that the variable is a noisy estimate of latent value, the selector favors a tail, and the distortion is a conditional shift in estimation error.

Selection on Noisy Estimates is selection bias specialized to inclusion or choice driven by an extreme noisy proxy for latent value.


A selection-visibility gate is natural selection specialized by an upstream access stage that determines which variant consequences the selector can act on. Both begin with a population of variants and change its composition through differential persistence or reproduction under a selection pressure. The child additionally requires a variable expression or accessibility gate upstream of selection and a retained-record bias traceable to that gate.


The Price-equation identity contains covariance of relative weight or fitness with trait value as its first summand. Removing that constituent removes the selection half of the selection-versus-transmission split rather than merely removing a prerequisite used to calculate it.

Covariance of unit weight with trait is the exact selection term contained in the residual-free decomposition.


An EXACT, residual-free specialization of decomposition: a weighted-mean change split identically into covariance-of-weight-with-trait (selection) + share-weighted within-unit change (transmission). The Price equation is its generator; FHK and Brinson are the same identity for firms/portfolios. Dossier-confirmed specialization edge.

An EXACT, residual-free specialization of decomposition: a weighted-mean change split identically into covariance-of-weight-with-trait (selection) and share-weighted within-unit change (transmission).


The object being decomposed is a weighted mean, and the transmission term is itself a weight-indexed sum of within-unit changes. Without scaling unit values by weights and adding them, neither side of the residual-free identity is defined.

The identity presupposes linear combination because its population mean and within-unit term are weighted sums over units.


Selective propagation is a propagation subtype that adds attribute-dependent survival and downstream composition shift to ordinary source-through-medium spread. Both require movement from a source through a medium whose structure governs paths, attenuation, and reach. Selective propagation additionally requires a heterogeneous input and a component-property-to-survival rule that changes the mixture with distance.


Self_control is 'one SUBSTRATE of the gap (the individual-cognitive transmission weakness of hyperbolic discounting)'; the knowledge-action gap is the broader structure that scales from akrasia to collective implementation gaps. Knowledge-Action Gap supplies the genus: An agent holds accurate knowledge of the appropriate action, sincerely intends to take it, and systematically does not — because knowing and doing are separable load-bearing states and intervention on the knowing channel does not, by itself, change the doing channel. Self Control preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Overriding immediate impulses in service of longer-term goals. 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.


Self-control presupposes temporal inconsistency because the conflict it resolves — between a salient present-oriented impulse and a slower future-oriented evaluation — is constituted by the prior structural pattern in which an agent's preference ordering reverses as the decision horizon approaches. Without that gap between distant-self and near-self valuations of the same action, there would be no impulse to override and no higher-order standard to enforce. Self-control inherits the temporal-inconsistency structure and supplies the intra-agent machinery — attention, commitment devices, depletable override capacity — that lets the represented goal win over the felt impulse.

Self-control presupposes temporal inconsistency because the override capacity self-control names exists to resolve conflicts between near and far valuations.


The child fixes the predictive state to a disseminated forecast, the response channel to aggregated belief-driven action, and the coupling sign to a reduction in the forecast's truth value.

Self-Defeating Prediction is the negative collective-action species in which response to a disseminated forecast moves the predicted variable against it.


Feedback supplies the prerequisite condition: Outputs influence inputs. Self-Defeating Prediction operates against that background: Belief in a forecast moves conditions against 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.

Self-Defeating Prediction presupposes Feedback, whose structure must already obtain for the child mechanism to be meaningful or operational.


Self_efficacy is an agent's second-order belief about its OWN capacity to act — presupposes the first-order agency triad. Agency supplies the prerequisite condition: A system pursues representable goals through actions whose selection is sensitive to its beliefs about its situation, via a goal-representation, world-model, and action-selection coupling. Self-Efficacy operates against that background: Belief in capability. 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 architecture presupposes a self/other classifier as one obligatory role; the prime is the consequence when that classifier gates a harm-producing effector over shared machinery. Presupposes classification (one role, not the whole).


Both require an outcome-relevant predictive state, a causal response channel, and a realized outcome that differs because the prediction entered the system. Self-Fulfilling Prophecy fixes the channel to behavior by the holder or recipients, the coupling sign to positive, and the result to validation of the predicted proposition.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy is the positive behavioral species in which an expectation changes action so the expected proposition validates itself.


A self-fulfilling prophecy is the specific shape feedback takes when the looped variable is a prediction or expectation about an outcome and the return path runs through the behavior of the people who hold or hear the prediction. The prediction's expression alters action, action alters the outcome, and the outcome confirms the prediction — closing the loop. It is a structurally-particularized instance of output routed back to influence subsequent input, with the added specification that the looped quantity is a belief about the future and the coupling sign is positive enough to drive the world toward the predicted state.

A self-fulfilling prophecy is the specific shape feedback takes when a belief's expression alters behavior so that the belief is validated.


Responsibility attribution is the directed assignment from outcomes to responsible sources, gated by counterfactual and normative tests. Self-handicapping is the particular shape this operation takes when an agent strategically engineers the attribution in advance: by introducing a performance-degrading obstacle before the task, the agent ensures that any failure attribution will land on the obstacle rather than on ability. It is a structurally-particularized instance of attribution whose specific machinery is pre-emptive cause-planting to redirect the post-hoc assignment away from internal capability.

Self-handicapping is the specific shape responsibility attribution takes when an agent pre-arranges an external excuse to shield ability from blame.


Self-handicapping is a pre-emptive self-protective behavior aimed at shielding self-assessed ability from disconfirmation by creating an external explanation for possible failure. The strategy presupposes a self-efficacy belief in place — specifically a fragile one — because there must be a task-specific capability estimate at stake for the handicap to defend. Without an antecedent agency expectation that could be downgraded by poor performance, there is nothing for the attribution shield to protect; self-efficacy supplies the belief variable that self-handicapping mobilizes against evaluative threat.

Self-handicapping presupposes self-efficacy because the strategy only triggers in agents with fragile task-specific ability beliefs to protect.


Self-organized criticality is criticality specialized to systems whose internal dynamics drive and maintain the critical regime without external tuning. Criticality supplies the genus: Regime poised at a phase boundary where response becomes scale-free and correlations diverge. Self-Organized Criticality preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Localized chaos and fluctuation at fine scales actively sustains and enables emergent coherence and order at coarse scales through recursive multi-scale feedback, rather than degrading 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.


The formal species adds a carrier, operation, algebraic tier, embeddings, decomposition theory, and classification machinery. Associativity remains the internal portable property from which its re-association payoff follows.

A Semigroup strictly contains Associativity as the axiom certifying that every finite product is independent of parenthesization.


Closure supplies output containment and iterability; associativity separately supplies regrouping invariance. The semigroup species requires both and adds algebra-specific theory neither property carries alone. Closure supplies an internal constituent: Ensures operations remain within a set. Semigroup requires that role within this mechanism: The minimal algebraic species — a set with one closed, associative binary operation and nothing more — whose lone axiom certifies that any finite product is parenthesization-independent, so a sequential reduction can be split, reassociated, and run in parallel without changing the answer. 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.

A Semigroup strictly contains Closure because combining any two carrier elements must return another element of that same carrier.


The carrier and bivalent membership relation remain exactly those of Set and Membership. The operation and its axioms add structure without changing the fact that every semigroup is first a set of elements.

A Semigroup is a Set equipped with one closed associative binary operation.


Sensemaking works by extracting and bracketing cues from an ambiguous stream and committing to a plausible interpretation that enables action. That commitment is precisely a frame: a selective configuration of what is foregrounded, what reference point is taken, and what vocabulary organizes the situation. Framing names the general structural fact that any presentation of a situation selects and configures information; sensemaking is the active social-cognitive process that mobilizes this framing capability under pressure of ambiguity, so it cannot operate without framing as its underlying mechanism.

Sensemaking presupposes framing because the plausible account it constructs is built by selecting and configuring cues into a working frame.


Sensemaking is a kind of interpretation specialized to ambiguous, surprising, or rapidly-unfolding situations: the interpreter extracts and brackets cues from an overwhelming stream, organizes them into a plausible identity-grounded narrative, and commits to a working frame that enables action. It inherits interpretation's commitment to producing constrained readings from a representational substrate within a framework, and supplies the specific case where the substrate is unfolding events under uncertainty and the constraint of action-readiness substitutes for the academic luxury of multiple consistent readings.

Sensemaking is a specialization of interpretation in which agents facing ambiguity actively construct a working account of what is happening.


Exception: sensemaking can stabilize ambiguity through maps, categories, causal diagrams, matrices, or other non-story models rather than through narrative form.

Sensemaking often constructs a plausible story by selecting cues and connecting events into a causal-temporal account that enables action, so it commonly contributes the live construction of a narrative. But a working interpretation can instead take the form of a map, category system, causal diagram, matrix, or other non-story model. Narrative is therefore a frequent containing product of sensemaking rather than a universal one.

Sensemaking commonly contributes the live construction of Narrative, but some working interpretations organize cues through non-story representational forms.


Sensitivity analysis in operations research presupposes optimization because its outputs -- shadow prices, reduced costs, ranges of optimal-basis stability, break-even values -- are defined relative to an existing optimum produced by solving an optimization problem. Without optimization's quartet of decision variables, objective, constraints, and notion of optimality, there is no optimal solution to perturb and no dual structure (shadow prices ARE the constraint duals) to interrogate. Sensitivity analysis is the post-optimality interrogation that optimization makes possible.

Sensitivity analysis in operations research presupposes optimization because shadow prices and parameter ranges characterize how an optimum responds to input perturbations.


Separation of powers presupposes authority because what is being separated is precisely the capacity to make binding decisions that create persistent obligations — Weber's Herrschaft. It inherits authority's commitment that legitimate power rests on recognition rather than raw capacity, particularized to the distributive case where the right to decide is partitioned among branches so that no single agent holds the full bundle. Without prior authority to apportion, there is nothing to separate; the doctrine is an architecture for authority's controlled distribution.

Separation of powers presupposes authority because it operates by distributing legitimate binding-decision power across distinct branches.


Separation of powers presupposes boundary because the doctrine operationally requires demarcation lines between branches — legislative, executive, judicial — that specify what belongs inside each branch's authority and what crosses into another's. It inherits boundary's four-part structure: the bounded entity (each branch's jurisdiction), the demarcation criterion (constitutional assignment of powers), the permeability (checks-and-balances crossings), and the operative force (acts beyond jurisdiction are void). Without boundary's demarcation apparatus, the structural separation cannot be drawn.

Separation of powers presupposes boundary because it requires demarcated jurisdictional lines between branches that govern reach and crossing.


Separation of powers is a specialization of modularity. The general modularity pattern decomposes a system into discrete, largely self-contained components with stable interfaces, reducing coupling and increasing cohesion so each module can be understood and revised independently. Separation of powers applies this architecture to governance: legislative, executive, and judicial functions are partitioned into branches with defined interfaces (lawmaking, enforcement, adjudication) and independence of operation. The same decomposition-with-stable-interfaces logic of modularity applies, with governmental function as the specific axis of partition and checks-and-balances as the specific interface contract.

Separation of powers is a specialization of modularity in which governmental functions are decomposed into independent branches with defined interfaces.


Sequencing presupposes dependency because the deliberate arrangement of steps over time is constrained by directed relations: step B cannot proceed until step A is supplied. It inherits dependency's structural asymmetry — A relies on B being prior — and uses it as the binding constraint that determines admissible orderings. The active design choice of sequencing operates on a dependency graph, and without that graph there would be no precedence to satisfy and no value in the order itself.

Sequencing presupposes dependency because the order in which steps are arranged is dictated by which steps require which others as prerequisites.


Sequencing is a specialization of optimization: it searches the space of admissible orderings of tasks for the arrangement that maximizes or minimizes a stated objective (makespan, throughput, value-extraction) under precedence and resource constraints. It inherits optimization's four-part triplet plus optimality sense — decision variables (the order), objective, constraints (precedences), and notion of optimality — particularized to the temporal-arrangement case. Pinedo's canonical treatment is precisely an optimization problem class.

Sequencing is a kind of optimization that searches for the order of steps that maximizes value subject to precedence constraints.


Sequencing is the active design problem of arranging steps so their order produces measurable value, satisfying precedence and resource constraints. The very notion of an arrangement that runs from before to after requires a dimension along which events can be ordered with irreversible succession — exactly what time supplies. Without time's earlier-later ordering and arrow, there would be no succession to design, no prerequisites to honor, and no critical path to optimize. Sequencing operates as a deliberate choice over the substrate that time provides.

Sequencing presupposes time because the deliberate arrangement of steps to produce value requires an underlying earlier-to-later ordering of events.


Every sequestration keeps an item within maintained bounds so that unwanted exchange with the surrounding system is prevented or tightly gated, satisfying Containment. Sequestration adds a narrower purpose and operating commitment: the item is deliberately removed from normal circulation, and the isolation is intended to persist. Generic containment need not remove its contents from an interaction network or make them unavailable. Boundary is inherited through Containment rather than repeated as a flattened direct head.

Every sequestration is containment organized for deliberate removal from active circulation and persistent isolation.


Optimization supplies the objective, choice variables, and local best-response at each stage. The characteristic loss arises even when every local decision is rational and competently solved; the defect lies in how those scoped optima compose, not in failure to optimize locally.

A serial local optimization failure contains optimization because every stage selects what is best for its own scoped objective rather than making an arbitrary or mistaken choice.


Pipeline supplies the ordered stage-to-stage structure. The failure is not merely several optimizers acting at once: each stage receives a condition shaped by another stage and passes a changed condition onward, allowing local deviations to accumulate through the chain.

A serial local optimization failure contains a pipeline because its locally optimizing stages must be arranged in an ordered chain whose outputs or decisions become the next stage's conditions.


Transformation supplies the prerequisite condition: A rule-governed mapping that restructures an input into a different output, holding certain invariants fixed while altering others. Serialization operates against that background: Convert structured content into a flat, transportable form that reconstructs. 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.

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


The pattern requires an agent, a principal or constituency to whom the agent is answerable in role, and a counterfactual channel through which that principal would ordinarily impose consequences. Unearned revenue bypasses that channel and makes the answerability relation ineffective. The resulting configuration is therefore built against accountability as its reference architecture, but it is not a species of working accountability: it names the structural disabling of accountability's consequence-bearing leverage.

Severed accountability presupposes an accountability relation as the reference architecture whose effective principal-to-agent leverage a bypassing revenue channel disables.


Sharding assigns a load across disjoint parallel owners by a stable key-to-shard function — a specialized allocation with a deterministic, routable-without-fan-out partition rule. Allocation supplies the genus: Assign a limited supply across competing claimants under a feasibility constraint, independent of which criterion fills in the rule. Sharding preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Partition a load across owners by a stable key-to-shard function. 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.


Each receiver supplies at least one binding acceptance condition, and the joint feasible set is empty: no available output satisfies every receiver at once. The constraint sets and their empty intersection are therefore constituents of the pattern.

Mutually unsatisfiable receiver constraints are internal constituents of the conflict rather than optional background conditions.


Interface Mismatch supplies two or more locally coherent sides, a required exchange seam, and failure caused by offered and required contracts that do not align. Shared-Interface Constraint Conflict inherits that structure and adds one undifferentiated output, several receivers, and an empty intersection among their binding acceptance sets.

Shared-Interface Constraint Conflict is the Interface Mismatch species in which one offered output cannot satisfy the mutually incompatible contracts of several receivers sharing the seam.


The EXTERNALISED sibling of a private mental_model — externalisation relocates the model's locus into a jointly-maintained artefact, buying durability/queryability/versioning a private model lacks. mental_model is the genus; shared_mental_model is the more-specific child. Mental Model supplies the genus: Internal system representation. Shared Mental Model preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A jointly maintained external artefact anchoring distributed reasoning. 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 Shirky principle names 'one specific and recurrent failure of incentive compatibility' — survival coupled to problem-PRESENCE rather than reduction. It presupposes the incentive-alignment frame and names the misalignment its remedies restore. Incentive Compatibility supplies the prerequisite condition: Align incentives. Shirky Principle operates against that background: An entity created to solve a problem develops a survival interest in the problem's persistence when its resources are coupled to the problem's measured presence. 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.


Learning supplies the prerequisite condition: Durable, experience-driven update of an agent's internal state that carries forward to alter later behavior or prediction. Shortcut Learning operates against that background: An adapting system replaces the structure it was meant to learn with a cheaper incidental feature that correlates with success on its training distribution, and collapses sharply once that correlation breaks. 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.

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


Asserts the is a specialization of directly: "a side channel is specifically the SUBSET of side effects that carry a function of protected state to a measuring observer." side_channel_attack is the informational/ adversarial species of side_effect (the unintended-consequence genus). Medium (not high) because the framed adversarial overlay (SF 0.7) adds real content beyond bare side_effect, but the subset relation is explicit and file-asserted. Other cross-refs (control_data_channel_confusion, hidden_information_reconstruction) are lateral, not parents. Side Effect supplies the genus: An action's change to shared state beyond its declared interface. Side Channel Attack preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A system's legitimate outputs reveal information its access policy meant to protect, via observable consequences the policy never enumerated. 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.


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. Side Effect operates against that background: An action's change to shared state beyond its declared interface. 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.

Side Effect presupposes Interface, whose structure must already obtain for the child mechanism to be meaningful or operational.


Signal decay and fadeout presupposes dissipation because the systematic weakening of a signal or influence over time and distance is the surface manifestation of underlying dissipative processes: friction, viscosity, resistance, absorption, scattering, radiative loss. Without dissipation's prior structure of irreversible transformation of organized energy into thermalized form through interactions with many degrees of freedom, there would be no mechanism for signal attenuation. Signal decay inherits the dissipation framework and specializes it to the case where the degraded quantity is a propagating signal, producing the characteristic exponential, power-law, or geometric attenuation laws across domains.

Signal decay and fadeout presupposes dissipation because the systematic weakening of signals is the local manifestation of irreversible energy degradation.


The 2x2 outcome matrix is the type-I/type-II framework (false alarms = type I, misses = type II); SDT ADDS the generative model (two overlapping evidence distributions) that factorizes the error trade-off into a sensitivity fixing the ROC and a criterion distributing errors along it. Built on the error-types pair. Type I & Type II Errors supplies the prerequisite condition: False positive/negative. Signal Detection Theory operates against that background: Every decision under noise factorizes into a sensitivity that fixes the achievable error trade-off and a freely-chosen criterion that distributes errors along 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.

Signal Detection Theory presupposes Type I & Type II Errors, whose structure must already obtain for the child mechanism to be meaningful or operational.


The child requires a signal that recipients use as evidence about an underlying type, an issuance process that controls its effective cost or scarcity, and an initially informative separation that can collapse. Signaling supplies that reference mechanism. Signal devaluation is not itself the sender's information-revealing action; it is the dynamic failure of that action's evidentiary value under elastic issuance and adaptive interpretation.

Signal devaluation presupposes a signaling arrangement whose initially discriminating marker can lose its separating value as issuance expands and recipients adapt.


It inherits the genus's systematic diminishment of a system capability over elapsed time: here the capability is a signal's power to discriminate underlying types. The child adds an issuer with elastic supply, demand-side pressure, adaptive recipient expectations, an expansion-and-reanchoring ratchet, and eventual separating-equilibrium collapse while the nominal marker remains unchanged.

Signal devaluation is temporal degradation specialized to the systematic loss of a marker's informativeness while its nominal form remains intact.


Signal inflation requires repeated signaling through a receiver-facing channel whose credibility can be depleted by overuse. Signaling supplies the prerequisite condition: Revealing hidden information. Signal Inflation operates against that background: A sender over-fires a channel and depletes a finite, slow-regenerating receiver-side credibility budget, so the next true message lands on an audience that has rationally stopped responding. 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.


Signaling presupposes information asymmetry because the costly observable action it names — education, warranties, dividends, costly displays — only makes sense as a device for transmitting information the receiver cannot directly verify. Without the prior distributional fact that one side knows something material the other does not, there would be nothing to signal. Signaling inherits information asymmetry's structure and supplies the canonical mechanism by which the informed side closes the gap: choosing an action whose cost is differentially borne by types, so that only the high-quality type finds the signal worthwhile and a separating equilibrium emerges.

Signaling presupposes information asymmetry because the costly observable action it names is the informed party's response to the other side's inability to verify.


Without a property conserved over the operational transport timescale, the present signature cannot be mapped backward to formation context independently of a custody chain. Conservation Laws supplies the prerequisite condition: Quantities remain constant. Signature-Borne Provenance operates against that background: A conservative property carries origin through transport, read back without a custody chain. 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.

Signature-Borne Provenance presupposes conservation or slow-enough invariance of the carried property.


Without movement through a carrier or medium, the signature does not preserve origin across changing location and the downstream backward-inference problem does not arise. Flow supplies the prerequisite condition: Structured movement of energy, matter, or information. Signature-Borne Provenance operates against that background: A conservative property carries origin through transport, read back without a custody chain. 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.

Signature-Borne Provenance presupposes flow to transport a signed parcel away from its formation context.


Provenance covers ways of establishing where an entity came from and how its present state relates to that origin. Signature-Borne Provenance specializes this genus to the intrinsic case: a formation-imprinted property survives transport and is read backward through a signature library. External ledgers and custody links can establish Provenance without any carried signature, so the signature-borne mechanism is a proper species rather than a synonym.

Signature-Borne Provenance is the intrinsic species of Provenance in which the artifact carries evidence of its origin without an external custody chain.


's defining boundary: an affordance is what the world makes POSSIBLE; a signifier makes the affordance PERCEIVABLE. The signifier presupposes a latent affordance to advertise (they fail independently). Affordance supplies the prerequisite condition: An action possibility offered by the fit between an agent and its environment. Signifier operates against that background: A perceptible cue placed on or near an action possibility so the possibility is recognized in time to be used—what makes an affordance perceivable, not what makes it possible. 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.


Signaling advertises ANYTHING (quality, identity, status); a signifier narrows this to advertising 'what can or should be done, here, now, by this perceiver' at the commit point. Genus-to-species (a different axis than the affordance partnership). Signaling supplies the genus: Revealing hidden information. Signifier preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A perceptible cue placed on or near an action possibility so the possibility is recognized in time to be used—what makes an affordance perceivable, not what makes it possible. 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.


Signifier–signified duality is the structurally-particularized form representation takes in the semiotic case: the target is the conceptual signified, the medium is the perceptible signifier, and the correspondence is the conventional binding maintained by a semiotic community. It satisfies representation's faithfulness-claim apparatus — target, medium, stated convention — particularized by the two-faced sign structure where neither face exists without the other and the convention is largely arbitrary.

Signifier–signified duality is the specific shape representation takes when a perceptible form is conventionally bound to a mental concept.


And emphatic: silence_as_signal is "the sharpened, error-naming specialisation" of absence_as_information — "narrower and carries a sign," naming the specific ERROR of misreading a cost-suppressed absence as the negative state, with its one named mechanism (cost-asymmetric production) and repair catalogue. Clean is a specialization of, high conviction. Absence as Information supplies the genus: The non-occurrence of an expected event is itself a positive signal. Silence as Signal preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Cost-asymmetric record production makes absence misread as the negative state. 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.


Boundedness is the static fact that a field has a capacity limit (the PRECONDITION); this prime is the DYNAMIC failure when a long-lived deployment drifts past it and the crossing rolls SILENTLY. Presupposes boundedness. Boundedness supplies the prerequisite condition: Values remain within limits. Silent Representation Overflow operates against that background: A bounded field silently rolls past its capacity and a blind consumer trusts 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.


Without comparands, a shared representation, and a relevance rule selecting which respects matter, the numerical or ordinal output has no determinate meaning as likeness. Comparison is prerequisite apparatus, not the genus: comparisons can produce contrasts, orderings, or qualitative alignments without a reusable likeness measure.

A similarity measure presupposes a comparison frame that makes the two objects commensurable under selected respects.


It inherits Function Mapping's stable input-to-output rule and adds paired inputs, a declared representation and relevance frame, and an output ordered as greater or lesser likeness. Functions mapping pairs to costs, causal effects, or arbitrary labels lack that differentia.

A similarity measure is a function mapping specialized to pairs of represented objects and a comparable degree of likeness.


The Simpson–Yule effect is 'the DRAMATIC special case' of confounding — distortion severe enough that the pooled association reverses/vanishes/appears under aggregation. 'All Simpson–Yule reversals are instances of confounding, but most confounding is not severe enough.' Strict specialization. Confounding supplies the genus: Hidden variable interference. Simpson–Yule Effect preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: An association measured in pooled data can reverse, vanish, or appear once the data are partitioned by a confounder unevenly distributed across the compared groups. 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.


It is the confounded failure MODE of the aggregation operation — pooling across a confounder is a modelling choice that can flip a direction; presupposes aggregation as the collapsing step. Aggregation supplies the prerequisite condition: Deliberately collapsing many items into a single summary, choosing which information to discard to gain tractability. Simpson's Paradox operates against that background: A relationship can run one direction inside every subgroup and the opposite direction in the aggregate, because a confounder's distribution differs across subgroups and is silently mixed away on pooling. 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.


Simpson's paradox is the most dramatic SYMPTOM of confounding — the case severe enough to flip the SIGN between aggregate and every subgroup. Every Simpson reversal is a confounding case; most confounding is not a Simpson reversal. A specialization/extreme-case of confounding.


Modifiable Areal Unit Problem supplies the genus: Statistics computed on aggregated data change, sometimes reversing sign, when the boundaries used to aggregate are redrawn — the partition is a non-neutral analytical input. Simpson's Paradox preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A relationship can run one direction inside every subgroup and the opposite direction in the aggregate, because a confounder's distribution differs across subgroups and is silently mixed away on pooling. 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.

Simpson's Paradox is typically a specialization of Modifiable Areal Unit Problem, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.


Simulated_annealing is the in-silico combinatorial-search transcription (Metropolis rule = literal Boltzmann factor) of the general agitate-then-cool-on-a-schedule protocol. annealing is the parent. Annealing supplies the genus: Lift a stuck system into a high-mobility regime, then withdraw the agitation along a controlled schedule so it settles into a better configuration than it could reach cold. Simulated Annealing preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Probabilistic search escaping local optima. 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.


Simulated annealing escapes local optima by accepting worsening moves with probability exp(-DeltaE/T) and gradually lowering T, producing high-quality solutions in vastly less time than exhaustive search at the cost of no guarantee of global optimality. That is the heuristic profile: a simplified rule whose value lies in its favorable trade-off between speed, computational cost, and accuracy on the problems where it is actually deployed. It specializes heuristic to combinatorial optimization with thermal analogy.

Simulated Annealing is a kind of heuristic: probabilistic acceptance with a cooling schedule yields good-enough optima without exhaustive search.


Simulated annealing is a specialization of optimization. Specifically, it instantiates the search-for-an-element-maximizing-or-minimizing-an-objective-under-constraints by exploring a neighborhood structure with metropolis-style acceptance probabilities exp(-deltaE/T) and a decreasing temperature schedule. The decision variables, objective, and constraints are exactly an optimization triplet; the operative notion of optimality is asymptotic global-with-high-probability rather than exact. The thermal escape from local optima is what distinguishes this stochastic metaheuristic within the broader class of optimization methods.

Simulated annealing is a specialization of optimization that searches by probabilistic neighbor moves under a cooling schedule.