A.1.1:5.1 - Full control-model assurance replay

The first-minute case in section 0 is enough for ordinary entry. This longer replay checks the ontology and stop conditions without turning them into the first-use path. Any claim of authority over the Work in the filled cases below needs its own governing basis.

1. Applicability decision. ModelApplicabilityRelation obtains among model episteme PressControlModel-5, system Press-3, and claim scope SafetyControlClaimScope. C.2.1 fixes PlantControlReferenceScheme as the model episteme’s effective scheme, so it supplies the interpretation basis without becoming a fourth participant. The derived ModelApplicabilityInterval remains open while the model’s declared applicability conditions hold for Press-3 over the exact U.ContextSlice values admitted by member(slice, SafetyControlClaimScope) under that scheme.
2. Actual-use decision. A.13 first recovers Operator-12 : U.System as exact actual performer through obtaining OperatorAssignment-8, and A.15.1 independently admits PressOperationWork-91 : U.Work. Because this decision expressly represents assignment-bound model use, exact F.6 performedUnderAssignment(PressOperationWork-91, OperatorAssignment-8) then obtains. The already recovered performer actually uses PressControlModel-5 concerning Press-3 during that Work. Those four relation participants plus the derived maximal continuous ModelUseInterval reidentify one ModelUseRelation occurrence.
3. Scope boundary. Under the A.2.6 membership predicate, EmergencyStopContextSlice belongs to SafetyControlClaimScope. This membership claim explains part of the applicability boundary; it is not another relation occurrence selected into the structure.
4. Fixed-content coherence decision. ControllerImplementsControlModelPredicate is an admitted local predicate value. Its ordered inputs are the fixed claim contents of PressControlModel-5 and PressControllerCode-17; it returns true exactly when the code expresses every controller-command and feedback distinction required by the model, and false when a required distinction is missing. Both epistemes have PlantControlReferenceScheme as their C.2.1 effective scheme, so the relation-side comparison scheme is that same value and no Bridge is inferred. The predicate returns true for these participants, so their participant-determined ModelExpressionCoherenceRelation occurrence obtains before any selected maintenance episode.
5. Maintenance and change stay separate.
   • Work: Engineer-4 : U.System performs ControllerCoherenceWork-22 : U.Work under ControllerEngineerAssignment-7. First recover Engineer-4’s A.13 core for this action, including the same obtaining assignment; A.15.1 then independently admits the dated Work from its performance history, enacted ControllerAlignmentMethod-2, extent, and containing-System relation. Because this case explicitly attributes performance under ControllerEngineerAssignment-7, F.6 afterward relates that already admitted Work to the assignment. The assignment obtains, names Engineer-4 as holder, and covers the Work.
   • Transformation and later episteme: A.3.4 independently identifies PressControllerCodeCarrierChange-24 : U.Transformation as the bounded change of continuing PressControllerCodeCarrier-6 : U.PresentationCarrier, using the exact edit boundary, before-and-after code-expression facts, and the carrier-continuity rule. Changed claim content identifies later episteme PressControllerCode-18 under C.2.1.
   • Stop: No current FPF relation says that ControllerCoherenceWork-22 caused or realized PressControllerCodeCarrierChange-24, so return missing work-to-change governor; temporal overlap and a shared code referent do not supply it. A.15.PROD remains closed for a claim that the Work first constituted PressControllerCode-18 until its exact entity-inception basis, including that missing link, is governed.
6. Evaluation and result stay separate.
   • Evaluation Work: Evaluator-2 : U.System performs CoherenceEvaluationWork-23 : U.Work under CoherenceEvaluatorAssignment-5. First recover Evaluator-2’s A.13 core for this action, including the same obtaining assignment; A.15.1 then independently admits the dated Work from its performance history, enacted CoherenceEvaluationMethod-4, extent, and containing-System relation. Because this case explicitly attributes performance under CoherenceEvaluatorAssignment-5, F.6 afterward relates that already admitted Work to the assignment. The assignment obtains, names Evaluator-2 as holder, and covers the Work. State any needed operation application through its A.6.1 binding.
   • Result: C.2.1 separately identifies result episteme CoherenceEvaluation-23, which asserts whether the coherence predicate holds; only an exact A.15.PROD inception basis may relate that episteme’s first existence to the evaluation Work. The result’s assertion, evidence-use relation, and provenance remain distinct.
   • Next tuple: Because PressControllerCode-18 has different claim content, it forms another participant tuple with PressControlModel-5; predicate truth for that tuple decides whether another coherence occurrence obtains. Maintenance, method enactment, changed referent, evaluation, result, evidence, and provenance neither substitute for that truth nor enter the relation’s participant set or identity.
7. Crossing stop. If a diagnostics crossing matters, first retain the independently identified source and target structures, then record direction, required fit, permitted loss, and claim scope. F.9 governs correspondence between local senses. Omit the proposed crossing from any positive cross-structure member and return missing CROSS-LOCALITY-BRIDGE governor. The already governed endpoint relations remain available for their own selections.

Filled A.22 basis for the press-control structure. Its exact constituents are model episteme PressControlModel-5 and use-locus system Press-3. Its selected occurrences are ModelApplicabilityRelation(PressControlModel-5, Press-3, SafetyControlClaimScope), ModelUseRelation(OperatorAssignment-8, PressControlModel-5, PressOperationWork-91, Press-3), and ModelExpressionCoherenceRelation(PressControlModel-5, PressControllerCode-17, ControllerImplementsControlModelPredicate, PlantControlReferenceScheme) as established in steps 1–4. OperatorAssignment-8 and PressOperationWork-91 remain actual participants used to establish the selected ModelUseRelation; they are not copied into the constituent plurality. Its exact applied constraint claims are PressSafetyScopeUseConstraintClaim, whose proposition says that every target slice used in the release judgment satisfies member(targetSlice, SafetyControlClaimScope); PressCommandFeedbackConstraintClaim, whose proposition says that the change preserves the model’s command-versus-feedback distinction; and PlantJointReviewConstraintClaim, whose proposition says that, under independently governed PlantReleaseRule-3, all three selected occurrences are required inputs to the release review when each is material. SafetyControlClaimScope, any membership outcome, boundary rendering, and the claim carriers enter no discriminator by themselves. Its fourth discriminator is PressControlReleaseFrame from section 0: ask whether the change is code-only or jointly model/use/coherence-relevant; provide that joint subject matter to the release review; return to the three direct relations if PlantReleaseRule-3 is absent or does not require their joint review. Missing any discriminator leaves the direct relations in place but blocks this structure selection.

The relation sentences above assert direct world-side occurrences; the scope sentence states an A.2.6 membership claim. If the question is only whether the model applies to the press, stop at ModelApplicabilityRelation. Select BoundedModelUseStructure only when the selected applicability, operating-use, and expression-coherence occurrences plus the exact applied constraint claims and frame change the decision or Work plan.

One subsystem, one model. The press-control replay above is the filled case. The machine keeps its U.System identity; the selected structure uses the exact constituents, three obtaining relations, applied constraints, and PressControlReleaseFrame. Without that complete basis, stop at the direct relations. A diagram or later crossing is unnecessary for the positive selection.

One subsystem, two competing models. DeviceSubsystem-2 remains one system. Two structures are available only because each organization is independently complete:

An exact C.2.1 EpistemeEditionRelation may separately establish historical continuation; it does not merge simultaneous organizations. Near miss: if either side lacks its coherence occurrence, an applied constraint, or its complete frame, that side has useful applicability and use facts but no selected BoundedModelUseStructure yet.

One model, two use loci. ClinicalTerminologyModel-7 participates in two independently complete non-software structures:

Across these five filled structures, each expression episteme is a participant of the selected ModelExpressionCoherenceRelation. A replacement with different claim content gives another <M,E,P,R> tuple to evaluate and reopens the selected-occurrence discriminator (sections 4.2–4.3). Each assignment occurrence and dated Work stays only in its selected ModelUseRelation and in the evidence establishing that occurrence. Changing either one reopens that relation and therefore the selected-occurrence discriminator; it is not also an independent constituent replacement. One spanning structure is available only when one exact constituent plurality, relation-occurrence organization, applied-constraint set, and selection-use frame genuinely spans both uses. Shared model identity alone neither merges nor splits them. Near miss: exact diagnosis and billing Work plus a shared model, without one side’s coherence occurrence or filled frame, supports only the direct facts on that side.

Published classification model. The published NAICS model is an episteme. Exact F.6 performedUnderAssignment(ClassificationWork-4, ClassificationAssignment-3) and actual use of that model content concerning an organization supply the use branch. A positive NAICSClassificationModelUseStructure additionally needs exact applicability with ClassificationClaimScope as that relation’s scope participant, fixed-content coherence with the classification expression, exact applied constraint claims stating which edition and classification distinctions the judgment must preserve, and NAICSClassificationFrame: ask which NAICS edition and distinctions govern this classification; use the complete organization for the classification claim; without the complete basis, stop at publication availability or the direct relation that actually obtains. The bare scope or one membership result is not an applied constraint.

When a proposed directional dependency is called Conformist, retain its source, target, direction, required fit, permitted loss, and claim scope. Return missing CROSS-LOCALITY-BRIDGE governor until a compatible direct relation exists. Stale description. An already recognized Context Map view is six months old while the same already governed applicability, actual-use, and model-expression-coherence relations continue. Its currentness claim can become obsolete; revising the U.View episteme or publishing another rendering changes those epistemic and publication objects only. Reidentify each structure using all four discriminators and the continuity rule in section 4.3.

Context-mapping assurance case. This case tests the heavier method, product, view, and publication boundaries after the ordinary entry path has succeeded.

1. Method and Work. Architect-9 : U.System performs dated ContextMappingWork-14 : U.Work under ArchitectureAssignment-6. First recover Architect-9’s A.13 core for this action, including the same obtaining assignment; A.15.1 then independently admits the Work from its performance history, enacted ContextMappingMethod-3 : U.Method, extent, and containing-System relation. Because this case explicitly attributes performance under ArchitectureAssignment-6, F.6 afterward relates that already admitted Work to the assignment. The assignment obtains, names Architect-9 as holder, and covers the Work. The repeatable Method and this dated Work remain different objects.
2. Candidate product. C.2.1 independently identifies episteme ContextRelationsAnalysis-8. Its EntityOfConcern is the six-part proposed crossing organization: source, target, direction, required fit, permitted loss, and claim scope. The episteme is not the proposed organization.
3. Current stop. No independent direct governor currently makes the proposed crossing obtain. A.22 therefore lacks the relation-occurrence discriminator needed for base identity, and the candidate episteme does not designate an exact member of the conditional crossing-analysis specialization. Stop at the proposed organization.
4. Later positive route. Only if a future direct governor admits that exact crossing and all four A.22 discriminators are recovered may a corresponding C.2.1 episteme designate the resulting exact structure. Changing the EntityOfConcern remains subject to C.2.1 episteme identity.
5. Source use and inception. If a current claim says ContextRelationsAnalysis-8 first existed through the mapping Work, A.15.PROD governs only that exact local inception claim. If source episteme ContextNotes-7 participates, C.2.P recovers its exact source expression and routes the source-use relation to its direct governor.
6. View evaluation. Reviewer-6 : U.System performs ContextViewConformanceEvaluationWork-15 : U.Work under ContextViewReviewerAssignment-10. First recover Reviewer-6’s A.13 core for this action, including the same obtaining assignment; A.15.1 then independently admits the Work from its performance history, enacted ContextViewConformanceEvaluationMethod-5, extent, and containing-System relation. Because this case explicitly attributes performance under ContextViewReviewerAssignment-10, F.6 afterward relates that already admitted Work to the assignment. The assignment obtains, names Reviewer-6 as holder, and covers the Work. Any result episteme and any A.15.PROD inception claim about that result remain separate. Under E.17.0, ContextRelationsAnalysis-8 becomes a U.View only when its declared conformance relation to ContextMappingViewpoint-4 obtains.
7. Representation and publication stop. The product name, mapping method, performed Work, source use, evaluation result, representation, rendering, publication occurrence, form, and carrier grant neither crossing-structure identity nor U.View membership and remain under their direct patterns.