fix: normalize KD-CAL and Kind-CAL teaching layer for G as scope object

FPF-Spec.md

@@ -28326,13 +28326,13 @@ This approach is inspired by contemporary practices in both ontology engineering
 
 ## C.2 - Epistemic holon composition (KD-CAL)
 
-**Scope & exports.** A substrate‑neutral calculus for composing **epistemic holons** (`U.Episteme`) and reasoning about their motion and equivalence. Exports: (i) three **point‑characteristics**—**Formality F**, **ClaimScope G**, **Reliability R**—that locate a single episteme; (ii) a **pairwise ladder** of **Congruence Levels (CL 0…3)**; (iii) four **Δ‑moves** (*Formalise, Generalise/Specialise, Calibrate/Validate, Congrue*); (iv) **composition rules** (Γ_epist) for aggregates; (v) propagation laws for CL through mappings and notation bridges. KD‑CAL sits on the `U.Episteme` *semantic triangle* (Symbol–Concept–Object) and never confuses **notation** with **carrier**. All F–G–R computations are **context‑local**; Cross‑context traversals **require** an explicit **Bridge** with **CL** and apply the **B.3** congruence penalty **Φ(CL)** to **R**.  // Contexts ≡ U.BoundedContext; substitution is plane‑preserving only.
+**Scope & exports.** A substrate‑neutral calculus for composing **epistemic holons** (`U.Episteme`) and reasoning about their motion and equivalence. Exports: (i) two **characteristics**—**Formality F** and **Reliability R**—plus one **scope object**—**ClaimScope G**—that together describe a single episteme; (ii) a **pairwise ladder** of **Congruence Levels (CL 0…3)**; (iii) four **Δ‑moves** (*Formalise, Generalise/Specialise, Calibrate/Validate, Congrue*); (iv) **composition rules** (Γ_epist) for aggregates; (v) propagation laws for CL through mappings and notation bridges. KD‑CAL sits on the `U.Episteme` *semantic triangle* (Symbol–Concept–Object) and never confuses **notation** with **carrier**. All F–G–R computations are **context‑local**; Cross‑context traversals **require** an explicit **Bridge** with **CL** and apply the **B.3** congruence penalty **Φ(CL)** to **R**.  // Contexts ≡ U.BoundedContext; substitution is plane‑preserving only.
 
 **Formality F** is the rigor characteristic defined **normatively in C.2.3**. All KD‑CAL computations and guards **SHALL** use `U.Formality` (F0…F9) as specified there; **no parallel “mode” ladders** are allowed.
 
 ### C.2:1 - Problem Frame
 
-FPF fixes two archetypal sub‑holons: **`U.System`** (physical/operational) and **`U.Episteme`** (knowledge holon). KD‑CAL is the **home pattern** of `U.Episteme`, giving engineers a compact, testable way to say (a) how strictly an episteme is written (**F**), (b) how much structure it manages (**G**), (c) how well it is warranted by evidence or severe tests (**R**), and (d) how closely **two** epistemes coincide (**CL**). KD‑CAL is built atop **C.2.1 U.Episteme — Semantic Triangle via Components**, which reifies every episteme as **Concept** (claim‑graph), **Object** (describedEntity & evaluation rules), and **Symbol** (notation)—*not the file itself*; **carriers** and **work/executions** remain outside and are linked via `isCarriedBy` / `producedBy(U.Work)`.
+FPF fixes two archetypal sub‑holons: **`U.System`** (physical/operational) and **`U.Episteme`** (knowledge holon). KD‑CAL is the **home pattern** of `U.Episteme`, giving engineers a compact, testable way to say (a) how strictly an episteme is written (**F**), (b) where its claim is asserted to apply (**G**), (c) how well it is warranted by evidence or severe tests (**R**), and (d) how closely **two** epistemes coincide (**CL**). KD‑CAL is built atop **C.2.1 U.Episteme — Semantic Triangle via Components**, which reifies every episteme as **Concept** (claim‑graph), **Object** (describedEntity & evaluation rules), and **Symbol** (notation)—*not the file itself*; **carriers** and **work/executions** remain outside and are linked via `isCarriedBy` / `producedBy(U.Work)`.
 
 ### C.2:2 - Problem
 
@@ -28349,9 +28349,9 @@ Teams routinely entangle **programs, specifications, proofs, and datasets**; a 
 
 ### C.2:4 - Solution
 
-#### C.2:4.1 - Coordinates and the triangle
+#### C.2:4.1 - Assurance components and the triangle
 
-**KD‑CAL characteristics (single‑episteme, point‑values).**
+**KD‑CAL assurance components for a single episteme.**
 
 * **Formality F.** From free prose to **machine‑checkable proof/specification**. Litmus: *would a machine reject it if wrong?*
 * **Claim scope (G), a set‑valued applicability over `U.ContextSlice`, with ∩/SpanUnion/translate algebra; CL penalties apply to R, not to F/G.** Litmus: *how wide is the declared scope, and under what minimal assumptions does the claim hold?*
@@ -31141,9 +31141,9 @@ A facet (not a Characteristic) that helps plan **ΔF/ΔR** and forecast bridge s
 **C.3‑D7 — Guard shapes are standardized and fail‑closed.**
 Typed compatibility first (same‑Context **`⊑`** or **KindBridge**), then **Scope coverage** (USM), then **R** penalties and freshness. *(See C.3.A.)*
 
-> **Manager’s picture — Two characteristics (keep them separate).**
-> – **characteristic 1 (USM, G):** *Where* the claim holds → set of **Context slices**; composed by ∈ (membership) / ∩ (intersection) / **SpanUnion** (union across independent lines) / translate (scope mapping).
-> – **characteristic 2 (Kind extent):** *Which instances* in a **given slice** belong to the kind → `MemberOf(e, k, slice)`.
+> **Manager’s picture — Scope vs kind extent (keep them separate).**
+> – **scope object 1 (USM, G):** *Where* the claim holds → set of **Context slices**; composed by ∈ (membership) / ∩ (intersection) / **SpanUnion** (union across independent lines) / translate (scope mapping).
+> – **kind extent:** *Which instances* in a **given slice** belong to the kind → `MemberOf(e, k, slice)`.
 > **Never “widen G” by abstract wording; widen only by ΔG with support.**