Yes. it’s design
This FuncBlock notation is 2 days old. So not yet )
Let’s look at an example from software engineering.
Take class A and define several functions inside this class. And define main function that implements control flow (business logic of this class) and execute other class’ functions in some sequences.
All of this function when executed also implements some control flow (but more technical one) : analyze input parametes, prepare parameters for external functions, calls external function, analyze results, create objects based on results and so on. I named this actions as functional blocks.
We don’t want to know about them in the main control flow (busines logic). We don’t want to subdivide functions defined in class.
In case of Capella modeling we want to have class functions to be atomic functions in functional decomposition. And used them in statechart\behaviour tree defined for component.
In othere words we don’t mix busines logic with technical logic.
In IT projects there are a lot of “technical” work and logic inside atomic functions. Data are prepared, services are called, mapping between different strutures are made. In our case software implementation was done by several subcontractors. They had not very good understanding of data architecture in our system. We needed to define a lot of mappings for atomic functions:
between input data and called services, services results and atomic function resul and so on.
I’ve created special viewpoint to define these mappings (ComplexValue Viewpoint). Aftre mappings are defined we needed some way to define control\data flow inside atomic functions and “attach” these mappings to blocks of this flow. We did decomposed atomic functions into functional blocks as part of functional decomposition and attached mapping to leaf small functions. I don’t think this is a good aproach as “business logic” mix with “technical logic”.