SFPM_ — Clarify the distinction between "DNA" and "signature"

From AB review by Pete Rivett, March 17, 2020:
The similar analogs “DNA” and “signature” are used to describe quite different things.

Improve terminology related to invariants, signature, profile, dna

The goal of SFP approach is not to examine faults as some abstract objects, but instead to examine computations that exhibit certain "faults"; to reveal the invariants of such computations, and to provide a framework for describing and cataloguing "faults" in terms of these invariants.
Invariants of computations determine certain characteristic elements of computations and common "patterns" in the flow of participating computations. Invariants also describe certain logical relations between the characteristic elements of computations.
Thus is is natural to refer to these invariants as "signatures", or DNA.
However the terms "signature" and "DNA" are used in several different contexts. The language of the specification can be further clarified by identifying these usages and eliminating some of them, while using synonyms in others.

• "signature" of a CWE as defined by a unique set of variations to SFP parameters. This usage can be simply removed
• set of referenced context elements as a "signature" of SFP itself. This can be replaced with a term "profile"
• "signature" of a segment in terms of its variables. This usage can be preserved.
• DNA of a computation (not the same as the "invariant"). This can be changed of a "structural invariant". The term "invariant" can be defined as "a property of all objects in a collection or a family". We can distinguish between a "logical invariant" which is a certain condition that is true for all objects in a family, and a "structural invariant", which is a certain part that all objects in the family have.
  Specification also uses a related term "behavior slice". To clarify the terminology, the term "computation" and "computational slice" can be used.