Integration Finding: PoR Field #40 Collision Check#
Note
Data collection file. Agents performing content integration should
append rows below whenever they encounter the string model used as
a label, heading, or reference — noting whether it functions as a D2
element type (pet-model1) or as PoR field #40 (ModelUsedIn).
Question being answered: Does the name collision between PoR field
model and D2 type model cause actual ambiguity in practice?
Or is it purely theoretical?
How to report: For each occurrence, record: the file, the context (label / heading / prose / ref target), which meaning is intended (D2 type or PoR field), and whether the context made it ambiguous.
Findings#
File |
Context |
Meaning |
Ambiguous? |
|---|---|---|---|
|
prose |
PoR field |
No — “Which model uses this axiom” is clearly field #40 |
|
D2 registry |
D2 type |
No — registry context makes it clear |
(example) |
(label / prose / ref) |
(D2 type / PoR field) |
(Yes/No + brief explanation) |
Summary (to be written after integration completes)#
(Agents: after all content has been sorted, write a summary. How many occurrences of each meaning? Any actual ambiguity? Recommend: rename field #40 now, or leave it?)