A stated-preference estimate usually contains a systematic contribution from the question, prompt, scale, or protocol through which the report was elicited.

Wording, response options, ordering, incentives, and interviewer or prompt context can shape the recorded report even when the latent valuation is unchanged. This contribution is typical rather than strict because a carefully controlled channel can approximate a transparent readout and channel sensitivity is not part of every formal definition of stated preference.


The gap contains the report-based estimate whose output is compared with behavior under a real choice opportunity.

One side of the identity must be an ordering inferred from what the agent says when asked. Remove Stated Preference and only behavior remains, so there is no report-versus-choice mismatch to measure.


The gap contains the choice-based estimate inferred from what the agent does when alternatives and consequences are present.

The second side must be an ordering inferred from observed choice under a documented menu and cost structure. Remove Revealed Preference and only a report remains, so the defining two-channel divergence disappears.


The gap contains a comparison that aligns the stated and revealed estimates over the same focal alternatives and reads off their systematic divergence.

Two outputs become a gap only after they are placed in a shared frame and their ordering, magnitude, or action implications are compared. Without that alignment the records can differ in content without supporting a meaningful stated-versus-revealed discrepancy.


Stationarity presupposes time because its claim is precisely that statistical characteristics remain invariant across translations along the temporal dimension.

Stationarity presupposes time because its content is a time-translation invariance claim: the statistical generating rules of the process are the same at t as at t+τ. Without time's structural commitment — an ordered dimension along which events succeed, with measurable duration — there would be no axis along which to assert translation invariance. The notion that distributions "do not drift" is precisely a statement about constancy under shifts in the temporal coordinate.


Stationarity presupposes probability because the invariance claim is about the joint distribution of the process under temporal translation.

Stationarity presupposes probability because the invariance being asserted concerns the joint distribution of the stochastic process — mean, variance, autocorrelation, higher moments — and these are objects within Kolmogorov's measure-theoretic framework. Without probability's coherence apparatus quantifying uncertainty over sample spaces, there would be no distribution whose invariance under time-shift could be claimed. Strict, wide-sense, and cyclostationary variants are all probabilistic-invariance specifications.


Stationarity is a specialization of invariance whose preserved feature is a process's statistical distribution under time (or spatial) translation.

Stationarity is a specialization of invariance. Specifically, it names the case in which the family of transformations is time-translation (or spatial shifts) and the preserved feature is the statistical structure of the stochastic process -- mean, variance, autocorrelation, higher moments. Like every invariance claim, it commits jointly to what is preserved and under which operations; stationarity is the subclass where individual realizations fluctuate but the generating distribution remains shift-invariant within the asserted window.


Statistical Independence presupposes Probability, whose structure must already obtain for the child mechanism to be meaningful or operational.

Probability supplies the prerequisite condition: Quantifies uncertainty and likelihoods. Statistical Independence operates against that background: Learning one variable gives no information about another; the joint distribution factors. 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.


Statistical Inference presupposes Probability: drawing conclusions from samples requires modeling sample variability as a probability distribution.

Statistical inference treats observed data as one realization from a probability distribution over possible samples and uses that distribution to draw conclusions about underlying parameters, mechanisms, or future outcomes. Without Probability — calibrated numerical measures obeying additivity, normalization, and conditioning — there is no sampling distribution to reason from and no coherent way to combine evidence. Inference presupposes probability as the formal substrate on which sampling variability and likelihood calculations are defined.


Statistical Inference presupposes Uncertainty: the whole apparatus exists to draw conclusions despite incomplete and sample-limited knowledge.

Statistical inference is the reasoning by which finite-sample observations support claims about populations or mechanisms, with explicit accounting for sampling variability and model assumptions. The apparatus is meaningful only because the conclusions are not deterministic: aleatoric noise, epistemic ignorance, and finite data leave irreducible gaps. Inference presupposes Uncertainty as its operating condition — its central tools, from confidence intervals to posterior distributions, are explicit characterizations of what remains unknown after the data are in.


Statistical inference is a specialization of inductive reasoning that draws population-level claims from sample evidence with quantified uncertainty.

Statistical inference is a specialization of inductive reasoning. Specifically, it instantiates the from-specific-observations-to-broader-generalizations pattern with explicit probability modeling: a sample is treated as one draw from a distribution and the inference moves from observed cases to claims about parameters, mechanisms, or future outcomes. Like every inductive inference, the conclusion exceeds the premises and retains characteristic uncertainty; statistical inference is the subclass where that uncertainty is calibrated through frequentist or Bayesian probability machinery rather than left as informal support strength.


Statistical power presupposes experimental design because its computation requires the pre-specified architecture of treatment assignment, sample size, and outcome measurement.

Statistical power presupposes experimental design because the quantities binding power — effect size, sample size, significance level, variability — are all set by the design choices that allocate units to treatments, specify outcome measurement, and control noise. It inherits experimental design's commitment to principled architecture for causal inference under constraints, and operates as the diagnostic that asks whether the design is adequately sized to detect a true effect. Power analysis is design's planning tool.


Statistical power presupposes probability because it is a calibrated probability quantifying correct rejection of a false null.

Statistical power presupposes probability because power = P(reject H0 | H1 true) is itself a probability assignment over decision outcomes governed by Kolmogorov's coherence rules. The four quantities binding power -- effect size, sample size, significance level, variability -- enter through the sampling distribution of the test statistic, which is a probability object. Without probability's apparatus for combining, conditioning, and normalizing degrees of belief or frequency, the Type I and Type II error rates and their trade-off have no formal home; power is conditional probability deployed in a decision frame. Probability supplies the prerequisite condition: Quantifies uncertainty and likelihoods. Statistical Power operates against that background: Probability of detecting effect. 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.


Statistical Significance presupposes Probability: a p-value is the tail probability of a test statistic under an assumed null model.

Statistical significance summarizes evidence against a null hypothesis as a p-value: the probability, computed under the assumed null model, of a test statistic at least as extreme as the one observed. That number has no meaning without Probability as the calibrated apparatus that assigns measures to events under a stipulated distribution and obeys Kolmogorov's coherence rules. Significance testing presupposes probability as the substrate on which the tail-probability calculation and its interpretation rest.


Statistical significance is a specialization of statistical inference that summarizes sample-data incompatibility with a null via a tail probability.

Statistical significance is a specialization of statistical inference focused on one specific reasoning move: quantifying how incompatible observed data are with a stated null hypothesis by computing the tail probability of a test statistic under that null. It inherits the general inferential commitment of reasoning from sample to population while explicitly accounting for sampling variability, and specializes by fixing the reference distribution to the null and reading the result as evidence-against. The p-value is one concrete output of the inferential apparatus, not a separate kind of reasoning.


Statistical significance presupposes hypothesis testing because the p-value is read as evidence-against only within a pre-specified null/alternative testing frame.

Statistical significance presupposes hypothesis testing because the p-value's interpretation as evidence against a null requires the structured testing apparatus: a stated null, a chosen test statistic with known null distribution, and a pre-specified threshold that turns the continuous tail probability into a reject/retain verdict. Without the prior framing of inference as a contest between null and alternative under controlled error rates, the tail probability is a number with no decision-theoretic anchor. Hypothesis testing supplies the frame that makes significance actionable.


STEEP/PESTLE Analysis is a specialization of environmental scanning that organizes external-factor monitoring into a fixed category schema.

STEEP/PESTLE Analysis is a kind of environmental scanning specialized by a particular category schema: it organizes the external-factor space into Social, Technological, Economic, Environmental, Political, and Legal (sometimes Ethical) dimensions to ensure scanning coverage across each. It inherits environmental scanning's commitment to deliberate, continuing, structured monitoring of external factors for strategic relevance, and supplies the specific schema that counters organizational tendencies to systematically underweight some factor categories — typically environmental, ethical, or social — relative to economic and technological.


Stereotyping is a specialization of heuristic in which a category cue triggers a prototype expectation projected onto an individual without detailed assessment.

Stereotyping is a kind of heuristic specialized to social perception: the agent observes a category cue, activates an associated prototype, and projects that expectation onto an individual without individualized assessment. It inherits heuristic's commitment to a simplified rule trading accuracy for speed with utility measured by ecological fit, and supplies the specific case where the inference task is social judgment, the surrogate rule is category-to-prototype activation, and the characteristic error is the systematic suppression of individual variation in favor of categorical archetypes.


Stereotyping presupposes classification because applying generalized category beliefs requires that categories already sort people into kinds.

Stereotyping is the cognitive process of applying generalized category beliefs to individual members of a category, projecting an associated prototype without detailed assessment. That projection presupposes the prior classificatory work that produces the categories themselves: the agent must already sort the social world into race, gender, age, occupation bins before any stereotype can be activated. Classification supplies the deliberate category-assignment apparatus on which stereotyping then operates by attaching content-rich expectations to category membership and projecting them onto individuals.


Stock Disabled Control is a specialization of Regime Change, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.

Regime Change supplies the genus: A discontinuous flip of a system from one stable operating regime to a qualitatively different one, where the same inputs produce fundamentally different responses on either side of a feedback-driven threshold. Stock Disabled Control preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A flow lever stops working when a shock pushes the system's stock variable outside the range where flow-margin nudges propagate; pulling harder fails until the stock is repaired. 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.


Every Stovepipe System presupposes Decomposition into parallel verticals; the pathology is that shared concerns are duplicated and no horizontal recomposition layer exists.

A Stovepipe System cannot exist until a larger capability has been divided into separately owned or implemented vertical stacks. It adds a particular defective decomposition: cross-cutting concerns are reimplemented inside each vertical, interfaces and horizontal services are absent, and system-level recomposition pays a super-linear integration tax. Modularity is not the genus because its live identity requires defined shared interfaces that the stovepipe constitutively lacks.


Strategic Complementarity typically presupposes Game-Theoretic Strategy, whose structure must already obtain for the child mechanism to be meaningful or operational.

Game-Theoretic Strategy supplies the prerequisite condition: Strategic interaction analysis. Strategic Complementarity operates against that background: One actor's action raises the marginal benefit of others taking the same action. If the parent condition is removed, the child relation becomes undefined or loses the mechanism asserted by this edge; the parent can obtain independently, so the relation is presupposition rather than subsumption. The typical qualifier limits the claim to the characteristic route, not a constitutive requirement of every instance; exceptions must retain the child's identity through another mechanism.


A submodular-payoff / downward-sloping-best-response property of an interdependent-payoff game; presupposes the strategic-interaction apparatus. Sign-flipped twin of strategic_complementarity, graded as a matched pair. Game-Theoretic Strategy supplies the prerequisite condition: Strategic interaction analysis. Strategic Substitute operates against that background: One actor's action lowers the marginal benefit of others taking the same action. 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.


Stratification is a specialization of layering in which the layers are formed by geological or material deposition processes producing horizontal strata.

Stratification is a specialization of layering in which the layers are physical strata produced by sequential deposition, accumulation, or differentiation of materials — sedimentary beds, atmospheric layers, social strata, organizational tiers ordered by some ranking variable. It inherits layering's general structure of horizontal levels each providing a defined scope while resting on the levels below, and specializes by fixing the formation mechanism to layered deposition or ranked ordering along a vertical axis. The resulting structure supports analysis by stratum: each layer has internal coherence and bounded interfaces with the layers above and below.


The Streetlight Effect is Bias specialized to search allocation systematically displaced toward observable regions rather than relevance-weighted ones.

It retains a repeatable directional distortion in a process and fixes the process to search or inquiry: accessibility lowers the cost of inspecting one region, causing effort to concentrate there even when the answer is likelier elsewhere.


The Streetlight Effect presupposes Search and Retrieval because the distortion is defined over where a query, investigation, or diagnostic search allocates effort.

Without a sought object, a search space, and some traversal or evidence acquisition process, there is no allocation that observability can bias. Search and Retrieval supplies that process; the child adds a systematic cost-driven mismatch between the region searched and the region relevant.


The Streisand effect contains a reinforcing loop in which visible suppression generates attention that further increases the suppressed information's reach.

The control action becomes a new signal, audience response republishes both signal and target, and the growing visibility recruits still more response; without that return path there is only a failed removal attempt.


Stress and rupture presupposes criticality because the sudden catastrophic release after invisible accumulation is the system crossing a critical threshold.

Stress and rupture describes accumulated strain in an apparently stable system that releases suddenly when latent load exceeds a rupture threshold, reorganizing into a new equilibrium. This presupposes criticality: the state poised at a phase boundary where qualitatively distinct regimes meet and response becomes unbounded. The rupture moment is the system crossing the critical point at which the prior regime's stability evaporates and a phase-transition-style reorganization occurs. Without criticality's framework of regime boundaries and divergent susceptibility, the long-invisible-then-sudden signature of rupture has no structural basis.


Stress and rupture is a kind of state transition in which accumulated internal strain triggers a sudden jump from one equilibrium regime to another.

Stress and rupture is a specialization of state-and-state-transition: the system occupies an apparently stable state while a hidden variable (accumulated stress) drifts toward a threshold, at which point a triggered transition jumps it discontinuously to a new equilibrium. It inherits the state-transition framework's apparatus — state space, transition relation, triggers, outputs — and particularizes it to the threshold-crossing case where the transition is concentrated in time despite long latent accumulation.


Stressor-Induced Adaptation is a kind of adaptive capacity: controlled strain now builds the latent reserve that supports robust function later.

Stressor-induced adaptation describes the inverted relationship in which controlled bouts of difficulty degrade immediate performance while building durable structural strength that becomes available against future demands. That is the construction of latent reserve — slack, flexibility, learned response — that defines Adaptive Capacity. Stressor-induced adaptation specializes adaptive capacity by naming the mechanism: applied strain triggers compensatory build-up, growing the reorganization reserve available for disturbances beyond current scope.


Stressor-Induced Adaptation presupposes Feedback: applied strain must be sensed and routed back into the system to drive compensatory build-up.

Stressor-induced adaptation requires the system to detect strain, route that signal back into its own reconfiguration, and grow capacity in proportion to repeated load. Without that loop the strain merely degrades function rather than building lasting strength. Feedback — output routed back to influence subsequent input — supplies the structural arrangement that converts current stress into future capacity. Stressor-induced adaptation presupposes feedback as the mechanism by which strain becomes a build signal rather than damage.


Stressor-induced adaptation is a specialization of adaptation in which controlled difficulty degrades short-run performance while building long-run capacity.

Stressor-induced adaptation is a specialization of adaptation. The general adaptation pattern is structural modification in response to sustained environmental change, preserving or improving fit. The stressor-induced variant specifies that the modifying input is bounded strain — desirable difficulties in learning, hormesis in toxicology, progressive overload in exercise — and that the characteristic signature is inverted short-run versus long-run outcomes. The same internal-modification logic of adaptation applies, with controlled stress as the specific trigger and durable strength as the specific gain.


Stressor-Induced Adaptation contains a Capacity-Recovery Interval because the post-stress low-load period is where the compensatory response consolidates into durable capacity.

Remove the interval after the stress dose during which load is reduced and compensatory capacity is built. The dose is then paid without durable adaptive gain, so the stressor-to-stronger-state trajectory loses an identity-constitutive stage.


Structural filtering is selection specialized to several parallel institutional pressures whose intersection shapes surviving output without requiring a focal discretionary gatekeeper.

Structural Filtering inherits Selection's input stream, passage conditions, differential survival, and compositionally changed output. It adds several parallel institutional filters whose intersection predicts the surviving content even when individual producers are sincere and interchangeable. That makes it a sibling of Gatekeeping under Selection: Gatekeeping requires a focal discretionary arbiter at a choke point, while Structural Filtering explains selection precisely where no such arbiter is load-bearing.


Structural violence is a kind of asymmetry in which social arrangements systematically privilege some populations over others in harm distribution.

Structural violence is a specialization of asymmetry: the relation between populations and the institutional arrangements that condition their life chances fails the swap-test — exchanging populations changes who suffers premature mortality, restricted potential, and unmet need. It inherits asymmetry's structural commitment to directed imbalance in which one side is privileged or more endowed than another, particularized to the institutional-harm case where the asymmetry is structural rather than acute and the gap is between potential and actual.


Structural violence presupposes constraint because the harm it names is produced by social arrangements that systematically restrict admissible life-courses.

Structural violence diagnoses systematic harm produced by social arrangements — legal, economic, spatial — that restrict certain populations' ability to meet basic needs even when material capacity exists. The harm is constituted by the gap between potential and actual, and that gap is generated by binding restrictions on admissible configurations of life-course, access, and resource flow. Constraint supplies the structural object: a condition that prunes the feasible set independent of merit. Structural violence is constraint with a specific source (social arrangement) and a specific consequence (avoidable population-level harm).


The sublime presupposes scale because its aesthetic response is triggered by an encounter with magnitudes that transgress ordinary perceptual limits.

The sublime presupposes scale because its defining trigger is an encounter with magnitudes, immense scale, overwhelming power, or unbounded complexity, that exceed ordinary perceptual and cognitive limits. Scale supplies the general apparatus by which size, resolution, and level of aggregation become first-class objects of reasoning, including the recognition that the system at one scale may be qualitatively different from the system at another. The sublime is the aesthetic response that registers when the encountered magnitude crosses into a regime where ordinary scaling intuitions fail.


Substitutability is a specialization of compatibility focused on the symmetric case where one entity can replace another while preserving system function.

Substitutability is a specialization of compatibility in which the relational property is read in its replacement direction: not just that two entities can coexist or interoperate, but that one can take the other's place in a system without functional degradation. It inherits the general compatibility commitment that two entities can interact without breakage when their signatures align, and specializes by tightening the alignment to behavioral subtyping: every property required of the original must remain true of the replacement, so the system's critical functions are invariant under substitution.


Substitutability is the consequence/dividend the ADT apparatus produces and disciplines ('Substitutability names the dividend; the ADT names the whole machine that pays it'). After the systems_cybernetics frame is stripped away, the retained structural roles are those of Abstract Data Type: Specify a component by its externally observable behaviour while suppressing its implementation, so any conforming implementation is interchangeable behind the contract. Substitutability adds the local frame and commitments expressed in its identity: One component replaces another without functional degradation. 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.


'Substitutability is one consequence of containerization (any handler takes any conforming unit), not the pattern. After the systems_cybernetics frame is stripped away, the retained structural roles are those of Containerization: Wrap a unit with its dependencies behind a standardized exterior so substrate-blind handlers can move it intact. Substitutability adds the local frame and commitments expressed in its identity: One component replaces another without functional degradation. 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.


Substitutability presupposes the stable, well-defined module interfaces modularity provides — swap one component for another behind the interface. Modularity supplies the prerequisite condition: Breaks systems into smaller units. Substitutability operates against that background: One component replaces another without functional degradation. 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.


Recruitment is built directly on affordances — 'the affordance is the pre-existing perception-to-action link the prime's third role names; recruitment is what a designer does with it.' Affordance is the descriptive capacity; recruitment deliberately engages it to elicit a chosen behavior. Presupposes affordance (the engaged link). Affordance supplies the prerequisite condition: An action possibility offered by the fit between an agent and its environment. Substrate-Cued Behavior Recruitment operates against that background: Modifying a substrate so that perceiving it elicits a target behavior without explicit instruction. 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.


Substrate-induced boundary dissolution is a transformation whose invariant is the carried function or content and whose alteration is the partition among carrier-defined kinds.

The process maps a system organized around separate carriers into one where the same functions can be represented or executed on a common substrate. Functions may persist while the taxonomy and dependencies around their old carriers change, making this a strict carrier-partition transformation.


The boundary whose operational support disappears is an internal constituent of substrate-induced boundary dissolution.

The pattern cannot be identified from adoption of a shared substrate alone. It requires a prior demarcation maintained by carrier differences and a demonstrable weakening of that demarcation once the differences cease to bind.


Summary Substance Divergence is the low-fidelity Proxy–Target Fidelity species in which a high-attention summary stands in for a costly substance surface and independent authorship incentives let the proxy drift.

The summary surface is the observable, cheaply consumed stand-in from which most readers infer the evidence-bearing substance. The two-author, two-audience incentive split supplies this species' strict differentia: it persistently lowers proxy-target fidelity by letting the surfaces optimize independently. Proxy–Target Fidelity also covers faithful proxies and many failure mechanisms with no bifurcated artifact, so the relation is strict subsumption rather than identity or a generic Representation shortcut.


Summative assessment is a specific pedagogical practice that evaluates learning at the conclusion of an instructional period to certify achievement.

Summative assessment is a specialization of pedagogy whose distinctive move is closing the instructional cycle with an evaluation of learning at a defined endpoint — unit, course, program — for purposes of certification, grading, accountability, or selection. It inherits pedagogy's commitment to deliberately structuring the learner's encounter with content for durable capability change, and adds the specific function of producing an external-audience verdict on what was achieved, making the assessment a terminal snapshot rather than a mid-course correction within the instructional process.


Sunk cost and irreversible commitment presupposes reversibility and irreversibility because the structural difficulty of reversal is what gives sunk costs their behavioral grip.

Sunk cost and irreversible commitment names the tension between the rational irrelevance of past expenditure and its observed behavioral weight, which presupposes the underlying distinction between actions that can be unwound and actions that cannot. Without the reversibility dimension, there would be no irreversibility to make sunk costs structurally binding and no contrast between the rational forward-looking criterion and the psychological pull of past commitment. The parent prime supplies the substrate on which sunk-cost dynamics operate.


A particular pathological region of the dose-response space — the case where the response curve has NO saturation over the engineered range and the referent is artificially generated beyond anything natural. A specialization of dose_response_relationship. Dose-Response Relationship supplies the genus: Input-output mapping. Supernormal Stimulus preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A response circuit calibrated only over a natural cue range, with no built-in ceiling, is hijacked by an engineered referent that exceeds that range and triggers disproportionate response. 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.


Superposition presupposes Linear Combination because its coexisting state is represented as a weighted sum of basis states before resolution.

Every Superposition admitted by this entry holds alternatives in one weighted combined representation. Scaling each basis state by its amplitude or weight and adding the results is exactly Linear Combination. Superposition adds coexistence, interference, basis dependence, normalization, and a collapse or commitment boundary; generic linear combinations such as portfolios and indices need none of those additions.


Supersaturation is the loading face of metastability: an intensive variable held past its equilibrium-permitted level by kinetic isolation, storing release potential. is a specialization of metastable configuration with an above-equilibrium gap. Metastability supplies the genus: A system persists in a locally stable configuration that is not the global optimum, held there by a barrier that routine disturbances cannot clear. Supersaturation preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: An intensive variable is driven past its equilibrium-permitted level and held there by kinetic isolation, storing release potential whose eventual discharge is sized by the accumulated gap, not by the trigger. 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.


Removing succession vocabulary leaves a directed relation whose two sides cannot be swapped: forward displacement is licensed and reversal is not.

Time asymmetry is one of three identity commitments of Supersession. A successor can displace a predecessor without the predecessor displacing the successor; swapping the relata changes the truth and the permitted action. Role continuity and explicit displacement are the additional supersession-specific structure.


Supersession is a Relation specialized by predecessor, successor, shared role, explicit displacement, and a fixed temporal direction.

Membership is decidable over an ordered pair in a role context and supports inverse lookup. The child adds role continuity, one-way loss of operative standing, preservation of the former occupant for history, and migration.


Surjectivity is a Function Mapping specialized by the no-gap requirement that every element of the declared codomain is reached by at least one input.

Both have a declared domain, codomain, and single-valued assignment. Surjectivity adds the strict differentia that the mapping's image equals its codomain, so every target has a preimage and none is orphaned. General Function Mappings may leave part of the codomain unhit, making this a strict taxonomic specialization.


Suspension is a specific three-phase state trajectory (prepared-consonant -> dissonant-held -> resolved) of a held element against a changed context — a specialization of state_and_state_transition. Low-medium: the prime has no clean is-a; this is the loosest defensible genus.


The Swiss cheese model is 'redundancy WITH the independence assumption made explicit and challenged' — it foregrounds the hole-correlation structure redundancy buries. Presupposes stacked redundant layers; adds the decisive decorrelation variable. (defense_in_depth is the slogan it sharpens.). Redundancy supplies the prerequisite condition: Duplicate critical components. Swiss Cheese Model (Layered Defense with Aligning Holes) operates against that background: Catastrophe occurs only when a hazard finds a trajectory through a hole in every serial defensive layer at once, so the key variable is the correlation of holes across layers. 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.


Swiss cheese model is a specific named instantiation of defense-in-depth's serial-imperfect-layers structure with hole-correlation framing. Defense In Depth supplies the genus: Stacking multiple independent protective layers between threat and asset so that only a correlated breach across all layers produces total loss. Swiss Cheese Model (Layered Defense with Aligning Holes) preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Catastrophe occurs only when a hazard finds a trajectory through a hole in every serial defensive layer at once, so the key variable is the correlation of holes across layers. 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 Swiss-cheese model is conjunctive path activation specialized to a hazard crossing serial defensive layers only when a hole in every layer aligns, with cross-layer hole correlation as the governing variable.

Every Swiss-cheese failure is an AND across state-conditional path edges: the route exists topologically, each layer normally blocks it, and catastrophe occurs only when all corresponding holes conduct together. The child narrows the genus to deliberately defensive layers, hazard penetration, latent/active holes, and the independence-versus-common-cause arithmetic that determines the value of additional layers.


Isolates the specific PER-TRANSITION overhead (unload/load/cold-start/residual-interference) of moving between stateful modes — a cost component presupposing a multi-mode stateful system that state_and_state_transition supplies. NOTE: this is the COGNITIVE/systems per-transition-overhead prime, not the economic asset-specificity sense in the cross-batch note. State and State Transition supplies the prerequisite condition: Captures system condition and evolution. Switching Cost operates against that background: Moving between stateful modes incurs a per-transition overhead — unload, load, cold-start, residual interference — that is structurally distinct from steady-state cost and dominates under frequent switching. 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.


Symbolic boundaries is a specialization of boundary; the demarcation is a conceptual cultural distinction rather than a physical or legal partition.

Boundary is the conceptual structure marking the demarcation between an entity and what is outside it, governing flows, membership, and inclusion. Symbolic boundaries is the specific case where the demarcation is conceptual rather than physical or formal-legal: cultural distinctions deployed by social actors to sort the social field into kinds (insider/outsider, sacred/profane, authentic/fake) without physical partitioning, yet with substantial material consequences for inclusion and status. It inherits boundary's demarcation-and-permeability structure and adds the specification that the demarcation criterion is culturally encoded classification.


Symbolic representation is a specific kind of representation in which the sign-meaning correspondence is established by collective convention.

Symbolic representation is a specialization of representation. The general pattern maps target onto medium under a stated convention so operations on the medium correspond to operations on the target. Symbolic representation instantiates this with the convention being collective and arbitrary rather than grounded in resemblance (iconic) or causal connection (indexical), as Peirce's tripartite typology identifies. The word, digit, or banknote refers by sustained communal commitment alone, making symbolic representation the structurally-particularized instance of representation where the mapping is conventionalized in shared use.


Input-to-consequence — the prime PRESUPPOSES an asymmetric state but adds a symmetric procedure, an axis misalignment, and a level-non-transitivity invariant. asymmetry is the input condition, not the pattern. Presupposes asymmetry. Asymmetry supplies the prerequisite condition: Directed imbalance in a relation whose two sides are not interchangeable under swap. Symmetric Response to Asymmetric State operates against that background: Equal treatment of an unequal state distorts toward the weaker side. 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.


Symmetry and asymmetry are interdefinable structural complements — each is precisely what the other is not under a stated transformation.

Symmetry and asymmetry are interdefinable complements: symmetry is invariance under a named transformation group (the swap-test passes), while asymmetry is the failure of invariance under the same swap (the swap-test fails). Neither is prior; each is the structural negation of the other relative to a specified operation, and the diagnostic for one is the diagnostic for the other inverted. The framing depends on naming the transformation; once named, the two faces — preserved vs. not preserved — exhaust the possibilities. Symmetry is defined as follows: Invariance under transformation. Asymmetry is defined as follows: Directed imbalance in a relation whose two sides are not interchangeable under swap. Each identity supplies a contrast or condition needed to state the other. Making either endpoint foundationally prior would discard that co-definition, so the relation is mutual and remains outside the acyclic directed topology.


Symmetry breaking typically presupposes a tipping point because spontaneous selection among degenerate ground states characteristically occurs at a critical threshold.

Symmetry breaking typically presupposes a tipping point because spontaneous symmetry breaking proceeds through a bifurcation: as a control parameter crosses a critical value, the symmetric state loses stability and the system settles into one of several symmetry-related but distinct ground states. That sharp threshold between regimes, mediated by cooperative alignment, is exactly the tipping-point structure. The typical qualifier reflects that explicit symmetry breaking by an external perturbation does not require crossing a critical bifurcation; only the spontaneous variety strictly invokes the phase-transition mechanism.


Symmetry breaking presupposes symmetry because the phenomenon is precisely the gap between symmetric governing laws and an asymmetric state.

Symmetry breaking presupposes symmetry because the phenomenon is defined as a system whose governing laws possess a symmetry yet whose actual state does not share it. Without symmetry's prior identification of the transformation group under which the laws are invariant, there is nothing to break: the broken-versus-unbroken distinction requires the symmetric reference, and the degenerate ground states among which the system selects are symmetry-related by the very group whose action is broken at the state level.


Synchronic vs. diachronic analysis presupposes time because the distinction is a methodological choice about whether to hold time fixed or trace it.

Synchronic vs. diachronic analysis presupposes time because the methodological distinction it draws — holding time fixed (cross-sectional structure) versus tracing it (evolution over duration) — is meaningless without time's ordered-succession structure as the dimension to either fix or unfold. It inherits time's commitment to a temporal axis with measurable duration and irreversible direction, particularized to the analytical-frame-choice case where the investigator selects which face of the temporal extent to foreground.


Synchronization is a specific kind of recurrence where multiple oscillating processes align so events co-occur with stable phase relations.

Synchronization is a specialization of recurrence. The general pattern is the property by which an event or value reappears across time, often with predictable spacing. Synchronization instantiates this with multiple oscillating or repeating processes whose individual recurrences become phase-locked to each other or to a common forcing signal; the recurring events are pulled into temporal alignment by local coupling or shared driver. It is recurrence operating across coupled oscillators rather than within a single process, producing the joint reappearance pattern that gives firefly flashing and circadian entrainment their structure.


Synchronization is a specific kind of equilibrium where phase differences settle into a balanced steady relationship that persists against perturbation.

Synchronization is a specialization of equilibrium. The general pattern is a balance condition on named quantities in which opposing fluxes cancel and no net change occurs along the balanced dimensions, even when local activity continues. Synchronization instantiates this with the balanced quantity being phase differences among coupled oscillators: when oscillators entrain, phase differences settle into a stable value (zero for full sync, fixed lag for phase-locking) that persists against small perturbations. The Kuramoto-style settling onto a fixed phase relation is an equilibrium in the rotating frame of the coupled-oscillator dynamics.


Synchronization is a specialization of coordination in which alignment is achieved through timing — phase or frequency matching across processes.

Synchronization is a specialization of coordination. The general coordination pattern aligns independently controlled actors so their actions combine coherently. Synchronization specializes by making the alignment variable specifically temporal: phase or frequency of oscillating or repeating processes, achieved through coupling or external forcing such that events co-occur or maintain stable phase relationships. The same align-independent-processes logic of coordination applies, with time as the specific dimension of alignment and entrainment as the specific mechanism distinguishing synchronization from other coordination forms.


Synergy and Antagonism is the interaction-effect species of Nonlinearity in which a joint response departs from the declared no-interaction baseline for the components acting separately.

The defining comparison asks whether the combined response can be recovered from an additive, multiplicative, or otherwise declared separable baseline. A non-zero interaction term is a failure of additivity or superposition, the exact structural property Nonlinearity supplies. The child specializes that failure to joint factors and signs the departure as synergistic or antagonistic.


System archetypes are a kind of recurrence in which the same feedback-loop structures reappear across diverse domains producing characteristic behavior.

System archetypes is a specialization of recurrence: the same nine patterns (Limits to Growth, Shifting the Burden, Tragedy of the Commons, etc.) reappear across organizations, ecology, markets, and international relations because identical underlying loop structures generate identical characteristic dynamics. It inherits recurrence's structural property — pattern reappearance across instances with predictable behavior — and particularizes it to the feedback-topology case where what recurs is a stock-and-flow signature rather than a token event.


System archetypes presupposes systems thinking because the recurring loop-structure patterns are intelligible only within the relational-and-feedback unit of analysis.

System archetypes catalog recurring patterns of feedback loops that produce characteristic problematic behavior across domains — Limits to Growth, Shifting the Burden, Tragedy of the Commons. Without systems thinking's machinery — the shift from element to relationship as the unit of analysis, with loops, stocks, flows, and circular causation as the modeling vocabulary — the archetypes would have no structural language in which to be expressed. Systems thinking supplies the loop-and-relationship lens that makes the archetypal structures recognizable as the same pattern across surface-different settings.


System archetypes presupposes feedback because the recurring problematic dynamics they catalog are characteristic loop structures.

System archetypes name recurring patterns of feedback loops and structures that produce characteristic system behavior across domains — limits to growth, shifting the burden, eroding goals, escalation, and others. Each archetype is constitutively a configuration of reinforcing and balancing loops; the diagnostic and intervention value comes from recognizing the loop structure beneath surface differences. Feedback supplies the underlying loop-closure structure that makes each archetype intelligible. Without feedback as a first-class structural object, the archetypes would have no shared substrate and would reduce to coincidental surface similarities.


System slack is a specialization of reserve in which the surplus is held in organizational time, budget, labor, or capacity above immediate operational need.

System slack is a specialization of reserve in which the deliberately maintained surplus is uncommitted organizational capacity — time, budget, labor, processing headroom, inventory — held beyond immediate operational need. It inherits reserve's general structure of purposeful unused capacity available for variation, shock, or opportunity, and specializes by fixing the medium to organizational resources and the value proposition to enabling response to unexpected demand, innovation, and learning. The trade-off is the same general one — efficiency under nominal conditions versus resilience and optionality under uncertainty — applied to the firm's operating envelope.


Systemic fragmentation is the specific shape boundary takes when intra-system boundaries become rigid enough to block coordination across sub-units.

Boundary is the conceptual structure marking the demarcation between an entity and what is outside it, governing flows and crossing. Systemic fragmentation is the particular shape boundary takes when sub-system boundaries within a larger system become rigidly impermeable: information, resources, and decisions stop flowing across them, sub-units pursue divergent metrics, and the lost synergy degrades overall performance. It is a structurally-particularized instance of boundary in which the permeability has dropped too low at internal partitions, producing isolation costs the larger system absorbs.


Systemic fragmentation presupposes coordination because fragmentation names the structural failure of the coordination infrastructure that aligns distributed units.

Systemic fragmentation is the failure mode of coordination: it diagnoses what happens when subsystems lack the shared protocols, synchronization mechanisms, and aligned incentives that coordination supplies. Without the prior commitment that distributed actors require active alignment to combine into a coherent collective outcome, there would be no notion of fragmentation as pathology — only independent units doing independent work. Fragmentation is intelligible only against the background expectation that coordination should be achieved and as a structural diagnosis of why it is not.


Systemic risk presupposes contagion because system-wide failure propagates through contact-mediated transmission across the connection topology.

Systemic risk is the pattern in which one component's failure, propagated through interconnections, threatens the whole system, with risk a property of topology and coupling rather than of any component in isolation. This presupposes contagion: the contact-mediated, self-reproducing spread of a state from one element to a connected neighbour across a network. The cascading correlated collapse is contagion with default or failure as the transmitted state, governed by transmission rate and contact pattern. Without contagion's propagation mechanism, a localized shock would stay localized rather than becoming systemic.


Systemic risk presupposes dependency because component-failure cascades require a directed relation in which one element relies on another.

Systemic risk emerges from dense interdependence in which one component's failure propagates through interconnections to threaten the whole. This presupposes dependency: the directed relation in which one element cannot proceed, function, or retain value unless a condition on another is met. The cascade structure of systemic risk is precisely the dependency graph being traversed by failure: when A depends on B and B fails, A's continued functioning is no longer supported. Without dependency's directed asymmetric relation, failures would not propagate along predictable paths and the systemic topology would have no failure dimension.


Systemic risk presupposes network because cascading whole-system failure depends on the topology and coupling of interconnected components.

Systemic risk is the structural pattern in which one component's failure, propagated through tight interconnections, threatens the whole — so the relevant risk is a property of the system's topology and coupling, not of any component alone. The diagnosis only makes sense against a network: a set of entities with pairwise connections whose structure governs reachability, cascade dynamics, and correlated failure modes. Without the network as a first-class object of analysis, there would be no coupling pattern through which local shocks could propagate and no topology distinguishing fragile from robust configurations.


Systems thinking presupposes feedback because its core analytical move is to model loops and circular causation rather than linear cause–effect chains.

Systems thinking presupposes feedback because its defining analytical commitment is to shift the unit of analysis from elements to loops — modeling circular causation, delay, and stock-and-flow structure rather than linear chains. It inherits feedback's structural arrangement in which a system's output becomes a driver of its own subsequent input, treating this closure as the dominant causal pattern to be diagnosed. Without feedback's loop-closure structure, systems thinking would collapse to ordinary causal analysis.


Systems thinking presupposes emergence because it treats whole-level behavior as irreducible to component-level properties.

Systems thinking presupposes emergence because its stance — that the whole's behavior is governed by relationships and feedback rather than by parts in isolation — is precisely an emergence commitment at the systems level. It inherits emergence's structural claim that higher-level descriptions have explanatory or causal vocabulary that does not reduce to lower-level descriptions, and operationalizes it through loop-and-stock modeling. The recurring frustration with well-intentioned interventions is precisely the diagnostic that emergent dynamics are being ignored.


Systems thinking presupposes network because shifting analysis from elements to relationships and feedback requires viewing the system as a connection pattern.

Systems thinking is the stance that behavior of a whole is governed by relationships and feedback among its parts rather than by parts in isolation, requiring modeling of interconnection, delay, and circular causation. The stance presupposes that the system can be represented as a connection pattern where structure carries explanatory power — entities together with pairwise links whose topology governs flows and dynamics. Network supplies precisely that first-class object. Without networks as a substrate of relationships-as-the-unit-of-analysis, systems thinking's shift from elements to interconnections would have no formal target to model.


Taboo presupposes the sacred because its absolute prohibitions and contamination-anxiety only make sense as defenses of a set-apart sacred order.

Taboo cannot operate without the sacred because its defining features — absolute interdiction, contagious pollution, and dread or disgust at violation rather than ordinary disapproval — are intelligible only as protections of a domain marked off as inviolable. The sacred supplies the categorical set-apartness and the contagion logic that taboo enforces; without a sacred-profane partition, the prohibitions reduce to ordinary rules with proportionate sanctions and lose the qualitatively distinct emotional charge that makes them taboos.


Task interdependence is a specialization of dependency in which the directed reliance is between coupled tasks in a work system.

Task interdependence is a kind of dependency specialized to work-system tasks: the directed reliance is between activities whose completion, quality, or timing requires inputs, outputs, resources, or decisions from other tasks. It inherits dependency's general commitment that one element relies on another being present, prior, compatible, or supplied, and supplies the specific case where the elements are tasks and the typology of reliance — pooled, sequential, reciprocal — sets coordination requirements proportional to the coupling intensity that the underlying dependency relation creates.


Task interdependence is the specific shape network takes when the nodes are tasks and the edges are workflow couplings of inputs, outputs, and resources.

Task interdependence is the workflow-particularized form network takes: the entities are tasks and the connections are the dependencies through which one task's outputs, resources, or decisions feed another. Where network names a set of entities with pairwise connections studied at the level of connection pattern generally, task interdependence fixes the node type (tasks), the edge type (input-output, resource, information dependencies), and the analytic focus (Thompson's pooled-sequential-reciprocal typology) — a particular shape of network structure in work systems.


Technical Debt is typically a specialization of Intervention Stack Accretion, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.

Intervention Stack Accretion supplies the genus: A system accumulates concurrently active interventions, each justified at add-time, whose joint cost grows super-linearly and whose removal requires a distinct named operation. Technical Debt preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A present expedient choice imposes a future cost that compounds with system growth until it is paid down, with a principal, an interest payment, and a pay-down. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association. The typical qualifier limits the claim to the characteristic route, not a constitutive requirement of every instance; exceptions must retain the child's identity through another mechanism.


A teleconnection is a kind of network relation in which distant nodes co-vary because both participate in a shared global mechanism.

A teleconnection is a specialization of network: the persistent statistical or dynamical link between spatially separated regions is precisely an edge in a network whose topology connects nodes that are not in direct local contact, with the connection mediated by a shared global process. It inherits network's commitment that structure — who is connected to whom, with what weights and directions — carries explanatory power, particularized to the climatic and geographic case where the link is non-local but persistent.


A teleconnection is a kind of dependency in which distant regions are not independent because a shared mechanism couples them.

A teleconnection is a specialization of dependency: distant regions, populations, or systems are not autonomous because the state at one location is conditional on a shared mechanism that couples it to another. It inherits dependency's directed-asymmetric relation — A's condition affects B's behavior — particularized to the non-local case where the dependency travels via a global process rather than direct contact. The El Niño–monsoon link is precisely a dependency edge in the climate network.


Teleconnection is a specialization of coupling in which the linkage holds between spatially separated regions through a shared global mechanism.

Teleconnection is a specialization of coupling in which the dynamic link is non-local: distant regions or systems co-vary not through direct adjacency but because both participate in a shared large-scale process or network. It inherits the general coupling commitment that a change in one part produces a change in another through a specifiable interaction mechanism, and specializes by fixing the spatial geometry to non-contiguous separation and the mechanism to a shared global mediator that couples regions that have no local pathway between them.


Teleconnection is a specialization of Non-Locality, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.

Non-Locality supplies the genus: Distant elements influence or correlate with each other without a chain of contiguous intervening contact — coupling that jumps the substrate rather than propagating through neighbors. Teleconnection preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Distant relationships via shared dynamics. 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.


Teleology is a kind of interpretation that recovers meaning by reading phenomena in terms of the ends or functions they serve.

Teleology is a specialization of interpretation: it is the activity of recovering meaning from a phenomenon by reading it through the framework of ends-and-functions rather than efficient causes. It inherits interpretation's structural commitment — work from a presented medium toward a constrained reading answerable to evidence and convention — particularized to the end-oriented framework that makes "that for the sake of which" the load-bearing explanatory category. The functional answer is precisely an interpretive recovery.


Teleology presupposes function because end-directed explanation operates by assigning each phenomenon to the function it serves.

Teleology presupposes function because its explanatory work consists in mapping phenomena to the purposes they realize — "the heart pumps blood in order to circulate oxygen" is a function assignment. It inherits function-mapping's commitment to single-valued dependency from input (the phenomenon) to output (its end), particularized to the purpose-attribution case. Without a well-defined notion of what a part is for — its function — teleological explanation has no relata to connect.


Teleology presupposes causality because end-directed explanation requires a productive connection by which ends shape outcomes.

Teleology presupposes causality because explaining a phenomenon by the end it serves still requires a productive connection -- selection, design, function, intention -- linking the end to the outcome with modal robustness. Without causality's apparatus of cause, effect, mechanism, and counterfactual sensitivity, the teleological claim collapses to mere description of correspondence. Whether ends are read as final causes, selection histories, or designer intentions, the explanation works only insofar as the end is causally efficacious in producing or sustaining what serves it.


Instantiation requires the reusable structural frame to remain separable from the variable content bound into it. The parent can occur independently, but without it the child’s mechanism is undefined; this is prerequisite dependence rather than subsumption.


Preservation of the frame and slot semantics across payload substitutions is an internal constituent of template reuse. If the frame changes with every payload, there is no shared template, design-once economy, or cross-instance comparability. parent_in_child


Tempo Mismatch is a specialization of Temporal Dynamics, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.

Temporal Dynamics supplies the genus: System outcomes depend fundamentally on timing, sequencing, duration. Tempo Mismatch preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A system's pace of action is out of phase with the timescale of the environment it must respond to, so correct decisions degrade outcomes by arriving against a world that has already moved on (or one not yet ready to absorb them). 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.


Temporal decay and degradation presupposes entropy because the systematic loss of structure over time tracks the entropy increase of the second law.

Temporal decay and degradation presupposes entropy because the systematic diminishment of structural quality, capability, and information content over time is the macroscopic signature of entropy growth: ordered configurations are vastly outnumbered by disordered ones, so spontaneous evolution moves toward higher entropy. Entropy supplies the statistical mechanism by which macroscopic irreversibility arises; degradation names what that arrow of time looks like for any structured system that maintenance does not actively counter. Without entropy's directional asymmetry, sustained spontaneous degradation would have no grounding.


Temporal decay and degradation presupposes time because systematic diminishment of properties requires a dimension along which the diminishment unfolds.

Temporal decay and degradation is the pattern in which system properties systematically diminish through use, exposure, or aging, following predictable functional forms like exponential or power-law decline. The very notion of diminishment-over-duration requires a dimension along which earlier-to-later ordering and irreversible succession hold. Time supplies that substrate: a measurable ordering parameter with an arrow distinguishing past from future. Without time as the structural foundation for change and entropy increase, there is no duration over which decay can accumulate and no irreversibility to give degradation its characteristic direction.


Temporal dynamics presupposes time because its content is precisely that timing, sequencing, and duration of events drive system behavior.

Temporal dynamics presupposes time because its structural claim — that the when and order of events matter as much as their occurrence — operates on time's apparatus: ordered succession, measurable duration, irreversible direction. It inherits time's commitment that the temporal dimension is constitutive of how systems evolve and how causation propagates, and uses that apparatus to formulate sensitivity to lead times, sequencing, and rhythm. Without time's ordering and duration structure, temporal dynamics has no variables to track.


Temporal inconsistency presupposes time preference because preference reversal as the horizon shortens is generated by non-exponential discounting of the future.

Temporal inconsistency is the pattern in which preference orderings reverse as the decision horizon approaches — the agent prefers X to Y when both are distant but Y to X when Y is imminent. The structural source of the reversal is non-constant time preference: discount rates that fall steeply at short horizons (hyperbolic discounting) generate exactly this inversion. Time preference supplies the underlying discounting machinery; temporal inconsistency is the behavioral consequence that emerges when that machinery deviates from the constant-rate exponential form, so it presupposes time preference as its generator.


Temporal synchronization and phase alignment presupposes rhythm because phase-relationships between processes only have meaning against an established periodic structure.

Temporal synchronization and phase alignment describes how multiple processes interact through their relative phase relationships to produce coherence or interference, which requires that the processes have periodic structure against which phase can be defined. Without rhythm's machinery — recurring structured patterning of events with grouping, accent, and interval that establishes an expectation frame — there would be no periodic cycle to align or misalign across processes. Rhythm supplies the structured temporal substrate that phase-alignment dynamics presuppose for the very notion of phase to apply.


Temporal synchronization and phase alignment presupposes coordination because aligning independent oscillator phases is a specific form of aligning independent processes.

Temporal synchronization and phase alignment describes how independent oscillating processes interact through their relative phases to produce coherence or interference. This is a particular case of coordinating independently controlled processes into coherent collective behavior — exactly the coordination pattern. Coordination supplies the structural commitment: aligning independent actors so their actions combine without centralized control. Phase alignment specializes coordination to oscillatory systems where the alignment variable is phase, with constructive and destructive interference as the outcome regimes. Without coordination's underlying alignment problem, phase relationships would carry no functional significance.


A halting predicate on an iterative/recursive process; it presupposes the iteration it halts (the two live at the same level but are designed separately). Iteration supplies the prerequisite condition: Repeats steps to refine outcomes. Termination Condition operates against that background: An explicit, checkable predicate that decides whether an iterative or recursive process stops or continues. 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 Texas sharpshooter fallacy is researcher degrees of freedom specialized to choosing a cluster boundary after seeing the data and reporting that selected fit as if pre-specified.

Every live sharpshooter instance has an unpinned analytic boundary choice, an implicit tree of alternative clusters or windows, a silent multiplicity budget, one selected leaf reported publicly, and a warrant gap from treating exploration as confirmation. It adds the noisy substrate, post-hoc cluster boundary, naive evidence calculation, and multiplicity discount.


Texture presupposes figure-ground because surface variation is only legible as texture once an element has been organized as figure against a ground.

Texture presupposes figure-ground because fine-grained surface variation only registers as texture once the perceptual field has been organized into a bounded figure that owns the surface and a recessive ground that supplies its context. Figure-ground supplies the primitive structural separation that makes "something stands out against something" legible; texture then names the micro-scale variation residing on the figure's surface. Without the prior assignment of figure and ground, surface variation is just undifferentiated optical stimulus with no element whose surface it could characterize.


Unity_variety is the OUTCOME (the felt balance of sameness and difference); theme_and_variation is 'one specific generative structure FOR producing that balance' (held kernel and transformation grammar and retention condition). Unity & Variety supplies the prerequisite condition: Balance between consistency and diversity. Theme And Variation operates against that background: A recognizable invariant is repeatedly re-instantiated under systematic transformation along named dimensions, with a retention condition that keeps each result referable back to the original—diversity generated from a held kernel rather than sampled independently. 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.


Theoretical sampling is selection specialized to choosing the next case by expected contribution to an evolving explanatory model rather than by population representativeness.

It inherits Selection's candidate population, operative criterion, unequal inclusion, and retained subset. Its differentia is an adaptive criterion: the next case is selected for the uncertainty it can resolve or the category it can refine in the emerging model, analysis changes the next selection, and saturation supplies the stopping condition. Representative coverage is neither required nor normally intended.


Theory of mind is the specific case of mental_model where the modelled thing is another agent's hidden mental states, kept SEPARATELY INDEXED from one's own world-model (false-belief capacity). mental_model is 'any internal representation', ToM is the agent-target, dual-indexed specialization. Mental Model supplies the genus: Internal system representation. Theory Of Mind preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: An agent maintains a separate, updateable model of another agent's hidden states and routes behaviour through that model rather than through ground truth. 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.


Therapeutic window presupposes dose-response relationship because its bounding doses are read from the rising effect-and-toxicity curves of dose-response analysis.

Therapeutic window presupposes dose-response relationship because its lower bound (minimum effective dose) and upper bound (maximum tolerated dose) are points on the two dose-response curves: efficacy rising with dose to a clinically meaningful level, and toxicity rising with dose to an unacceptable level. Without the prior commitment that response is a quantitative function of dose with characteristic shape parameters like potency, efficacy, and slope, there is no curve to read these bounds from and no usable operating range to delineate.


Therapeutic Window is a specialization of Selectivity Window, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.

Selectivity Window supplies the genus: A process discriminates among targets only inside a bounded operating range of a control parameter, and loses or reverses that discrimination outside it. Therapeutic Window preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Optimal input range. 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.


Thermodynamic equilibrium presupposes entropy because the equilibrium state is structurally defined as the entropy maximum consistent with imposed constraints.

Thermodynamic equilibrium is the macroscopic state of maximum entropy consistent with the system's imposed constraints — fixed energy, volume, particle number. Without entropy's machinery as a state function quantifying microstate multiplicity, with the Second Law driving isolated systems toward higher-multiplicity macrostates, there would be no principle picking out which state the system relaxes to under those constraints. Entropy supplies both the variable being maximized and the law driving relaxation toward the equilibrium state, making it structurally prior to the equilibrium concept it defines.


Thermodynamic equilibrium presupposes the second law because its characterization as the maximum-entropy state under constraints is the second law's content.

Thermodynamic equilibrium presupposes the second law because its defining feature is that an isolated macroscopic system relaxes to the state of maximum entropy consistent with imposed constraints, and that this state is unique and macroscopically time-independent. The very claim that systems left alone evolve to such a state, and not away from it, is the second law's statistical content. Without the prior commitment to entropy's non-decrease in isolated systems, there is no mechanism selecting equilibrium as the spontaneous endpoint of macroscopic evolution.


Thermodynamic equilibrium is a specialization of equilibrium in which the balanced quantities are thermodynamic variables and the state maximizes entropy under constraints.

Thermodynamic equilibrium is a specialization of equilibrium. The general equilibrium pattern is a balance condition on a named set of quantities such that no net change occurs along the balanced dimensions. Thermodynamic equilibrium specializes by naming the balanced quantities — temperature, pressure, chemical potentials — and the transformations they balance against, with the equilibrium state characterized as maximum entropy consistent with imposed constraints. The same balance-as-no-net-flow logic of equilibrium applies, with macroscopic thermodynamic variables as the specific balanced quantities.


Thick_description 'exists FOR the sake of interpretation but is not interpretation' — interpretation is the act of assigning meaning, thick_description the prior recording discipline that preserves enough context for that act to be performable later. Presupposes interpretation as the downstream act it serves. Interpretation supplies the prerequisite condition: Recover meaning from a representational substrate under a framework that makes some readings available and others not. Thick Description operates against that background: Record a phenomenon together with the surrounding context that makes its meaning recoverable, not just the bare surface event. 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.


Three Horizons Analysis is a specific foresight method that maps the present-to-future transition across three overlapping temporal layers.

Three Horizons Analysis is a specialization of foresight whose distinctive move is partitioning the forward-view into three overlapping horizons — the declining current system, the contested transitional space, and the emergent transformative system — and tracking their dynamics over time. It inherits foresight's commitment to structured anticipation of plural futures informing present action, and adds the specific tri-layer temporal architecture that makes the contest between incumbent and emergent systems visible, supplying a particular mapping component of the broader foresight methods stack.


Three horizons analysis is the specific shape modal reasoning takes when alternative possible futures are structured into three nested temporal layers.

Modal reasoning evaluates claims across a structured space of alternative possibilities rather than the single actual situation, quantifying over accessible alternatives via modal operators. Three horizons analysis is the specific shape this reasoning takes in foresight: it partitions the space of possible futures into H1 (current system with near-term improvement), H2 (transitional disruption), and H3 (long-term transformation), and reasons about dynamics across this tri-layer partition. It is a structurally-particularized instance of possible-worlds reasoning whose alternatives are organized by temporal horizon and incumbent-emergent dynamics.


Feedback is the underlying primitive; this prime SPECIALIZES it by adding a threshold, a two-attractor structure, and active consumption of input as maintenance in the low regime. A positive feedback loop alone is not a trap. Feedback supplies the prerequisite condition: Outputs influence inputs. Threshold Bounded Vicious Cycle operates against that background: A system has a low regime that consumes any small input as maintenance and a high self-sustaining regime, separated by a threshold an intervention must clear in both magnitude and duration. 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.


The basin boundary is a constitutive Threshold inside the compound prime, completing ancestry that its current Feedback-only edge omits.

The prime requires a critical value separating a deficit-restoring low basin from a surplus-compounding high basin. Its magnitude-and-duration intervention rule cannot be stated without the boundary value, though Threshold alone does not supply bistability or active input consumption.


Threshold-driven order emergence presupposes threshold because the abrupt reorganization is by definition triggered at a critical value of a continuous control parameter.

Threshold-driven order emergence requires a critical value of a control parameter at which the system's collective behavior reorganizes discontinuously — temperature, density, coupling strength, or shared-belief level. Without threshold's machinery — a specific input value separating a sub-response regime from a response regime with a sharp transition between them — there would be no critical point at which order emerges and no discontinuity in the macroscopic response to smooth microscopic change. The threshold prime supplies the input-value structure that makes the emergence pattern critical-point-localized.


Threshold-driven order emergence presupposes tipping points because the discontinuous reorganization at a critical parameter value is structurally the bifurcation a tipping point names.

Threshold-driven order emergence describes the discontinuous appearance of ordered structure at a critical value of a control parameter, with positive feedback producing the sharpness of the transition — which is structurally what a tipping point names. Without the tipping-point machinery of alternative stable states with a sharp bifurcation between them driven by positive feedback, there would be no framework for the discontinuous regime change the order-emergence pattern requires. The tipping-point prime supplies the bifurcation-and-stable-state structure that critical-point order emergence inherits.


Threshold-driven order emergence presupposes emergence because discontinuous appearance of collective order at criticality is a particular emergence-claim.

Threshold-driven order emergence describes collective patterns appearing discontinuously at critical parameter values from smooth microscopic interactions — phase transitions, crystallization, consensus lock-in. The higher-level ordered state has properties not present in the disordered constituents and not trivially predictable from them, satisfying the emergence pattern of higher-level-novelty-from-lower-level-constituents. The threshold variant specifies a particular emergence mechanism: discontinuous crossover at critical points rather than gradual aggregation. The general lower-level-to-higher-level commitment of emergence supplies the structural frame on which the threshold sharpening operates.


A threshold is the bare critical value (one component); this prime embeds it in a two-LEVEL architecture (continuous observable and dormant rule keyed to the threshold and monitoring loop and activation). Presupposes threshold. Threshold supplies the prerequisite condition: Safe vs harmful levels. Threshold-Triggered Rule Activation operates against that background: A continuous observable crossing a threshold flips a dormant rule to active. 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.


Thundering herds typically contain a downstream contention episode when synchronized arrivals compete at a finite choke, but contention is an effect constituent rather than the correlated-release genus.

In the common computing, queueing, and service cases, the synchronized burst produces actual competition among concurrent consumers for a shared finite resource, so Interference and Contention occurs inside the event. The defining defect, however, is the joint timing distribution created by the shared release signal, not steady-state overlap. Outcome-neutral cases such as predator satiation preserve the correlated-capacity mechanism without ordinary contention, making the constituent typical rather than strict and ruling out subsumption.


Thundering Herd is Correlated Capacity Demand specialized to a shared release event that aligns otherwise independent arrivals into the joint exceedance.

Both patterns require a shared finite resource, multiple consumers, correlated tail demand, capacity sized against independent arrivals, and a joint exceedance. Thundering Herd adds a specific correlating mechanism: one shared signal releases a waiter population nearly simultaneously.


Time-Of-Check To Time-Of-Use Flaw presupposes Verification, whose structure must already obtain for the child mechanism to be meaningful or operational.

Verification supplies the prerequisite condition: Check that an object conforms to its specification via a defined procedure yielding evidence and a verdict. Time-Of-Check To Time-Of-Use Flaw operates against that background: A precondition verified at one instant authorizes an action taken at a later instant, and the relevant state changes in the gap between them, so the defect lives in the temporal binding between check and use rather than in either operation. 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.


Time-Of-Check To Time-Of-Use Flaw is a specialization of Unverified Precondition, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.

Unverified Precondition supplies the genus: An action presumes a referent exists at the moment of use without checking. Time-Of-Check To Time-Of-Use Flaw preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A precondition verified at one instant authorizes an action taken at a later instant, and the relevant state changes in the gap between them, so the defect lives in the temporal binding between check and use rather than in either operation. 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.


Time preference is a specialization of preference in which the ordering systematically discounts delayed outcomes relative to present ones.

Time preference is a kind of preference specialized along the temporal dimension: the agent's ordering over outcomes weights present rewards more heavily than identical delayed ones, producing systematic discounting. It inherits preference's general commitment to an ordering over a choice set on an evaluative dimension, and supplies the specific case where the evaluative dimension is delivery timing and the ordering relation incorporates a discount rate (exponential, hyperbolic, or quasi-hyperbolic) that converts otherwise-equivalent outcomes into ranked alternatives based purely on when they arrive.


Time preference presupposes time because discounting only makes sense when outcomes are ordered along a present-to-future axis.

Time preference is the systematic weighting of present outcomes more heavily than equally-magnituded delayed ones, formalized through discount rates applied to future utility. The whole construction requires time to be in place as a dimension along which events are ordered earlier-to-later with a privileged direction. Without that temporal axis there is no delay to discount, no future to weigh, and no preference between present and future to express. Time supplies the directional ordering that time preference then assigns subjective weights along, so it cannot operate without time as its substrate.


Time value of money presupposes time preference because discounting future cash flows depends on a positive preference for present over delayed receipt.

Time value of money presupposes time preference because the discount rate that converts future cash flows to present values rests on the impatience axiom -- a unit today is preferred to the same unit later -- combined with marginal productivity of capital. Without time preference's psychological-and-economic discounting of future over present, the present-value reduction has no behavioral or equilibrium grounding; Fisher's interest-rate framework explicitly builds time value on the time-preference rate. The financial discounting machinery is the operationalization of intertemporal preference. Time Preference (Discounting Future) supplies the prerequisite condition: Present vs future value. Time Value of Money operates against that background: Present vs future value. 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.


Tipping points presupposes state and state transition because abrupt regime change requires alternative stable states and a transition between them.

A tipping point describes a system in which gradual change in a control parameter crosses a threshold and triggers an abrupt, often hysteretic transition between qualitatively distinct regimes. The claim requires at least two alternative stable states and a bifurcation point at which the trajectory jumps from one to the other. State-and-state-transition supplies precisely that substrate: a state space, distinct stable subsets, and a transition relation. Without an underlying state structure with rule-governed transitions, there are no regimes to tip between and no bifurcation surface to cross.


Tolerance is a specialization of adaptation in which repeated exposure reduces the system's response to a stimulus.

Tolerance is a specialization of adaptation. The general adaptation pattern is structural modification in response to sustained environmental change, preserving fit. Tolerance specializes by giving the modification a particular shape: the system reduces its responsiveness to a repeated stimulus, so the same dose produces a diminished effect over time. The same internal-modification logic of adaptation applies, with diminished response gain as the specific outcome and repeated stimulus exposure as the specific trigger — the inverse signature of potentiation within the adaptation family.


The tolerance paradox is 'a particular, RESOLVABLE member' of the paradox family — a specific two-level case (open object-rule and meta-exception excluding the rule's own negation) that ESCAPES via a narrowly-bounded exception rather than a standing contradiction. A specialization of paradox that adds a prescription. Paradox supplies the genus: Contradictory but revealing truth. Tolerance Paradox preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A system defined by an open principle must refuse that principle to elements that would destroy it, or be destroyed by its own openness. 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.


Top-down analysis is decomposition specialized to beginning with whole-system goals and constraints and deriving the lower-level parts and mechanisms they require.

Every top-down analysis divides a whole into component roles that can explain or realize the whole. It adds a directional inference from the global purpose, property, or constraint downward to the lower-level structures and behaviors that must support it.


Topographic forcing requires an incident flow whose path, momentum, and flux distribution can be reorganized by fixed relief.

Flow supplies the moving medium in the interaction. Relief without incident flow is only geometry; once a current passes it, the boundary can deflect streamlines, create vertical motion, shed wakes, generate waves, and localize dissipation. Topographic Forcing adds the fixed spatial geometry and the resulting field reorganization.


The shaped boundary that the moving medium cannot freely cross is a constituent of every topographic-forcing interaction.

Boundary is the fixed constraint whose relief gives the forcing its geometry. The surface, obstacle, sill, ridge, or bedform redirects a flow because it limits the paths available to the moving medium. Remove the boundary and only unconstrained background flow remains; remove the flow and only static relief remains.


A topographic map is a representational architecture: a source space laid out on a substrate by a neighbourhood-preserving map with non-uniform magnification. is-a a specialized (spatial, layout-bearing) representation.


Traceability presupposes observability because linking backward and forward through derivation history requires that internal state changes leave externally-visible records.

Traceability presupposes observability because linking any element of a system backward through its derivation history and forward through its downstream uses requires that the relevant state transitions and custody transfers leave externally-visible records that can be reconstructed. Without observability's property that internal state can be inferred from emitted outputs over time, the chain of derivation and custody would be invisible and the traceability infrastructure would have nothing to record. Observability supplies the visibility-of-internal-state property; traceability builds on that property to maintain the durable, navigable chain that audit and attribution then exploit.


Traceability typically presupposes transformation because the linked history it tracks is mostly a chain of rule-governed restructurings, though pure custody chains exist.

Traceability links any element of a system backward through its history of derivation and forward to downstream uses. Typically the steps in that history are transformations — rule-governed mappings from inputs to outputs that preserve some properties while altering others — and traceability records how each such transformation reshaped the element. Transformation supplies the unit operation whose chain traceability captures. Some traceability chains track mere custody transfer without restructuring, so the dependence is typical rather than strict, but most live cases ride on transformation as the underlying step being traced.


Trade-offs presuppose constraint because the inability to improve all dimensions simultaneously is what makes the feasible set bounded by a frontier.

A trade-off is the structural situation where gains on one valued dimension require losses on another within a given feasible set, which presupposes that the feasible set is itself restricted — that not all desirable combinations are admissible. Without constraint's binding restriction on admissible configurations, every combination would be feasible and there would be no enforced exchange between dimensions; improvements on one dimension would not require sacrifices on another. The trade-off is the shape constraint takes when it binds multiple valued dimensions simultaneously.


Tragedy of the commons is a specialization of social dilemma; many users degrade a shared open-access resource through individually rational consumption.

Social dilemma is the structural pattern in which each agent's individually rational strategy (defect) yields a collectively worse outcome than mutual cooperation would. Tragedy of the commons is the specific case where the dominant defection is over-consumption of a shared open-access resource: each user gains the full private benefit of their consumption but bears only a fractional share of the depletion cost, so individual rationality leads to collective resource collapse. It inherits the dilemma's individual-rationality-versus-collective-welfare structure and adds the open-access-resource specification.


Tragedy of the commons presupposes externality because the depletion of a shared resource is the unpriced third-party cost each user imposes on others.

The tragedy of the commons depends on the externality structure: each user receives the full private benefit of consumption but bears only a 1/N share of the collective depletion cost, so the unpriced residue is imposed on other users. Without the externality framework — the divergence between private and social cost arising from effects not transmitted through prices — the rational self-interest pattern would not produce collective degradation, because the depletion would be internalized and consumption would track its true social cost.


Transaction presupposes Reversibility and Irreversibility: atomicity and rollback require the option to undo a partial commit before observers see it.

A transaction guarantees that a multi-step state change either commits in full or aborts with no partial effects visible to others, which requires the system to retain the option of rolling effects back before they become durable. That option is the reversibility side of Reversibility and Irreversibility, and the commit boundary marks the irreversibility transition. The ACID atomicity guarantee presupposes the reversible-then-irreversible distinction as its structural ground.