Now to some more narrative:
(a) a document and all its descendants, if any of these belong to a directory, at some directory position (by place identifier and path name), then all such documents "belong" to that same directory position — whether actually present or absent.
(b) How that is handled, in the domain, is sketched now:
i. If a master (including any of its versions) is made to "belong" to a directory position, before any copies have been made, then all such copies (and versions) will inherit knowledge about that directory position.
ii. If a copy (including any of its versions) is made to "belong" to a directory position, before any copies have been made, then all such copies (and versions) will inherit knowledge about that directory position. hi. Thus it is entirely possible for a copy to "belong" to a directory position, without its ancestors doing so.
iv. And it is entirely possible for two different copies — deriving from some common, i.e. "shared" ancestor document — to "belong" to different directory positions — provided their common, i.e. "shared" ancestor document did not "belong" to a directory position.
(c) One might think of other rules governing the relationship between, on one hand, documents and dossiers, and, on the other hand, directories:
i. Either no rules whatsoever: Documents and dossiers can "belong" anywhere without restrictions, or:
ii. Ancestors to some copy may belong to some position in a directory in one place, while the copy of its descendants may belong to another position the same directory or some other directory I another place.