A04 — Separate reasoning grammar from execution/coordination grammar

• Input [inference]: A procedural artifact containing both reasoning functions and timing, allocation, synchronization, or sequencing functions, consistent with the two paired definitions in the theory doc's Core Definitions.
• Operation [proposal-only]: The theory doc defines "Procedural Reasoning Grammar" and "Execution or Coordination Grammar" as two separate hypothesized compositions, but does not describe an operation for producing or applying the split; it is a definitional distinction, not a demonstrated procedure.
• Output [absent]: No output artifact or representation is described in the permitted canonical set.
• Scope conditions [direct]: Motivated where coordination-heavy problems place pressure on the current vocabulary; Hypothesis 3 states "execution-heavy artifacts require additional coordination primitives not yet established in the accepted vocabulary."
• Failure conditions [direct]: The falsification criteria state the theory weakens if "reasoning and execution grammars cannot be separated."
• Predicted effect [direct]: "Execution-heavy artifacts will continue to pressure the current vocabulary for additional primitives such as synchronization, scheduling, allocation, sequencing, or coordination" (Predictions).
• Measurement [absent]: No metric is defined in the permitted canonical set.
• Implementation test [absent]: No test procedure is described.
• Decision rights [absent]: Not addressed.
• Uncertainty handling [direct]: The theory doc states current theory "does not yet show that reasoning grammar and execution grammar are cleanly separable," and lists as an Open Question "Are Synchronize, Schedule, Sequence, Allocate, and Coordinate genuine execution primitives or just domain-specific variants?" — the split is explicitly held as unresolved rather than assumed.
• Verification [direct]: Next Required Work calls to "Test whether reasoning and execution grammars can be separated without distorting real artifacts."
• Provenance [absent]: Not addressed.
• Implementation cost [absent]: Not addressed.
• Limitations [direct]: The theory doc's fourth provisional claim only states primitive sufficiency "appears weaker" in coordination-heavy problems, not that a second grammar has been established; the Open Questions section treats the separability of the two grammars itself as unresolved: "Do reasoning and execution grammars separate cleanly, or are they entangled in practice?"

Statement basis

• Direct: Scope motivation, failure/falsification condition, predicted effect, explicit unresolved status, and verification requirement.
• Inference: Input framing drawn from the paired definitions.
• Proposal-only: The two-grammar distinction itself, which exists in the theory document only as a definitional pairing and an open hypothesis, not as a demonstrated operation.
• Absent: Output, measurement, implementation test, decision rights, provenance, implementation cost.