Some comments already in zulip

relatedto - "The concepts are related to each other, and have at least some overlap in meaning, but the exact relationship is not known": If relationship is not known, why does this require knowledge of "some overlap"? Recommend removing that criterion. Requiring overlap prohibits mapping for any purpose other than synonymy (cause & effect, disorder & department, DRG to procedure, etc.) GG suggests overlap is required; if so, perhaps keeping "The concepts have at least some overlap in meaning, but the exact relationship is not known" and adding "The concepts are related to each other, but the exact relationship is not known"

equivalent - "The definitions of the concepts mean the same thing (including when structural implications of meaning are considered) (i.e. extensionally identical).": If there is a difference between equivalent and equal, it is not clear. 'Structural implications' requires further explanation or illustration of how they affect the mapping use case.

equal - "The definitions of the concepts are exactly the same (i.e. only grammatical differences) and structural implications of meaning are identical or irrelevant (i.e. intentionally identical)." See above. [the differences would be a bit clearer for value set compositions, but for specific values, puzzling]

wider - "The target mapping is wider in meaning than the source concept.": If there is a difference between wider and subsumes, it is not clear. If the distinction is > vs =>, perhaps the names could reflect this as "broader" and "broaderOrEqual"

subsumes - "The target mapping subsumes the meaning of the source concept (e.g. the source is-a target)." See above.

narrower - "The target mapping is narrower in meaning than the source concept. The sense in which the mapping is narrower SHALL be described in the comments in this case, and applications should be careful when attempting to use these mappings operationally." See below.

specializes - "The target mapping specializes the meaning of the source concept (e.g. the target is-a source).": If there is a difference between narrower and specializes, it is not clear. If the distinction is < vs <=, perhaps the names could reflect this as "narrower" and "narrowerOrEqual"

inexact - "The target mapping overlaps with the source concept, but both source and target cover additional meaning, or the definitions are imprecise and it is uncertain whether they have the same boundaries to their meaning. The sense in which the mapping is narrower SHALL be described in the comments in this case, and applications should be careful when attempting to use these mappings operationally.": This sounds like the appropriate home for the secondary sense of relatedTo

unmatched - "There is no match for this concept in the destination concept system.": Term sounds like "match not performed" rather than "match not found." Suggest "notInTarget"

disjoint - "This is an explicit assertion that there is no mapping between the source and target concept." This is self-contradictory, as "disjoint" is itself a mapping. Recommend "that there is no semantic overlap."

Also, indentation suggests that 'disjoint' is a child of 'unmatched': this is incorrect. 'unmatched' rows have no target; 'disjoint' rows must.