Extensional–projective
How is the object constructed, transformed, viewed, projected, and reconstructed? What survives and what is lost?
E7G-T makes construction, projection, preservation, loss, reconstruction, operational sameness, material boundaries, transition paths, bridge mode, and admissible use visible.
The phase layer does not replace projection geometry. It completes it.
How is the object constructed, transformed, viewed, projected, and reconstructed? What survives and what is lost?
Which configurations count as equivalent for this inquiry? Which change crosses a material boundary?
Does a lossy view support one operational phase, several possible phases, or no admissible phase?
Use the smallest profile that changes the next responsible move without hiding risk.
Name the entity, semantic context, inquiry, model boundary, and intended use.
Declare viewing or projection, preserved structure, loss, distortion, and source candidates.
State tolerated differences and the relations, invariants, behaviours, or interfaces that define the phase.
Determine whether the reconstruction fibre maps to one phase, several phases, none, or an unknown set.
Inspect typed transitions, phase boundaries, path choice, operation order, and representative dependence.
Classify, narrow, source-return, obtain another view, compare paths, repair, rely within scope, or stop.
Different source and support states can produce the same fluent answer while belonging to different reliance phases.
Different wording may be harmless variation—or may cross a legal-force, identity, or usability boundary.
The same green tile may be compatible with source configurations in different readiness or health phases.
A refactoring claim requires behavioural equivalence, representative checks, and path-sensitive validation.
A visible proof state may not uniquely determine proof readiness or discharged-obligation status.
A summary, status, or approval-looking view may not carry the phase required for operational reliance.
The unified kernel is a candidate. Its value must be demonstrated by better next moves.
E7G-T is not established mathematics as a whole, empirical physics, a proof system, an authority decision, or a replacement for domain expertise. Formal-looking notation does not create evidence, proof, authorisation, validation, or performed work.