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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


Correspondence Principle is a kind of compatibility: a new theory must reproduce the predictions of its predecessor in the latter's validated regime.

The Correspondence Principle requires a new, more general theory to reproduce the predictions of the older theory it supersedes in the regime where the older theory was empirically validated, typically as a well-defined limit (h-bar to 0, c to infinity). That is the relational property of Compatibility: two systems coexist without contradiction across the regime where both apply. Correspondence specializes compatibility to successive scientific theories, with the older theory's empirical domain as the alignment region.


The correspondence principle presupposes versioning because it constrains how a successor theory must reproduce the predecessor's predictions in their validated regime.

The correspondence principle presupposes versioning because it treats theories as named successive states of a body of knowledge -- predecessor and successor -- where the successor must reproduce the predecessor's empirically validated predictions as a limit. Without versioning's explicit identification, retention, and difference-computation between artifact states, there is no formal way to specify which predictions the new theory must recover, in which regime the old theory was valid, or what the reduction (hbar to zero, c to infinity) computes. The principle is a consistency constraint on the version transition. Versioning supplies the prerequisite condition: Tracks incremental changes over time. Correspondence Principle operates against that background: New theories match old limits. 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.


Cost-benefit analysis is the specific shape value commensuration takes when the common metric is monetized and net present value is the aggregation rule.

Cost-benefit analysis is the specific shape value commensuration takes when the common scale is monetary and the aggregation rule is net present value across all significant consequences. Value commensuration's general anatomy — translating heterogeneous values from different frameworks into a single comparable metric, with characteristic loss and contestation — is structurally particularized into willingness-to-pay valuations, monetized externalities, discounted future flows, and a single net-benefit verdict. The general translation-into-common-metric operation is preserved; the specific shape is its monetized, decision-analytic realization for policy and project evaluation.


Cost-benefit analysis presupposes decision because the framework's purpose is to support selecting one alternative over others under constraint.

Cost-benefit analysis aggregates significant consequences of a candidate policy or project into a common monetary metric and uses the net present value as a basis for evaluation. The framework is constituted around the act of choosing — it exists to discriminate between alternatives and recommend one. Decision supplies the act of selecting one alternative from a set, committing future resources, and closing off other paths; CBA is the analytical machinery that informs and structures that selection, presupposing the decisional act as its purpose and addressee.


CBA is a decision procedure that presupposes and centrally uses commensurability (common monetary metric) as its core mechanism, not a kind of it. Commensurability supplies the prerequisite condition: Diverse values expressed in common metric enabling comparison. Cost–Benefit Analysis operates against that background: Evaluate decisions. 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 SIGNAL-GENERATION mechanism that weights a nearby counterfactual into a reward/loss signal by distance; it presupposes counterfactual_reasoning to CONSTRUCT the alternative, then folds it in by proximity. 'reasoning constructs the alternative; proximity weighting weights it into a signal'. Counterfactual Reasoning supplies the prerequisite condition: Hypothetical alternatives. Counterfactual Proximity Weighting operates against that background: An internal signal is graded not by the outcome alone but by its distance to a nearby counterfactual outcome of different value, so near misses carry near-reward signals. 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 ESTIMATOR that operationalises a counterfactual into a number: observed minus a constructed baseline standing in for the unobserved counterfactual. 'one operationalisation of the broader concept', sitting 'one level below causality'. Presupposes counterfactuals (the metaphysical target). Counterfactuals supplies the prerequisite condition: Alternate hypothetical scenarios. Counterfactual Subtraction operates against that background: An effect is estimated by subtracting a constructed baseline representing what would have obtained absent the intervention, so the inference rests on the baseline's credibility, not the arithmetic. 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.


Counterfactuals are a kind of causality: causal claims are evaluated by comparing the actual world with what would have happened had a cause differed.

Counterfactual reasoning constructs claims of the form had A not occurred, B would not have occurred and uses them to identify causal structure, evaluate decisions, and assign responsibility. That is one of the four essential components of Causality itself: modal robustness — the counterfactual claim that fixing the cause would have fixed the effect under a fixed background. Counterfactuals are the specialization of causality that isolates and operationalizes the modal component as its primary inferential machinery.


Counterfactual reasoning is a specialization of modal reasoning that evaluates would-have-been claims under contrary-to-fact antecedents.

Counterfactual reasoning is a specialization of modal reasoning. Specifically, it deploys a modal operator (the counterfactual conditional) that quantifies over a structured space of alternatives -- nearest possible worlds, intervention regimes, or similarity-ordered scenarios -- to evaluate what would have followed under an antecedent contrary to actual fact. The truth of the counterfactual claim rests on the inner proposition holding across the relevant accessible alternatives, exactly the Kripke-style move modal reasoning names; counterfactuals are the subclass anchored to contrary-to-fact antecedents.


A counterresponse offset requires the intervention's target variable to be coupled to a response channel that feeds back into the realized outcome.

If the improvement cannot change incentives, exposure, activity, or some other response-bearing variable, no counterresponse can be induced and the fixed-volume gain survives intact. Coupling supplies the dependency; the prime adds intervention, induced adjustment, and offset accounting.


Covariance contains expected-value operations that center each quantity and average their paired deviation products.

Expected value is an internal constituent of covariance: the means used to center X and Y and the expectation of their centered product are applications of the same probability-weighted linear operator. Remove that operator and the covariance quantity is undefined.


Coverage / Reachability is a specialization of Surjectivity, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.

Surjectivity supplies the genus: A coverage-guaranteeing mapping in which every element of the target is hit by some input, leaving no gap in the codomain. Coverage / Reachability preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A completeness claim in the surjective direction: every required target in a target set is reachable from at least one of the system's inputs, pathways, or mechanisms. 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.


Coverage/reachability is explicitly the surjective-direction specialization of the general no-gaps completeness claim. Completeness supplies the genus: No gaps in structure. Coverage / Reachability preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A completeness claim in the surjective direction: every required target in a target set is reachable from at least one of the system's inputs, pathways, or mechanisms. 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.


Creative destruction is the specific shape transformation takes in an economy, where innovation restructures the productive base by displacing the old.

Creative destruction is the structurally-particularized form transformation takes in competitive capitalist economies: the input is an existing configuration of products, methods, and firms; the rule is innovation-driven competitive displacement; the output is a restructured economy in which resources have been reallocated from less to more productive uses. The transformation's invariants are aggregate welfare gain and the continuity of market activity; the degrees of freedom being reshaped are the particular firms, technologies, and occupational structures that get displaced.


Creative destruction presupposes allocation because its reallocation of resources from less to more productive uses requires an underlying assignment of supply across uses.

Creative destruction operates by reallocating capital, labor, and other productive resources from displaced firms and methods to ascendant ones, which presupposes the underlying machinery of assigning limited supply across competing uses. Without allocation as the structural substrate, there would be no assignment to revise: the displacement of incumbents and the rise of new entrants would have no resource-redistribution dimension. The allocation prime supplies the assignment structure on which the destructive-creative reshuffling acts.


Credible commitment is commitment made believable enough for another actor to rely on through observability and breach cost.

Credible commitment retains the general commitment structure and adds public observability, believable breach cost, and sufficient strength to make compliance execution-time incentive-compatible for a relying actor.


A critical juncture presupposes path dependence because its consequence-amplifying role only obtains when subsequent dynamics lock in the chosen path.

A critical juncture presupposes path dependence because its high-stakes status depends entirely on what happens afterward: the moment is consequential only if subsequent increasing returns, network effects, or institutional inertia make reversal difficult. It inherits path dependence's commitment that current state is irreducible to prior state plus current shock — history is constitutive — particularized to the branching-point case where a brief window of sensitivity precedes long lock-in. Without path dependence's downstream amplification, the juncture would not be critical.


Positions critical_period (the developmental child) and treats critical_juncture as a high-contingency moment; readiness_window is the substrate-general interval whose children include developmental critical periods. Readiness Window supplies the genus: A receptive substrate enters a bounded opening-interior-closing interval during which a class of interventions can take hold. Critical Juncture preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Moment where small variations produce divergent locked-in paths. 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.


Critical mass is a specialization of tipping point in which the control parameter is participation density and the threshold sits at a reproduction ratio of one.

Critical mass specializes the tipping-point pattern by fixing the control parameter as quantity, density, or participation level of interacting elements and the threshold as the reproduction-ratio crossing of one. Where tipping points name the general structure of alternative stable states separated by a bifurcation driven by positive feedback, critical mass specifies the bifurcation as the self-sustaining-versus-decaying boundary at R=1 — below it activity decays geometrically, above it activity grows self-sustainingly. The reproduction-ratio framing is the particular shape the bifurcation takes in propagation processes.


Critical mass is a specialization of threshold whose specific input is a reproduction-ratio crossing one and whose response is self-sustaining propagation.

Critical mass is a specialization of threshold in which the input variable is the effective reproduction ratio of a propagating process and the response is the qualitative shift from decay to self-sustained activity at R equals one. It inherits the general threshold commitment of a sharp dividing value separating a sub-response regime from a response regime, and specializes by fixing the input to a reproduction count and the output to extinction-versus-runaway. Below the threshold the chain dies; above it, propagation feeds itself.


Reaching critical mass = the self-sustaining outcome of the sustainment stage — 'one possible outcome'. After the physics frame is stripped away, the retained structural roles are those of Mobilization: Latent capacity is activated, channeled into directed action, and then sustained or returned to rest. Critical Mass adds the local frame and commitments expressed in its identity: The minimum quantity needed to sustain a self-perpetuating process. 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.


Critical Mass is the framed or domain-specific realization of Bloom And Bust Cycle; removing the local frame leaves the parent's structural relation intact.

After the physics frame is stripped away, the retained structural roles are those of Bloom And Bust Cycle: Saturating growth collapses, and the collapse itself becomes a second, often larger, stressor. Critical Mass adds the local frame and commitments expressed in its identity: The minimum quantity needed to sustain a self-perpetuating process. 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.


A time-gated window of malleability for acquiring a configuration is a specific developmental/biological instance of the general sensitive-moment-with-locked-in-divergent-paths structure. Critical Juncture supplies the genus: Moment where small variations produce divergent locked-in paths. Critical Period preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A time-gated window of elevated malleability during which a configuration can be acquired, after which the same inputs are far harder or impossible to take on. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.


Criticality presupposes nonlinearity because divergent susceptibilities and scale-free fluctuations require failure of superposition.

Criticality is the state of a system at a phase boundary where response to perturbation becomes unbounded across scales, with diverging correlation length, susceptibility, and power-law event-size distributions. This rests on nonlinearity: the structural failure of superposition in which scaling inputs does not scale outputs proportionally and combined inputs produce new phenomena including thresholds, bistability, and pattern formation. The qualitative regime change at a critical point, where the system transitions between ordered and disordered phases, is impossible in a strictly linear system where any perturbation simply decays additively.


Cromwell's rule is a specific boundary CONSTRAINT on bayesian_updating: because zero is absorbing for multiplication, contingent priors must stay off 0 and 1 or the update is inert. A corollary of the algebra, a specialization of the general updating mechanism.


Cross-boundary subsidy is a directional resource flow creating donor-coupling reliance, matching dependency's asymmetric-reliance definition. Dependency supplies the genus: Directed relation in which one element relies on another being present, prior, compatible, or supplied, with a specifiable failure mode if the condition is unmet. Cross-Boundary Subsidy preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: An asymmetric, sustained flow of a sustaining resource across a boundary holds a recipient above its endogenous capacity, creating donor-coupling vulnerability mistaken for autonomy. 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.


Cross-cutting relationship is geometric chronology specialized to the intersection rule that an interrupting or overprinting feature is younger than the feature it cuts.

It inherits inference from preserved geometry to a relative temporal order and adds the cross-cutting configuration: one trace interrupts, displaces, or overprints another. Geometric chronology is broader because it also includes superposition, inclusion, and other geometry-to-time rules.


A specific generative story for WHY an observed cross-output correlation is inflated above the true cross-source signal: a shared channel loads onto multiple outputs (cov(y_i,y_j) = cov(t_i,t_j) and lambda_i*lambda_j*var(c)).

A specific generative story for WHY an observed cross-output correlation is inflated above the true cross-source signal: a shared channel loads onto multiple outputs (cov(y_i,y_j) = cov(t_i,t_j) + lambda_i*lambda_j*var(c)). A diagnosis built atop correlation, presupposing it.


Cross-impact analysis is the specific shape network takes when nodes are future events or factors and edges are pairwise influence relations.

Cross-impact analysis is the specific shape network takes when the entities are future events, trends, or factors within a bounded set and the connections are pairwise influence relations — how the occurrence or strengthening of one factor raises, lowers, or leaves unchanged the probability of another. It is a structurally-particularized instance of studying entities through their connection pattern, with the added commitments that connections are typically encoded in a cross-impact matrix and that the analytical payoff is aggregate trajectory adjustment accounting for all pairwise interactions, surfacing systemic effects single-factor analysis misses.


Cross-Impact Analysis is typically a specialization of Local-to-Global Aggregation, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.

Local-to-Global Aggregation supplies the genus: Locally checkable properties promote to a global verdict under an explicit aggregation discipline. Cross-Impact Analysis preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Interacting trends. 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.


Cross-Level Inference presupposes Hierarchy because a claim can change levels only where distinguishable source and target levels are organized in relation to one another.

The operation requires at least two distinguishable levels, a source-level claim, and a target-level claim. Hierarchy supplies that ordered level structure without itself licensing any inference between the levels.


Crossover Interaction is the sign-reversing species of interaction effect in which one factor's conditional effect is positive at one level of a second factor and negative at another.

Synergy and Antagonism supplies the general deviation from a no-interaction baseline: the joint response cannot be recovered from context-free component effects. Crossover Interaction specializes that family to the qualitative case where the conditional effect crosses zero and reverses direction across levels of the modifying condition.


Crowding out requires a FINITE shared substrate (bounded capacity) two activities depend on — it presupposes scarcity of that substrate, but is 'sharper than mere competition for scarce resources': the new activity's success must run THROUGH the shared substrate (a nameable channel). Presupposes scarcity; explicitly not a child of competition. Scarcity supplies the prerequisite condition: A finite resource is insufficient to satisfy all competing wants. Crowding Out operates against that background: Introducing or expanding one activity inside a finite shared substrate displaces an existing activity that depended on that same substrate. 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.


Cue Outcome Decoupling is a specialization of Proxy–Target Fidelity, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.

Proxy–Target Fidelity supplies the genus: How faithfully an observable proxy tracks the unobservable target it stands in for — the degree to which acting on, optimizing, or inferring from the proxy is acting on the target itself. Cue Outcome Decoupling preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A cue that once reliably tracked an outcome has its coupling broken, while the cue-following behavior persists and grows more harmful the better it tracks the now-decoupled cue. 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.


Culmination is the regime PAST where diminishing returns stops applying — diminishing_returns governs the falling-but-positive arm UP TO the peak, culmination is the sign-FLIP beyond it. It presupposes the diminishing-returns curve and names where its marginal crosses zero. Distinct kind (sign-flip vs slope-flatten), adjacent on one curve.


Cultural diffusion is a kind of contagion in which innovations and practices spread through networks of contact and adoption.

Cultural diffusion is a specialization of contagion: innovations, beliefs, and practices spread from adopter to connected non-adopter through contact, communication, and influence, with each newly adopting agent becoming a fresh transmission source. It inherits contagion's structural commitments — contact-mediated transmission, reproduction in each new host, threshold dynamics governed by transmission rate and network topology — particularized to the cultural-innovation case where what propagates is a practice or idea and the S-curve adoption pattern is the visible signature.


Cultural friction presupposes compatibility because the resistance encountered by an imported artifact is the misalignment between its norms and the host culture's.

Cultural friction presupposes compatibility because the resistance, adaptation demands, and rejection that arise when a practice or artifact is imported are exactly compatibility's failure mode at the level of norms, worldviews, and social structures. Without compatibility's framing of coexistence-and-interaction as a between-entity relational property, friction has no reference: it names the degree to which the imported and host systems fail to align on shared assumptions. Acculturation strategies map onto how the two systems negotiate toward (or away from) compatibility.


Cultural hegemony presupposes legitimacy because it works by securing voluntary consent — making dominance appear rightful rather than coerced.

Cultural hegemony presupposes legitimacy because its distinctive mechanism is the production of consent: dominant groups maintain position not chiefly through coercion but by establishing their worldview as common sense, so the existing order appears natural and rightful. That mechanism only works inside legitimacy's prior structure of voluntary compliance based on recognition of rightness. Hegemony inherits legitimacy's general apparatus of authority-treated-as-rightful and specializes it by identifying the cultural-institutional means — education, media, religion, language — through which that recognition is manufactured, often in ways that disadvantage those who accept the framing.


Cultural hegemony presupposes social norms because it works by installing dominant framings as the taken-for-granted normative expectations of a society.

Cultural hegemony presupposes social norms because its mechanism is the conversion of one group's worldview into the shared normative expectations of the broader society — common sense, the taken-for-granted, what everyone knows is appropriate. That conversion requires the prior structure of social norms: distributed expectations sustained by internalization and sanction, applying to everyone similarly situated. Hegemony inherits this norm-architecture and adds the further commitment that the content of the norms tracks the interests of dominant groups, so that compliance with them — felt as ordinary social membership — also reproduces a particular order of inequality.


Curiosity is a specific kind of attention, biasing selective allocation toward information that closes a salient knowledge gap.

Curiosity is a specialization of attention. The general pattern is the selective allocation of a limited cognitive resource to a subset of available information, gating what gets processed deeply. Curiosity instantiates this with the allocation criterion being a perceived information gap: the reasoner orients selective attention toward stimuli that promise to close the gap between current and possible knowledge, with the gap-resolution itself intrinsically rewarding. Berlyne and Loewenstein's information-gap framing makes curiosity the attentional bias whose targeting rule is gap salience, particularly within the Goldilocks zone of optimal challenge.


Curiosity presupposes uncertainty because the perceived knowledge gap that motivates information-seeking is itself an uncertainty state.

Curiosity presupposes uncertainty because the information-gap that drives exploration is a specific uncertainty condition: the reasoner perceives an unknown quantity (the missing knowledge), evidence about its possible resolution, and a felt difference between current and possible states of fuller knowing. Without uncertainty's apparatus for distinguishing known from unknown and characterizing the unknown, there is no gap to feel or close. Curiosity is the motivational response to epistemic uncertainty operating in the Goldilocks zone where closure feels both possible and worth the effort.


The curse arises only as the number of relevant dimensions grows; dimensional structure is constitutive of the pathology. Dimension supplies the prerequisite condition: Degrees of freedom in a system. Curse Of Dimensionality operates against that background: Volume, sparsity, and distance intuitions degrade so fast with added dimensions that low-dimensional methods break down qualitatively, not just quantitatively. 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.


Custody Transfer is a state transition specialized to a holder-indexed responsibility state changed by one release-and-bind triggering act.

Before the triggering act the outgoing holder bears the defined duty bundle; after it the incoming holder does. The transferred object and duty scope are conserved while the holder-valued state changes discretely, so every genuine Custody Transfer instantiates State and State Transition.


A cut is a vertex-bipartition-plus-crossing-edges object DEFINED ON a network/graph; it presupposes a relational network. 'a relational network... the bipartition... the crossing-edge set.'. Network supplies the prerequisite condition: Models interactions between components. Cut operates against that background: A partition of a network's vertices and the crossing edges, converting global connectivity into a local edge-set. 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.


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

Network supplies the prerequisite condition: Models interactions between components. Cycle operates against that background: A closed path in a network that returns to its origin, opening return, foreclosing ordering, and creating a loop invariant. 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.


Damping is Dissipation specialized to removing energy from an excited dynamical degree of freedom and reducing its response.

Every Damping process irreversibly transfers organized energy out of the tracked dynamical variables into heat, radiation, frictional modes, or another sink. That is Dissipation. Damping adds a moving, displaced, or fluctuating degree of freedom, a damping coefficient, and underdamped, critical, or overdamped response regimes that describe how the excitation decays.


Damping commonly acts on Oscillation, but non-oscillatory return and aperiodic fluctuation are valid damping regimes.

The canonical damping problem begins with an oscillatory mode whose amplitude envelope shrinks as energy is removed, making Oscillation the usual dynamical substrate. It is not universal: at or above critical damping the actual response returns monotonically, and some damping acts on broadband or aperiodic fluctuations. Oscillation is therefore a typical prerequisite rather than an identity requirement.


A failure mode at the contracted meeting point where content arriving through an interface is re-interpreted from data into control; presupposes an interface (the stage on which the breach occurs). Interface supplies the prerequisite condition: A bounded, rule-governed surface across which two systems exchange information or control while hiding their internals, letting each evolve independently behind a stable contract. Data-Control Plane Breach operates against that background: Untrusted content crosses into the data channel un-inertised and an interpreter, operating correctly by its own rules, executes it as control, wielding the defender's authority for the attacker. 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.


Data-Control Plane Breach is a specialization of Untrusted Input Execution, retaining the parent's defining structure while adding the child's specific commitments.

Untrusted Input Execution supplies the genus: Attacker-influenced input crosses a data-to-control (or authority) boundary and a correctly-operating intermediary executes it with the intermediary's own authority, so the attacker borrows the defender's privilege without ever violating the intermediary's rules. Data-Control Plane Breach preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: Untrusted content crosses into the data channel un-inertised and an interpreter, operating correctly by its own rules, executes it as control, wielding the defender's authority for the attacker. 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.


Data Drift typically presupposes Temporal Decay and Degradation, whose structure must already obtain for the child mechanism to be meaningful or operational.

Temporal Decay and Degradation supplies the prerequisite condition: System properties or capabilities systematically diminish over time. Data Drift operates against that background: A static learned mapping silently loses accuracy as the deployment distribution drifts away from the distribution it was calibrated on. 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.


Data_drift is the complementary CHANNEL where P(x) moves (the input distribution shifts). One channel of the same gap. Calibrated Rule versus Moving World supplies the genus: A rule, model, or policy fitted to a past distribution of the world degrades as the world it was calibrated on drifts away from that distribution. Data Drift preserves that general structure while adding its differentia: A static learned mapping silently loses accuracy as the deployment distribution drifts away from the distribution it was calibrated on. The parent can occur without those added commitments, whereas removing the parent structure leaves no basis for classifying the child as this subtype. That asymmetry establishes subsumption rather than mere association.


Data drift is training-serving skew caused by temporal movement in the deployment distribution relative to the learned reference environment.

Training-serving skew is the general mismatch between preparation and deployment environments. Data drift adds a fixed learned mapping, a reference distribution, and temporal covariate, concept, or label movement that opens the mismatch after deployment.


Data Integrity is a kind of verification: checksums, signatures, and audits confirm conformance to the data's intended specification.

Data integrity is preserved by mechanisms — checksums, error-correcting codes, digital signatures, validation rules, audit, provenance — that check stored or transmitted data against the criteria it must satisfy and produce a verdict of accept or repair. That is the defining structure of Verification: a procedure that checks conformance to specification and yields evidence-backed verdicts. Data integrity specializes verification to the case where the specified object is data and the specification covers accuracy, consistency, and authorized state.