Discovery Relationship Types
Purpose
This page defines the public vocabulary for candidate relationships produced by the Formalism Discovery Engine.
These labels are review vocabulary only. They do not assert final equivalence or authority.
Candidate Relationship Types
| Relationship Type | Meaning |
|---|---|
equivalent_candidate | Terms or concepts may express the same formal meaning. |
near_equivalent_candidate | Terms or concepts strongly overlap but may not fully match. |
parent_candidate | One concept may contain or generalize another. |
child_candidate | One concept may specialize another. |
prerequisite_candidate | One concept may be required before another can hold. |
consequence_candidate | One concept may follow from another. |
conflict_candidate | Two concepts may be incompatible or contradictory. |
adjacent_candidate | Concepts are related but not clearly equivalent, hierarchical, or conflicting. |
unresolved_candidate | Evidence indicates relation, but the relationship class is not yet clear. |
Review Outcomes
| Review Outcome | Meaning |
|---|---|
accepted | Reviewer confirms the relationship type. |
reclassified | Reviewer accepts a relationship but changes its type. |
rejected | Reviewer rejects the candidate relationship. |
deferred | More source evidence is required. |
superseded | A later candidate or source artifact replaces the candidate. |
Required Evidence
Every candidate relationship should include:
term_a
term_b
relationship_type
source_origin_a
source_origin_b
evidence_a
evidence_b
confidence
review_status
Non-Claims
A relationship type is not a final relationship claim.
A candidate relationship is not an equivalence decision.
A confidence score is not proof.
A source origin link is not endorsement.