A01 — Identity-capability separation

• Input [direct]: A knowledge artifact for which single-label classification is unstable because artifacts overlap in function (theory doc, Observation 1).
• Operation [direct]: Separate what an artifact is (identity) from what it can do (capabilities) rather than assigning one classification label (theory doc, Observation 1; Theory v0.1 claim 1).
• Output [inference]: An artifact description in which identity and capability are recorded as distinct properties rather than merged into one label.
• Scope conditions [direct]: Knowledge-artifact characterization work, specifically the FE-008 context where artifacts "overlap too much for single-label classification to remain stable."
• Failure conditions [absent]: No canonical failure condition is stated in the permitted evidence. The theory doc states the problem the mechanism responds to, not a test for when the separation itself fails.
• Predicted effect [direct]: "Knowledge artifacts are easier to reason about when identity is separated from capabilities" (Theory v0.1 claim 1).
• Measurement [absent]: No metric (e.g., reviewer agreement) is defined in the permitted canonical set.
• Implementation test [absent]: No procedure is specified. The theory doc's Open Questions ask "Are Identity and Capability stable under independent reviewers at larger scale?" which implies a test class (independent reviewer replication at scale) but does not operationalize it.
• Decision rights [absent]: No canonical owner or dispute-resolution authority is named.
• Uncertainty handling [inference]: No mechanism-specific rule exists; the general research-constitution requirement that confidence "may increase only when evidence survives a meaningful test and subsequent review" would apply if this claim were tested, but this is a generic rule applied here by inference, not a mechanism-specific statement.
• Verification [direct]: The theory doc's Open Questions section identifies independent-reviewer testing at larger scale as the outstanding verification need for this claim.
• Provenance [absent]: No canonical statement describes what evidence must be retained per identity or capability assignment.
• Implementation cost [absent]: Not addressed in the permitted canonical set.
• Limitations [direct]: The theory doc states current theory "does not yet show" several stronger claims and frames Framework Engineering overall as having evidence "as a characterization and improvement methodology, not yet as a full engineering discipline." The identity-capability claim rests on a single internal evidence source (FE-008) referenced only by name, and its independent-reviewer stability is an open question rather than a settled result.

Statement basis

• Direct: The separation operation, the scope trigger, the predicted effect, and the open verification need.
• Inference: Output form and generic uncertainty-handling applicability.
• Proposal-only: None identified in the permitted canonical set for this candidate.
• Absent: Failure conditions, measurement, implementation test procedure, decision rights, provenance rule, implementation cost.