ESAT｜工程語意歸屬理論｜Engineering Semantic Attribution Theory Glossary（v3.2）
ESAT｜工程語意歸屬理論
Engineering Semantic Attribution Theory
定義：
ESAT 為一套工程責任語意系統，用於將工程過程中的語句、文件、影像、現場描述，轉換為「可觀測的責任語意落點（Do / Pay）」。
ESAT 在公開語意層只做三件事：
- 語意分類（Semantic Classification）
- 語意標籤（Semantic Labeling）
- 語意落點呈現（Do-Path / Pay-Path 的語意偏向）
ESAT 不做：
- 判決（Judgment）
- 計算（Calculation）
- 推論（Inference）
- 比例判定（Proportion / Ratio）
- 因果推斷（Causality Attribution）
ESAT 不提供：
- 任何可被視為演算法的結構
- 任何責任比例或金額計算
- 任何法律結論或過失認定
本定義篇與 Vocabulary Lock 僅適用於 Public Semantic Layer（公開語意層），不觸及任何可逆運算。
0｜本篇定位（Glossary Scope）
本篇為 ESAT ENGINE v3.2 的唯一公開詞彙定義文件。
所有名詞一律屬於 Public Semantic Layer（公開語意層）。
本篇只做四件事：
- 為 ESAT 的公開名詞建立固定語意
- 說明每個名詞觀察哪一個責任／規格／時間／證據面向
- 宣告詞彙邊界與不可擴充規則
- 確保所有縮寫與專有名詞皆受 Vocabulary Lock 約束
本篇不包含：
- 推論、比例、判定、過失
- 任何演算法或內部邏輯
- 模組間互動流程
- 任意形式的計算示範或自動化用例
1｜功能語意（Functional Semantics）
用於區分工程事件屬於「基礎功能」或「附加功能」，並決定是否啟動 ESAT 模組與四軸。
縮寫／英文／中文：
- BF｜Basic Function｜基礎功能
- AF｜Additional Function｜附加功能
BF｜Basic Function｜基礎功能
定義：
BF 為工程或設備本身必然應具備、無需追加條件即可成立的最小功能集合。
詳細語意：
- 屬工程或設備本身必然應具備的最小功能
- 不依賴選配、追加條件或特別客製
語意層級：
- 一旦被辨識為 BF：
- 事件語意直接落點為 Provider Do ＋ Provider Pay（SDP-P）
- 不進入五大模組、不進入四大軸、不進入 RDL
- ESAT 在 BF 狀態下不啟動分析流程，只作為「直接落點」紀錄
AF｜Additional Function｜附加功能
定義：
AF 為所有不屬於基礎功能的事件集合，也是 ESAT 觀測與分析的主要對象。
詳細語意：
- 所有不屬於 BF 的事件皆為 AF
- 為 ESAT 的主要觀測區間
語意層級：
AF 事件會依序進入：
- 五大模組（Boundary / Evidence / CEX / Control / Time）
- 四大軸（SCA / EAX / CAX / TAX）
- Axis Pattern（語意形狀）
- RDL（Result Description Layer）
- Do-Path / Pay-Path（雙路徑語意投影）
2｜五大模組（Modules & Name Lock）
0｜五大模組名稱（Modules Name Lock）
以下五個模組名稱本身為固定詞彙，不得改名、翻譯變形或創造變體：
- Boundary Module｜規格邊界模組
- Evidence Module｜證據模組
- Clarification Exchange Module（CEX）｜說明交換模組
- Control Ability Module｜控制能力模組
- Time Condition Module｜時間條件模組
五大模組的總定義：
五大模組負責提供 ESAT 的語意來源維度，用於描述範圍、證據、溝通交換、控制能力與時間條件，但本身不輸出法律責任結論。
1｜Boundary Module｜規格邊界模組
（Specification Boundary Semantics）
用於描述「本事件是否本來就應該包含在工程範圍內」。
縮寫／英文／中文：
- IS｜Implicit Standard｜隱含標準
- EO｜Explicit Optional｜明確選配
- IE｜Implicit Expectation｜隱含期待
- OS｜Out-of-Scope｜不在範圍
IS｜Implicit Standard｜隱含標準
定義：
IS 表示雖未明寫，但在專業或行業慣例中被視為自然成立、應當存在的標準內容。
詳細語意：
- 未明寫，但在專業或行業慣例中自然成立的內容
- 不寫也應存在，缺失時容易產生普遍性質疑
EO｜Explicit Optional｜明確選配
定義：
EO 表示必須經由明確書面或顯性確認後，才會被納入本案的選配或追加內容。
詳細語意：
- 必須經書面或顯性確認後方能成立的內容
- 通常與「加價」「追加工項」「選配功能」等語意連動
IE｜Implicit Expectation｜隱含期待
定義：
IE 表示需求端主觀認為應被包含，但缺乏對應文件或證據支持的期待內容。
詳細語意：
- 需求端主觀認為應包含，但無文件或證據支持之內容
- 常出現在「以為你會做」「我想像中有」等語境
OS｜Out-of-Scope｜不在範圍
定義：
OS 表示明確不屬於本案工程範圍，即使發生事件也不構成本案的責任語意來源。
詳細語意：
- 不屬於本案工程範圍
- 即使發生事件，也不構成本案責任語意來源
Boundary 模組之語意地位：
Boundary Module 用於描述工程事件是否「本來就應包含在範圍」，僅提供範圍語意，不直接決定責任結論。
2｜Evidence Module｜證據模組
（Evidence Semantics）
用於呈現「主張能否被追溯」與「證據穩定度」。
縮寫／英文／中文：
- E1｜Formal Document Evidence｜正式文件證據
- E2｜Written Communication Evidence｜書面對話證據
- E3｜On-site Media Evidence｜現場影像證據
- E4｜Market-verified Evidence｜市場可查證據
- E5｜Evidence Absent｜無證據
E1｜Formal Document Evidence｜正式文件證據
定義：
E1 表示主張具備正式文件層級的可追溯證據支撐。
詳細語意：
- 具正式性、可識別且可追溯之文件來源
- 例如：合約、報價單、圖說、規格書、正式會議紀錄等
E2｜Written Communication Evidence｜書面對話證據
定義：
E2 表示主張以具時間戳記、可回溯的書面通訊為主要證據來源。
詳細語意：
- 具時間戳記且可回溯之書面通訊
- 例如：Email、LINE、簡訊、通訊軟體訊息紀錄等
E3｜On-site Media Evidence｜現場影像證據
定義：
E3 表示主張以現場照片、錄影等媒體資料反映物理狀態作為證據。
詳細語意：
- 以照片、影片、錄影等方式呈現現場狀態之證據來源
- 可能缺乏完整前後文，但可反映實際物理狀態
E4｜Market-verified Evidence｜市場可查證據
定義：
E4 表示主張以市場公開資訊或行業常態資料作為背景證據。
詳細語意：
- 反映材料價格帶、常見工法、一般業界常態之可查資料
- 不屬於雙方約定，但能提供「常理」背景
E5｜Evidence Absent｜無證據
定義：
E5 表示主張完全缺乏文件、影像或客觀來源支撐，只存在於當事人口述。
詳細語意：
- 完全無文件、影像或客觀來源支撐之狀態
- 僅存於當事人口述或主觀記憶
Evidence 模組之語意地位：
Evidence Module 用於描述主張是否具備可回溯、可觀察的證據結構，只處理證據狀態，不直接判定真偽或責任。
3｜Clarification Exchange Module｜說明交換模組
（Clarification Exchange Semantics）
描述雙方對同一語意是否同步、是否一致。
固定名詞／英文／中文：
- CEX｜Clarification Exchange Module｜說明交換模組
- C1–C5｜Clarification Levels 1–5｜說明交換層級 1–5
CEX｜Clarification Exchange Module｜說明交換模組
定義：
CEX 用於衡量雙方是否對同一語意達成可追溯的一致理解。
詳細語意：
- 衡量雙方是否對同一語意達成一致理解
- 為 ESAT 中承接「溝通互動」的專屬模組
C1–C5｜Clarification Levels 1–5｜說明交換層級 1–5
定義：
C1–C5 為描述說明交換品質的五階離散標籤，從完全一致到交換失效。
分級語意：
- C1｜完全理解一致
- 雙方對同一語意有清楚、一致的描述，且有跡可循
- C2｜良好交換
- 主要語意一致，僅有可接受的小差異，不影響關鍵決策
- C3｜一般交換
- 溝通曾發生，但部分內容模糊，仍可推回共同理解的大方向
- C4｜弱交換
- 關鍵資訊未被有效傳達，導致認知落差
- C5｜交換失效
- 雙方對關鍵語意的理解已完全不一致，且缺乏修正機制
CEX 模組之語意地位：
Clarification Exchange Module 只描述理解同步程度，不直接決定責任，只作為語意結構的輔助標記。
4｜Control Ability Module｜控制能力模組
（Control Ability Semantics）
反映事件結果在發生當下由何方具有控制能力。
此模組語意不使用縮寫，但詞形本身受 Vocabulary Lock 保護。
固定詞彙／英文／中文：
- Provider-Controlled｜供給端可控制
- Client-Controlled｜需求端可控制
- Third-Controlled｜第三方可控制
- Force Majeure｜不可抗力
Provider-Controlled｜供給端可控制
定義：
Provider-Controlled 表示事件結果主要由供給端的行為或決策所控制。
詳細語意：
- 事件結果由供給端的行為、設計、施工、維護等行為直接控制
Client-Controlled｜需求端可控制
定義：
Client-Controlled 表示事件結果主要由需求端的使用方式或決策所主導。
詳細語意：
- 事件結果主要由需求端的使用方式、決策或後續操作主導
Third-Controlled｜第三方可控制
定義：
Third-Controlled 表示事件結果主要由供需雙方以外的其他主體控制。
詳細語意：
- 事件結果由供需雙方之外之其他主體控制
- 可包括其他工班、管理單位、所有權人等外部主體
Force Majeure｜不可抗力
定義：
Force Majeure 表示事件源於任何一方皆無法預期或控制的外部因素。
詳細語意：
- 任何一方皆無法預期或控制之事件
- 典型屬於重大外力或異常環境條件
Control 模組之語意地位：
Control Ability Module 為 CAX（控制能力軸）的核心來源，只描述「控制性」，不處理責任比例或過失。
5｜Time Condition Module｜時間條件模組
（Time Condition Semantics｜v3.2）
由與時間相關的條件造成的語意偏移，用於描述時間是否改變語意解讀。
此模組語意同樣不使用縮寫，為固定詞彙集合。
固定詞彙／英文／中文：
- Natural Aging｜自然老化
- Use and Wear｜使用磨耗
- Delay Condition｜延宕條件
- Post-Intervention Condition｜後期介入條件
- No Impact｜無影響
Natural Aging｜自然老化
定義：
Natural Aging 表示材料或設備因時間推移而產生的自然狀態變化。
Use and Wear｜使用磨耗
定義：
Use and Wear 表示因實際使用方式、頻率或強度而逐漸累積的磨耗狀態。
Delay Condition｜延宕條件
定義：
Delay Condition 表示因工期或流程延宕導致環境或條件發生變化的狀態。
Post-Intervention Condition｜後期介入條件
定義：
Post-Intervention Condition 表示本案完成後，由後續介入行為造成狀態改變的條件。
No Impact｜無影響
定義：
No Impact 表示時間與後期介入對本事件的語意與結果不產生實質影響。
Time 模組之語意地位：
Time Condition Module 為 TAX（時間調節軸）的主要來源，只描述時間條件對語意結構的調整，不提供折舊或計算公式。
3｜四大軸（Four Axes）
四軸為 ESAT 的核心語意投影工具。
每一軸皆為 H／M／L 三階語意刻度，只呈現「語意偏向」，不形成責任判決。
縮寫／英文／中文：
- SCA｜Scope Clarity Axis｜範圍清晰度軸
- EAX｜Evidence Availability Axis｜證據力軸
- CAX｜Control Ability Axis｜控制能力軸
- TAX｜Time Adjustment Axis｜時間調節軸
共通特性：
- 三階：H（High）／M（Medium）／L（Low）
- 不是分數、不是評價、不是法律責任
- 只是一種「語意刻度」與「語句狀態描述」
SCA｜Scope Clarity Axis｜範圍清晰度軸
定義：
SCA 描述語句在工程規格描述上的清晰程度。
本體語意：
- 語句是否呈現「足夠清楚的工程規格」
階層語意：
- SCA-H：語句清晰、高度明確
- SCA-M：語句普通、略有模糊
- SCA-L：語句模糊、界線不明確
語意偏向說明：
- 當 SCA-H 且語句由某一方提出 → 該方在「範圍語意」上的主張位置較穩固
- 當 SCA-L 且語句由某一方提出 → 該方在「範圍語意」上的主張力相對削弱
SCA 不單獨決定責任，只影響後續 Do-Path / Pay-Path 的語意解讀基礎。
EAX｜Evidence Availability Axis｜證據力軸
定義：
EAX 描述語句在證據可得性與可追溯程度上的結構狀態。
本體語意：
- 語句能否被追溯？證據有多可觀察？
階層語意：
- EAX-H：高證據度
- EAX-M：中證據度
- EAX-L：低證據度
語意偏向說明：
- 當 EAX-H 的證據由某一方提出 → 該方在此語句上的證據支撐力較強
- 當 EAX-L 的主張由某一方提出 → 該方在此語句上的證據支撐力較弱
EAX 只呈現「證據結構」的偏向，不表示誰說真話。
CAX｜Control Ability Axis｜控制能力軸
定義：
CAX 描述事件發生當下，各方對結果的實際控制能力分布。
本體語意：
- 事件發生當下，誰實際能控制結果？
- CAX 描述的是「控制性」，不是能力高低，也不是專業優劣
階層語意：
- CAX-H：高度可控
- CAX-M：部分可控或共享控制
- CAX-L：幾乎無控制力
語意偏向說明：
- 某方為 CAX-H → 在「控制語意」上位置較靠前
- 某方為 CAX-L → 在該事件上的控制性接近零
TAX｜Time Adjustment Axis｜時間調節軸
定義：
TAX 描述時間條件對工程結果與語意判讀的調節強度。
本體語意：
- 在語句產生的當下，時間對工程結果與語意判讀的影響力
階層語意：
- TAX-H：時間對結果有高度影響力
- TAX-M：時間對結果有中度影響力
- TAX-L：時間對結果有低度影響力
語意偏向說明：
- TAX 用於描述時間條件使語意結構向特定主體或路徑偏移的方向與強度
- TAX 只說明「時間對語意結構的調節方向」，不輸出責任比例
4｜結果描述層（Result Description Layer, RDL）
RDL｜Result Description Layer｜結果描述層
定義：
RDL 為統一承接驗收語意、保固語意與工期語意的結果描述層，只標示語意型態，不產生推論或計算。
- 統一承接：
- 驗收語意（MR / TV / DL / PC）
- 保固語意（WT1–WT5）
- 工期語意（TR-P / TR-C / TR-X）
- 只標示事件的語意型態與狀態
- 不進行推論、不進行計算、不提供責任結論
驗收語意（Acceptance Semantics）
縮寫／英文／中文：
- MR｜Meets Requirement｜符合需求
- TV｜Tolerable Variation｜容許變動
- DL｜Defect-Level Issue｜瑕疵語意
- PC｜Pre-existing Condition｜既存狀況
MR｜Meets Requirement｜符合需求
定義：
MR 表示事件結果在語意上符合需求或約定規格，可視為達成目標。
TV｜Tolerable Variation｜容許變動
定義：
TV 表示存在差異，但差異仍落於合理且可接受的容許範圍內。
DL｜Defect-Level Issue｜瑕疵語意
定義：
DL 表示差異已達可被視為瑕疵的程度，需要被標示為問題。
PC｜Pre-existing Condition｜既存狀況
定義：
PC 表示語意上可確認為本次工程之前即已存在的狀態，而非本次工程造成。
保固語意（Warranty Tier Semantics）
縮寫／英文／中文：
- WT1｜Full Responsibility Warranty｜完全責任保固
- WT2｜Partial Single-side Warranty｜單方部分責任保固
- WT3｜Shared Responsibility Warranty｜共享責任保固
- WT4｜Minimal Warranty｜最低限度保固
- WT5｜Out-of-Warranty Condition｜超過保固範圍
WT1｜Full Responsibility Warranty｜完全責任保固
定義：
WT1 表示語意上需承擔完整的行為義務與費用義務（Do and Pay）。
WT2｜Partial Single-side Warranty｜單方部分責任保固
定義：
WT2 表示語意上僅需承擔部分行為或部分費用，而非全額全責。
WT3｜Shared Responsibility Warranty｜共享責任保固
定義：
WT3 表示語意上由供給端與需求端共同承擔責任，但實際分配需由個案另行判讀。
WT4｜Minimal Warranty｜最低限度保固
定義：
WT4 表示語意上只需提供最基本修復途徑，不要求同時承擔完整 Do and Pay。
WT5｜Out-of-Warranty Condition｜超過保固範圍
定義：
WT5 表示語意上已超出契約約定的保固範圍／保固期間／保固條件，DO PAY語意歸屬皆偏向SDP-C。。
工期語意（Time Responsibility）
縮寫／英文／中文：
- TR-P｜Provider-caused Delay｜供給端延宕
- TR-C｜Client-caused Delay｜需求端延宕
- TR-X｜External-caused Delay｜第三方或外部延宕
TR-P｜Provider-caused Delay｜供給端延宕
定義：
TR-P 表示語意上將工期延宕的主因歸屬於供給端因素。
TR-C｜Client-caused Delay｜需求端延宕
定義：
TR-C 表示語意上將工期延宕的主因歸屬於需求端因素。
TR-X｜External-caused Delay｜第三方或外部延宕
定義：
TR-X 表示語意上將工期延宕的主因歸屬於第三方或外部條件。
5｜語意主體（Semantic Agents）｜v3.2
語意主體用於標示語意指向的主體，不代表法律責任。
ESAT 只處理「本事件語意下的相對位置」，不追蹤真實身份。
縮寫／英文／中文：
- SDP-P / Provider｜Provider｜供給端
- SDP-C / Client｜Client｜需求端
- 3P / Third｜Third Party｜第三方
- SDP-UN / Undefined｜Undefined Role｜無法落點
SDP-P｜Provider｜供給端
定義：
SDP-P 表示在本事件中提供工程或服務的一方，作為供給端陣營代表。
SDP-C｜Client｜需求端
定義：
SDP-C 表示在本事件中提出需求並委託工程的一方，作為需求端陣營代表。
3P｜Third｜第三方
定義：
3P 表示不屬於本事件供需委託鏈，卻對事件產生語意影響的外部主體。
SDP-UN｜Undefined｜無法落點
定義：
SDP-UN 表示在目前證據與語意結構下無法合理歸屬於特定主體的狀態。
陣營歸屬規則（公開語意層級）：
- 由 SDP-P 直接委託、並針對本事件提供工程或服務者 → 歸入 SDP-P 陣營
- 由 SDP-C 直接委託、並針對本事件提供工程或服務者 → 歸入 SDP-C 陣營
- 不屬於上述任一委託鏈，卻對事件產生影響者 → 歸為 Third（3P）
- 在證據不足或委託鏈無法確認時 → 暫置 SDP-UN（Undefined）
6｜雙路徑語意模型（Dual-Path Projection Model）
Dual-Path Projection Model｜雙路徑語意模型
定義：
Dual-Path Projection Model 為由四軸落點投影至 Do-Path / Pay-Path 的語意結構框架，只呈現行為與費用的語意偏向。
- 統一指稱由四軸落點投影至 Do-Path / Pay-Path 的語意結構模型
- 僅作為語意呈現模型，不能被視為計算流程或自動判責機制
縮寫／英文／中文：
- Do-Path｜Behavior Responsibility Path｜行為責任路徑
- Pay-Path｜Cost Responsibility Path｜費用責任路徑
Do-Path｜Behavior Responsibility Path｜行為責任路徑
定義：
Do-Path 呈現語意上由何主體執行行為義務的偏向路徑。
語意說明：
- 可能落點：Provider / Client / Third / Undefined，或其並列組合
- 只呈現「誰需要做」的語意傾向
Pay-Path｜Cost Responsibility Path｜費用責任路徑
定義：
Pay-Path 呈現語意上由何主體承擔費用義務的偏向路徑。
語意說明：
- 可能落點：Provider / Client / Third / Undefined，或其並列組合
- 只呈現「誰需要付」的語意傾向
共同限制：
- ESAT 不做比例、不做計算、不做法律結論
- 雙路徑僅呈現語意偏向，最終責任需由人類或法律系統自行判讀
7｜呈現層語意（Presentation Layer Terms）
Presentation Layer｜呈現層
定義：
Presentation Layer 統一指稱 SBR／AP／DPP 等用於顯示 ESAT 語意結構與落點結果的非運算層。
定義：
- 用於顯示 ESAT 語意結構與落點結果
- 不新增語意、不進行運算
- 不得被視為新的責任模組或演算法
縮寫／英文／中文：
- SBR｜Semantic Backtracking Report｜語意回朔報告
- AP｜Axis Pattern｜四軸語意形狀
- DPP｜Dual-Path Projection｜雙路徑語意投影結果
SBR｜Semantic Backtracking Report｜語意回朔報告
定義：
SBR 用於列示規格邊界、證據、交換狀態、四軸與結果描述層等語意標記，使語意落點可被追溯。
AP｜Axis Pattern｜四軸語意形狀
定義：
AP 用於呈現四軸 H／M／L 落點所形成的離散語意圖形，不新增任何運算。
DPP｜Dual-Path Projection｜雙路徑語意投影結果
定義：
DPP 用於顯示 Do-Path / Pay-Path 的最終語意落點樣態，不構成新模組或責任演算法。
以下為英文翻譯版（English Version Below）
ESAT Glossary｜Public Semantic Vocabulary
ESAT｜Engineering Semantic Attribution Theory Glossary (v3.2)
ESAT｜Engineering Semantic Attribution Theory
Definition:
ESAT is an engineering responsibility semantic system. It transforms statements, documents, images, and on-site descriptions that arise during engineering projects into observable responsibility semantic positions (Do / Pay).
Within the Public Semantic Layer, ESAT does only three things:
- Semantic Classification
- Semantic Labeling
- Semantic Position Presentation (semantic tendency of Do-Path / Pay-Path)
ESAT does not do:
- Judgment
- Calculation
- Inference
- Proportion / Ratio determination
- Causality Attribution
ESAT does not provide:
- any structure that could be regarded as an algorithm
- any calculation of responsibility proportion or monetary amounts
- any legal conclusion or fault attribution
This Glossary and the Vocabulary Lock apply only to the Public Semantic Layer and do not touch any reversible computation.
0｜Glossary Scope
This document is the only publicly citable vocabulary definition file for ESAT ENGINE v3.2.
All terms in this document belong strictly to the Public Semantic Layer.
This document does only four things:
- establishes fixed semantics for ESAT public terms
- clarifies which responsibility / specification / time / evidence aspect each term observes
- declares vocabulary boundaries and non-extensibility rules
- ensures all abbreviations and proper terms are protected by Vocabulary Lock
This document does not include:
- inference, proportions, determinations, or fault attribution
- any algorithms or internal logic
- module interaction procedures
- any form of calculation examples or automated use cases
1｜Functional Semantics
Functional Semantics distinguishes whether an engineering event belongs to Basic Function or Additional Function, and determines whether ESAT modules and the four axes are activated.
Abbreviation / English / Chinese:
- BF｜Basic Function｜基礎功能
- AF｜Additional Function｜附加功能
BF｜Basic Function
Definition:
BF is the minimum set of functions that an engineering work or equipment must inherently possess, without requiring any additional conditions to be established.
Detailed semantics:
- the minimum function inherently required by the work or equipment
- does not depend on optional upgrades, added conditions, or special customization
Semantic level:
Once identified as BF:
- the event semantic position is directly recorded as Provider Do + Provider Pay (SDP-P)
- it does not enter the five modules, the four axes, or RDL
- ESAT does not activate its analysis flow under BF; it serves only as a direct-position record
AF｜Additional Function
Definition:
AF is the set of all events that are not BF, and is the main target of ESAT observation and analysis.
Detailed semantics:
- any event that is not BF is AF
- the primary observation region of ESAT
Semantic level:
An AF event enters, in order:
- five modules (Boundary / Evidence / CEX / Control / Time)
- four axes (SCA / EAX / CAX / TAX)
- AP (Axis Pattern)
- RDL (Result Description Layer)
- Do-Path / Pay-Path (dual-path semantic projection)
2｜Modules & Name Lock
0｜Modules Name Lock
The following five module names are fixed terms. They may not be renamed, altered by translation, or expanded into variants:
- Boundary Module
- Evidence Module
- Clarification Exchange Module (CEX)
- Control Ability Module
- Time Condition Module
Definition of the five modules:
The five modules provide semantic source dimensions for ESAT. They describe scope, evidence, clarification exchange, control ability, and time conditions, but do not output legal responsibility conclusions.
1｜Boundary Module
(Specification Boundary Semantics)
Used to describe whether an event should have been included in the engineering scope.
Abbreviation / English / Chinese:
- IS｜Implicit Standard｜隱含標準
- EO｜Explicit Optional｜明確選配
- IE｜Implicit Expectation｜隱含期待
- OS｜Out-of-Scope｜不在範圍
IS｜Implicit Standard
Definition:
IS indicates content that is not explicitly written, but is regarded as naturally established and expected to exist under professional or industry conventions.
Detailed semantics:
- not written, but naturally established under professional / industry conventions
- expected to exist even without being written; absence often triggers broad-based questioning
EO｜Explicit Optional
Definition:
EO indicates optional or additional content that is included only after explicit written or clearly observable confirmation.
Detailed semantics:
- established only after written or explicit confirmation
- commonly linked to additional pricing, added work items, or optional functions
IE｜Implicit Expectation
Definition:
IE indicates content that the Client subjectively believes should be included, but lacks corresponding documents or evidence support.
Detailed semantics:
- subjectively expected by the Client, without document or evidence support
- often appears in contexts such as “I thought you would do it” or “I imagined it would be included”
OS｜Out-of-Scope
Definition:
OS indicates content that is clearly not within the project scope. Even if it occurs, it is not a semantic source of responsibility for this project.
Detailed semantics:
- not within the scope of this project
- even if it occurs, it does not constitute a responsibility semantic source for this project
Semantic status of the Boundary Module:
The Boundary Module describes whether an event “should have been included in scope.” It provides scope semantics only and does not directly determine responsibility conclusions.
2｜Evidence Module
(Evidence Semantics)
Used to present whether a claim is traceable and the stability of its evidence structure.
Abbreviation / English / Chinese:
- E1｜Formal Document Evidence｜正式文件證據
- E2｜Written Communication Evidence｜書面對話證據
- E3｜On-site Media Evidence｜現場影像證據
- E4｜Market-verified Evidence｜市場可查證據
- E5｜Evidence Absent｜無證據
E1｜Formal Document Evidence
Definition:
E1 indicates that the claim is supported by traceable evidence at the level of formal documents.
Detailed semantics:
- formal, identifiable, and traceable document sources
- e.g., contracts, quotations, drawings, specifications, formal meeting minutes
E2｜Written Communication Evidence
Definition:
E2 indicates that the primary evidence source is traceable written communications with timestamps.
Detailed semantics:
- written communications that can be traced back with timestamps
- e.g., email, LINE, SMS, chat message records
E3｜On-site Media Evidence
Definition:
E3 indicates that the claim relies on photos, video recordings, or other media reflecting physical on-site conditions.
Detailed semantics:
- evidence presented through photos, videos, and recordings
- may lack full context, but can reflect actual physical conditions
E4｜Market-verified Evidence
Definition:
E4 indicates that the claim uses publicly verifiable market information or industry-normal data as background evidence.
Detailed semantics:
- information reflecting price ranges, common methods, and typical industry norms
- not an agreement between parties, but provides a “common-sense” background
E5｜Evidence Absent
Definition:
E5 indicates a claim with no supporting documents, media, or objective sources, existing only as oral statements.
Detailed semantics:
- no supporting documents, media, or objective sources
- exists only in oral statements or subjective memory
Semantic status of the Evidence Module:
The Evidence Module describes whether a claim has a traceable and observable evidence structure. It addresses evidence status only and does not determine truthfulness or responsibility.
3｜Clarification Exchange Module (CEX)
(Clarification Exchange Semantics)
Describes whether the two parties’ understanding of the same semantic content is synchronized and consistent.
Fixed terms / English / Chinese:
- CEX｜Clarification Exchange Module｜說明交換模組
- C1–C5｜Clarification Levels 1–5｜說明交換層級 1–5
CEX｜Clarification Exchange Module
Definition:
CEX measures whether both parties have reached a traceable shared understanding of the same semantic content.
Detailed semantics:
- measures whether both parties reach consistent understanding of the same semantic content
- the dedicated module in ESAT that captures communication interaction
C1–C5｜Clarification Levels 1–5
Definition:
C1–C5 are five discrete labels describing clarification exchange quality, ranging from full alignment to exchange failure.
Level semantics:
- C1｜Full alignment
both parties provide clear, consistent descriptions of the same semantics, and the process is traceable - C2｜Good exchange
core semantics are aligned; minor differences are acceptable and do not affect key decisions - C3｜General exchange
exchange occurred, but some parts are vague; overall shared direction remains traceable - C4｜Weak exchange
key information was not effectively conveyed, resulting in cognitive gaps - C5｜Exchange failure
understanding of key semantics is fully inconsistent, and no correction mechanism exists
Semantic status of the CEX Module:
CEX describes only the degree of alignment in understanding. It does not directly determine responsibility and serves only as a supportive semantic marker.
4｜Control Ability Module
(Control Ability Semantics)
Reflects which party had control ability over the outcome at the time the event occurred.
This module does not use abbreviations, but its term forms are protected by Vocabulary Lock.
Fixed terms / English / Chinese:
- Provider-Controlled｜供給端可控制
- Client-Controlled｜需求端可控制
- Third-Controlled｜第三方可控制
- Force Majeure｜不可抗力
Provider-Controlled
Definition:
Provider-Controlled indicates that the outcome of the event was mainly controlled by the Provider’s actions or decisions.
Detailed semantics:
- the outcome is directly controlled by Provider actions such as design, construction, or maintenance
Client-Controlled
Definition:
Client-Controlled indicates that the outcome was mainly driven by the Client’s usage method or decisions.
Detailed semantics:
- the outcome is mainly driven by the Client’s usage, decisions, or subsequent operation
Third-Controlled
Definition:
Third-Controlled indicates that the outcome was mainly controlled by a subject outside the Provider–Client relationship.
Detailed semantics:
- controlled by subjects outside Provider and Client
- may include other contractors, management bodies, owners, or other external subjects
Force Majeure
Definition:
Force Majeure indicates that the event originated from external factors that no party could reasonably predict or control.
Detailed semantics:
- external events beyond any party’s prediction or control
- typically major external forces or abnormal environmental conditions
Semantic status of the Control Ability Module:
The Control Ability Module is the core source for CAX (Control Ability Axis). It describes control only and does not address responsibility proportion or fault.
5｜Time Condition Module
(Time Condition Semantics｜v3.2)
Describes semantic shifts caused by time-related conditions, indicating whether time changes semantic interpretation.
This module also does not use abbreviations; it is a fixed set of terms.
Fixed terms / English / Chinese:
- Natural Aging｜自然老化
- Use and Wear｜使用磨耗
- Delay Condition｜延宕條件
- Post-Intervention Condition｜後期介入條件
- No Impact｜無影響
Natural Aging
Definition:
Natural Aging indicates natural condition changes of materials or equipment due to the passage of time.
Use and Wear
Definition:
Use and Wear indicates accumulated wear due to actual usage methods, frequency, or intensity.
Delay Condition
Definition:
Delay Condition indicates a state where environmental or contextual conditions changed due to schedule or process delays.
Post-Intervention Condition
Definition:
Post-Intervention Condition indicates a state change caused by interventions after project completion.
No Impact
Definition:
No Impact indicates that time and post-intervention factors do not materially affect the semantics or outcomes of the event.
Semantic status of the Time Condition Module:
The Time Condition Module is the primary source for TAX (Time Adjustment Axis). It describes only time-related adjustment of semantic structure and provides no depreciation or calculation formulas.
3｜Four Axes
The four axes are ESAT’s core semantic projection tools.
Each axis uses a three-level semantic scale H / M / L, presenting only semantic tendency and not producing responsibility judgments.
Abbreviation / English / Chinese:
- SCA｜Scope Clarity Axis｜範圍清晰度軸
- EAX｜Evidence Availability Axis｜證據力軸
- CAX｜Control Ability Axis｜控制能力軸
- TAX｜Time Adjustment Axis｜時間調節軸
Shared properties:
- three levels: H (High) / M (Medium) / L (Low)
- not scores, not evaluations, not legal responsibility
- a semantic scale and statement-state description only
SCA｜Scope Clarity Axis
Definition:
SCA describes the clarity level of statements in engineering specification expression.
Core semantics:
Whether the statement presents “sufficiently clear engineering specifications.”
Level semantics:
- SCA-H: clear, highly explicit
- SCA-M: generally understandable, slightly vague
- SCA-L: vague, unclear boundaries
Semantic tendency notes:
- when SCA-H and the statement is proposed by a party → that party’s scope claim position is more stable
- when SCA-L and the statement is proposed by a party → that party’s scope claim strength is relatively weakened
SCA does not determine responsibility on its own; it only affects subsequent semantic interpretation for Do-Path / Pay-Path.
EAX｜Evidence Availability Axis
Definition:
EAX describes the structural state of evidence availability and traceability for a statement.
Core semantics:
Can the statement be traced? How observable is the evidence?
Level semantics:
- EAX-H: high evidence availability
- EAX-M: medium evidence availability
- EAX-L: low evidence availability
Semantic tendency notes:
- when EAX-H evidence is presented by a party → that party has stronger evidence support
- when EAX-L claim is presented by a party → that party has weaker evidence support
EAX presents only evidence-structure tendency and does not indicate who is truthful.
CAX｜Control Ability Axis
Definition:
CAX describes the distribution of actual control ability over outcomes at the time an event occurred.
Core semantics:
At the time the event occurred, who could actually control the outcome?
CAX describes “controlability,” not competence level or professional superiority.
Level semantics:
- CAX-H: highly controllable
- CAX-M: partially controllable or shared control
- CAX-L: almost no control ability
Semantic tendency notes:
- a party at CAX-H is positioned more forward in control semantics
- a party at CAX-L has near-zero control relevance in that event
TAX｜Time Adjustment Axis
Definition:
TAX describes the adjustment intensity of time conditions on engineering outcomes and semantic interpretation.
Core semantics:
At the time the statement is produced, how strong is time’s influence on outcomes and semantic reading?
Level semantics:
- TAX-H: time strongly influences outcomes
- TAX-M: time moderately influences outcomes
- TAX-L: time weakly influences outcomes
Semantic tendency notes:
TAX describes the direction and intensity by which time conditions shift semantic structure toward particular agents or paths. It provides no responsibility proportions.
4｜Result Description Layer (RDL)
- RDL｜Result Description Layer｜結果描述層
Definition:
RDL is a result description layer that uniformly connects acceptance semantics, warranty semantics, and time responsibility semantics. It marks semantic types only and produces no inference or calculation.
It uniformly connects:
- Acceptance Semantics (MR / TV / DL / PC)
- Warranty Tier Semantics (WT1–WT5)
- Time Responsibility (TR-P / TR-C / TR-X)
It only labels semantic types and states, and does not provide responsibility conclusions.
Acceptance Semantics
Abbreviation / English / Chinese:
- MR｜Meets Requirement｜符合需求
- TV｜Tolerable Variation｜容許變動
- DL｜Defect-Level Issue｜瑕疵語意
- PC｜Pre-existing Condition｜既存狀況
MR｜Meets Requirement
Definition:
MR indicates that the result semantically meets the requirement or agreed specification and may be regarded as achieving the target.
TV｜Tolerable Variation
Definition:
TV indicates differences exist, but remain within a reasonable and acceptable tolerance range.
DL｜Defect-Level Issue
Definition:
DL indicates the difference has reached a level that should be marked as a defect-level issue.
PC｜Pre-existing Condition
Definition:
PC indicates the state can be semantically confirmed as existing prior to the current project, rather than being caused by it.
Warranty Tier Semantics
Abbreviation / English / Chinese:
- WT1｜Full Responsibility Warranty｜完全責任保固
- WT2｜Partial Single-side Warranty｜單方部分責任保固
- WT3｜Shared Responsibility Warranty｜共享責任保固
- WT4｜Minimal Warranty｜最低限度保固
- WT5｜Out-of-Warranty Condition｜超過保固範圍
WT1｜Full Responsibility Warranty
Definition:
WT1 indicates full semantic obligation for both Do and Pay.
WT2｜Partial Single-side Warranty
Definition:
WT2 indicates partial obligation for either actions or costs, rather than full responsibility.
WT3｜Shared Responsibility Warranty
Definition:
WT3 indicates shared semantic responsibility between Provider and Client, while actual allocation must be read separately case-by-case.
WT4｜Minimal Warranty
Definition:
WT4 indicates only a minimal repair route is required, without requiring full Do and Pay obligations simultaneously.
WT5｜Out-of-Warranty Condition
Definition:
WT5 indicates the event semantically exceeds contractual warranty scope / warranty period / warranty conditions; Do / Pay semantic attribution both lean toward SDP-C.
Time Responsibility
Abbreviation / English / Chinese:
- TR-P｜Provider-caused Delay｜供給端延宕
- TR-C｜Client-caused Delay｜需求端延宕
- TR-X｜External-caused Delay｜第三方或外部延宕
TR-P｜Provider-caused Delay
Definition:
TR-P indicates the semantic primary cause of delay is attributed to Provider-side factors.
TR-C｜Client-caused Delay
Definition:
TR-C indicates the semantic primary cause of delay is attributed to Client-side factors.
TR-X｜External-caused Delay
Definition:
TR-X indicates the semantic primary cause of delay is attributed to Third-party or external conditions.
5｜Semantic Agents (v3.2)
Semantic Agents mark the subject that semantics point to and do not represent legal responsibility.
ESAT handles only “relative positioning under the event’s semantics” and does not track real identities.
Abbreviation / English / Chinese:
- SDP-P / Provider｜Provider｜供給端
- SDP-C / Client｜Client｜需求端
- 3P / Third｜Third Party｜第三方
- SDP-UN / Undefined｜Undefined Role｜無法落點
SDP-P｜Provider
Definition:
SDP-P indicates the party providing engineering work or services in the event, representing the Provider-side camp.
SDP-C｜Client
Definition:
SDP-C indicates the party proposing demands and commissioning the work in the event, representing the Client-side camp.
3P｜Third Party
Definition:
3P indicates an external subject not belonging to the Provider–Client commissioning chain, yet influencing the event semantics.
SDP-UN｜Undefined Role
Definition:
SDP-UN indicates that under current evidence and semantic structure, attribution to a specific agent is not reasonably possible.
Camp attribution rules (Public Semantic Layer):
- subjects directly commissioned by SDP-P to provide work/services for the event → belong to the SDP-P camp
- subjects directly commissioned by SDP-C to provide work/services for the event → belong to the SDP-C camp
- subjects outside both commissioning chains that influence the event → 3P (Third Party)
- when evidence is insufficient or the chain is unconfirmable → temporarily set to SDP-UN (Undefined)
6｜Dual-Path Projection Model
Dual-Path Projection Model is the semantic structure that projects four-axis positions to Do-Path / Pay-Path, presenting only behavioral and cost semantic tendencies.
It is:
- a unified term for the projection model from four axes to Do-Path / Pay-Path
- a semantic presentation model only, and must not be regarded as a computation flow or automatic responsibility mechanism
Abbreviation / English / Chinese:
- Do-Path｜Behavior Responsibility Path｜行為責任路徑
- Pay-Path｜Cost Responsibility Path｜費用責任路徑
Do-Path｜Behavior Responsibility Path
Definition:
Do-Path presents the semantic tendency of which agent executes behavioral obligations.
Notes:
- possible positions: Provider / Client / Third / Undefined, or combinations thereof
- presents only “who needs to do” as a semantic tendency
Pay-Path｜Cost Responsibility Path
Definition:
Pay-Path presents the semantic tendency of which agent bears cost obligations.
Notes:
- possible positions: Provider / Client / Third / Undefined, or combinations thereof
- presents only “who needs to pay” as a semantic tendency
Shared limitations:
- ESAT does not do proportions, calculations, or legal conclusions
- dual paths present semantic tendency only; final responsibility remains to be interpreted by humans or legal systems
7｜Presentation Layer Terms
Presentation Layer refers to non-computational layers used to display ESAT semantic structures and position outputs, such as SBR / AP / DPP.
Definition:
- used to display ESAT semantic structures and position outcomes
- does not introduce new semantics and does not perform computation
- must not be regarded as new responsibility modules or algorithms
Abbreviation / English / Chinese:
- SBR｜Semantic Backtracking Report｜語意回朔報告
- AP｜Axis Pattern｜四軸語意形狀
- DPP｜Dual-Path Projection｜雙路徑語意投影結果
SBR｜Semantic Backtracking Report
Definition:
SBR lists semantic markers such as specification boundary, evidence, exchange status, four axes, and RDL, enabling semantic positions to be traced.
AP｜Axis Pattern
Definition:
AP presents the discrete semantic shape formed by the four axes’ H / M / L positions, without adding any computation.
DPP｜Dual-Path Projection
Definition:
DPP displays the final semantic position pattern of Do-Path / Pay-Path, and does not constitute a new module or responsibility algorithm.