A.10:4.6a - Authority-reliance use of ordinary A.10 evidence-provenance paths
Use this subsection when an authority-looking carrier is being relied on. The A.10 path represents one named claim, its exact sources and direct relations, and one bounded use; it is not an authority relation. If the Work occurrence, gate decision, speech act, commitment, permission, exact system-role assignment, assignment-state assertion, or other required relation already exists in a project-side source, recover that object by value and let the graph cite it.
Start with A10-lite for source-finding, orientation, learning, and bounded reversible probes. It is sufficient only when these fields supply the evidence required by the claim and its direct rule; reversibility alone does not establish sufficiency:
| Field | Required content |
|---|---|
| claim or effect | The claim, effect, or source-backed reliance use the evidence carrier is being asked to evidence for the named work occurrence or reliance use. |
| evidence carrier | The display, badge, credential, attestation, dashboard tile, copied text, generated text, log, trace, source file, report, or other SymbolCarrier/publication carrier. |
| producer, issuer, verifier, or source contact | Name the admitted System that issued, attested, copied, generated, verified, displayed, or maintains the source-backed content, and the direct issuer, verification, publication, register, or source-maintenance relation used by this claim. If dated Work is asserted, first recover each precise performer’s A.13 core and independently admit the Work under A.15.1. The core includes the obtaining assignment; add an F.6 link through that same assignment only when this evidence path consumes precise assignment-bound attribution. |
| method use or Work occurrence | Name the ordinary source-finding or method use. Add admitted measurement, verification, review, build, attestation, copy, extraction, generation, query, trace, or log U.Work only when independently current. If that Work is said to have returned, produced, or first constituted the carrier or result, cite an exact A.6.1 application binding, one local A.15.PROD claim, or a direct subject predicate under its own pattern; otherwise keep the facts separate. |
| time window | Issue time, effective window, decay, supersession, revocation, policy or gate version, and reopen condition, each when the selected source or bounded use depends on it. Name a missing required value rather than inventing one. |
Minimum evidence-provenance path for routine reliance:
| Field | Required content |
|---|---|
| evidenced claim or effect | Approval, permission, gate passage, local system-role-kind classification, system-role-assignment occurrence or state, relation among system-role kinds, status currentness, work occurrence, evidence relation, assurance input, or other claim named by value or effect being attempted. Route any other technical role use through E.10.ROLE. |
| evidence carrier | The visible or recovered carrier, with enough identity to reopen it. |
| issuer, performer, trust root, status register, and source-side predicates | Name every object this path actually uses: the admitted System performing source-side Work; the trust-root or status-register episteme, register, or service; and the issuer, publication, registration, status-source, source-maintenance, trust, acceptance, or currentness predicate by which that object bears on the relied-on claim. For admitted Work, first recover every precise performer’s A.13 core and independently admit the Work under A.15.1. The core includes the obtaining assignment; add an F.6 link through that same assignment only when this path consumes precise assignment-bound attribution. If no current pattern defines or tests the needed predicate, return the A.6.RCD missing-governor result. Authority and source-maintenance responsibility remain separate relations. |
| affected entity and relying context | The release, service, model, person, admitted System and any separately obtaining assignment, policy subject, work target, claim, audience, tenant, environment, or other entity for which reliance is attempted. |
| time window and freshness | Retain each issue/effective, decay, supersession, revocation, policy/gate-version, or reopen value that the selected source or bounded use consumes; report a missing required value. |
| relevant Work occurrence or method trace | Any independently current production, verification, query, generation, review, or other U.Work, plus the method trace when the method matters. Connect that Work to the carrier or result only through an exact A.6.1 application binding, one local A.15.PROD claim, or a direct subject predicate under its own pattern; otherwise record them separately. |
| evidence relation and rival explanation | Which claim the carrier evidences, how it evidences it, and any live rival explanation that must be distinguished—for example, that the display is stale, the badge spoofed, copied or generated wording changes the claim, or a context shift or limited source relation defeats the use. |
Expanded fields are collected only insofar as they decide the current reliance question. Evidence depth follows consequence severity, reuse, contestability, cross-context movement, and the evidence relation required for the attempted claim. Do not expand a source-finding note into a full evidence dossier, and do not collect every expanded field merely because a carrier is copied, generated, credential-like, provenance-like, or cross-context.
Adversarial misuse guard. When a carrier appears to support a claim, name what it appears to establish and any live competing explanation. An apparently current credential may have an authentic carrier but a stale displayed status; a copied approval may be genuine but concern a different scope or window. Test the source, issuer, or currentness predicate and relying context that distinguish that explanation; include source-side Work and precise attribution only when the claim uses them. Authenticity and provenance can contribute to their named claims, but appearance or provenance alone does not establish additional truth, currentness, or authority. If the required predicate has no governor, return that A.6.RCD gap.
Data-minimization and privacy boundary. Preserve the minimum source, provenance, and direct-relation account sufficient for the intended use. Use redacted, hashed, scoped, or access-controlled carrier refs when raw material would expose personal identity, access tokens, cryptographic proof payloads, tenant identifiers, security logs, incident details, internal release metadata, audit trails, privileged reviewer identities, sensitive model provenance, or sensitive data provenance. Redaction creates no source relation; it must preserve enough recoverability for the relying context.
| Expanded field | When it is needed |
|---|---|
| method trace or work trace | The selected provenance, attestation, generated/copy/dashboard/rollback source relation, or Work claim depends on how the method was applied or the Work occurred. A source relation alone need not assert Work. |
| evidence-carrier integrity | A plausible spoof, stale source, copy, transformation, rendering, redaction, or context shift could change the relied-on claim or its use. Check the integrity property that discriminates that risk. |
| identity or holder binding | The claim depends on a credential holder, admitted System, separately obtaining assignment holder, acting holon, issuer, performer, delegate, revoker, verifier, or relying party. |
| verifier context, relying-party context, and acceptance rule | The evidence relation is accepted only for a verifier, audience, tenant, environment, release line, policy subject, operational mode, or consumer-side policy or gate rule that accepts the evidence for this use. |
| proof, cryptographic-signature, or status verification result | The selected credential, provenance, attestation, authenticity, revocation, or currentness claim requires that verification result under its source specification or verification/use policy. Retain every check required by that regime. |
| policy version, gate version, and decision source | The attempted permission, release, rollback-authority, policy-authorization, or other use depends on that policy or decision. Gate version and gate-decision source are required for a gate-dependent use. |
| source-chain transform notes | Evidence relation passed through extraction, copy, rewrite, representation shift, explanation rendering, summary, export, redaction, or another transform step before reliance. |
| source order and supersession rule | Multiple source candidates disagree or freshness or priority may defeat the visible publication face, publication carrier, rendering, or cue. Include the direct register or status-source-order relation when a register entry is the source for an exact system-role-assignment occurrence, status assertion, permission, commitment, or gate state. |
| minimum disclosure boundary | Raw evidence would expose secrets, personal data, tenant identifiers, privileged logs, tokens, security-sensitive traces, or unnecessary identities. |
Case repairs:
| Case | Evidence repair |
|---|---|
| Stale credential badge or status display | Name the exact issuer or trust-root object and its direct issuer or trust relation; name the exact status register, entry, and direct registration or status-source relation when one exists; then show the verifier and relying-party context and the proof, status, freshness, window, entry-version, and integrity facts needed to resolve the stale-source claim. Include holder or subject binding when the claim or regime requires it, validity limits when present or required, and revocation/status checks when the mechanism is present or the selected verification/use policy requires them. Display presence is not an obtaining system-role-assignment occurrence, status assertion, or permission. |
| Verifiable credential, credential view, or register excerpt | Treat it as an A.10 carrier. Name the exact issuer or trust-root object and relation; the exact status register, entry, and registration or status-source relation when present; the selected source U.Episteme and edition and, when availability matters, its exact EpistemePublicationRelation; verifier, relying context, acceptance rule, and the proof/currentness facts required by that rule. Include holder or subject binding only when required by the claim or verification regime, validity limits when present or required, and status/revocation checks when that mechanism is present or the selected verification/use policy requires it. Passing the applicable checks may evidence credential currentness for that bounded use; it does not imply a holder-bound claim where none was established. A strong grant, exercise, weak non-prohibition or non-violation finding, or conflict requires A.2.8.PER; an actual commitment requires A.2.8; an issuing act requires A.2.9; an exact system-role assignment requires A.2.1; a status assertion requires its direct status pattern; an entry predicate requires its defining pattern and A.6.B boundary classification; and gate passage requires A.21. Display presence creates none of them. |
| Copied approval or review summary | Show the original A.2.9 SpeechActRef or issuing act when approval or authorization is claimed, or the original reviewed source when only review-content currentness is claimed. Add the copy relation, currentness, scope, and window. Add a separately identified dated U.Work only when it is current, and connect it to the copy or result only through an A.6.1 application binding, one local A.15.PROD claim, or a direct subject predicate defined by its own pattern. State separately whether the claim concerns an A.2.8.PER grant, finding, exercise, or conflict result; an A.2.8 duty, recommendation, or prohibition commitment; or another Work relation. Copy evidence is not approval by itself. |
| Provenance, authenticity, or attestation label | Show the bounded origin, history, build, or process claim; selected source U.Episteme, the exact EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence when availability is material, or evidence carrier; the method/Work trace, source-specific proof, and carrier-integrity facts that this claim and its verification regime require; the verifier or relying policy that accepts them; and any live rival that changes reliance. Provenance does not show truth, safety, approval, release, gate passage, permission, or assurance unless another FPF relation named by value carries that additional claim or effect. |
| Dashboard status tile | Recover the dashboard query and the source relation or source-bearing record it uses, with the time, window, currentness, source order, freshness policy, and live rival relevant to the claim. For a gate-dependent use, cite the current A.21 GateDecisionResult, directly or through its DecisionLogRef, with gate profile, gate version, release target, and work target. For a release claim not dependent on a gate, cite that claim’s own rule and decision source; do not invent a gate result. A.10 records this source-to-use account. A status display is not gate passage or Work occurrence by itself. |
| Rollback command-like cue | Show command record or issuing speech act, authorization relation, actor, affected work target or claim target, scope, window, and whether the cue is only an A.6.A action invitation. A command cue is not performed-work evidence. |
| Rollback performed-work result | Show A.15.1 U.Work occurrence, method trace or work trace, logs, outcome evidence, and time window. Performed-work evidence is not approval, assurance, or gate passage by itself. |
| Generated explanation | Use E.17.EFP to classify the explanation relation and source-finding use. For reliance, show claim-bound attribution alignment: every operative claim relied on maps to a source passage, carrier, or relationFunctionClaimRef or authoritySourceRef named by value that evidences that claim in the relying context. When that mapping is complete, A.10 may support bounded reliance on those source-backed operative claims; explanation wording alone still does not issue, approve, authorize, pass a gate, evidence performed work, or raise assurance. |
| Model card or datasheet used as evidence | Show documented bounded-use statement or external intended-use field, version, window, evaluation condition, limitations, evidence carriers, and whether a B.3 assurance claim is being made. Documentation does not become readiness or assurance by presence. |
| Extracted source-to-use path to gate or release claim | Name the selected source U.Episteme ref and, when availability is material, the exact EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence ref; the source-bearing relation or pattern reference that identifies the rule carrying the claim; the actual transformation chain and any loss or non-commutativity, identifying its first step when present; the FPF relation or pattern that defines or constrains each relevant transform (A.6.3.CR, A.6.3.RT, A.6.3.CSC, E.17.EFP, E.17.ID.CR, or E.18 where applicable); and the bounded inference relation after the transform. A lossless chain retains those actual relations without a fictional lossy step. Also name the relationFunctionClaimRef or authoritySourceRef named by value that carries the claim being made; the reopen trigger naming the selected source episteme, publication occurrence when relevant, source-bearing relation, transform record, evidence relation, or pattern passage that must be rechecked; and the gate claim or release claim blocked until those source-to-use and cited-claim relations are recoverable. |
| Conflicting source relations | When display, source publication carrier, decision log, recency signal, freshness signal, copied summary, generated summary, credential status, provenance label, or assurance evidence disagree, name the visible source relation, rival source relation, source-order rule, decision-source relation, freshness policy, and supersession rule. Do not choose by color, visual salience, confidence wording, copied wording, or apparent recency; the work claim or reliance claim is contested until the source-order question is resolved. |
| Sensitive evidence-provenance path | Use redacted, hashed, scoped, or access-controlled carrier refs when raw carriers expose secrets, personal data, security-sensitive traces or data, privileged logs, tenant identifiers, or unnecessary identities. Redaction does not create a source relation; it must preserve enough recoverability for the relying context. |
| Pointer or proof-status evidence-provenance path | Use a hash, proof or status verification result, selected source U.Episteme, exact EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence when availability matters, source or source-currentness relation, scoped pointer, disclosure receipt, or access-controlled view instead of copying raw sensitive carriers or payloads when that pointer preserves enough recoverability for the relied-on claim or effect. Do not copy raw secrets, tokens, privileged logs, personal identities, or tenant details merely to make the path look fuller. |
If the evidence-provenance path is incomplete, A.10 reports the missing source, carrier, work, rule for the cited result, direct relation, or G.11 currentness fact and narrows or blocks only the attempted use. Possible continuations include source-finding only, reopen original carrier, request issuer or status verification, refresh the source query, mark stale or contested, narrow the attempted P2W class or reliance claim, proceed only with a reversible local probe under an explicit work plan, or block the unsupported use.
Missing source-relation repair assignment. If the relying actor cannot recover or verify the source relation, first name the missing relation or source-bearing record and the affected use. Source-finding, a request, narrowing, or a stop may be the complete continuation. If the selected continuation allocates or requests repair, recover the recipient and the independently obtaining project-side responsibility, allocation, permission, or commitment relation that the instruction consumes. An assignment to an admitted System must identify that System and its actual assignment basis. Plan or request the future repair under its applicable planning or assignment rule; this is not an assertion that repair Work has occurred. The source-side objects and relations identified above remain separate facts, not responsibility by source label or form. Return an exact A.6.RCD missing governor only when the selected assignment claim requires that missing predicate. Source exposure and the affected party’s challenge remain available independently of who may later perform repair.
| Viewpoint | Prompt |
|---|---|
| Relying actor | Which claim named by value or effect needs an evidence relation, and what is the minimum carrier, source-bearing record or relation, time, and evidence-provenance path for that claim or effect? |
| Issuer, verifier, or status relation maintainer | Which facts in the selected source relation and verification regime must be exposed or repaired for this claim? |
| Auditor or technical reviewer | Can the carrier and selected source relation be recovered, together with the method/Work trace, time, and live rival that this reliance question needs? |
| Security reviewer or compliance reviewer | Which applicable verification, source-order, supersession, and disclosure conditions decide this reliance question? |
| LLM user or tool user | Which generated or copied operative claims map to source passages or carriers, and which claims remain only source-finding? |
| Author of model documentation or data documentation | Which intended-use, evaluation-condition, version, window, limitation, and evidence carriers bound the model documentation or data documentation? |
Repeated missing-source-relation indicator. If A.10 results for the same visible carrier family repeatedly report stale, contested, missing-source-relation, or no-currentness findings, record a source-relation repair action: instrument the source relation, expose the carrier field that carries the source-bearing relation, expose decision-log refs, add currentness checks and status checks, preserve claim-bound source relations for generated or copied outputs, require credential views to show status windows and currentness windows, require model documentation and data documentation to expose intended-use and evaluation-condition fields, or require provenance labels and attestation labels to name their bounded claim type. Repetition is an indicator that the source relation or display needs repair; it is not a reason to make each acting user rebuild the evidence-provenance path manually.
Display guidance for evidence and currentness: an evidence or status display should show the claim or effect, evidence carrier, the selected source relation and its recoverable reference, time window and freshness when they affect use, relying context, and any locally plausible unsupported Work use, reliance use, claim, or effect that the display must distinguish. A display that can only show source availability should say so; it must not imply approval, permission, gate passage, Work occurrence, or assurance.
Incident-learning fields for evidence and currentness overread: visible carrier or publication face, intended claim or effect, missing evidence-provenance field, evidence carrier named by value, exact source-side predicate actually used, ordinary method trace or admitted Work trace, and needed time relation; any live rival relevant to the incident; current safe disposition; and the smallest upstream repair to the implicated source relation, instrumentation, or publication. Identify the selected source episteme and the publication occurrence, form, carrier, or source display when that object needs repair; the field definitions above determine which facts must remain recoverable.
Contestability and redress relation: when an evidence-provenance path or source-currentness relation affects person or team status, access, responsibility, a compliance relation, or a release decision, the A.10 result names the disputed claim, evidence carrier, affected use or harm, available challenge, review, redress, communication, source, publication, register, access, or contact relation, allowed evidence or argument, possible disposition change, outcome route, reopen trigger, and safe interim disposition. Source exposure remains independent of who may later perform review or repair Work. Name a responsibility, allocation, commitment, permission, or authority relation—or its exact missing governor—only when assigning that future Work; its absence does not close the challenge.
Positive repaired evidence-use statement. When the source account is complete, write the smallest bounded statement: named relied-on claim; carrier and source; direct provenance and citation relations; ordinary bounded use; and RelianceDisposition. Include currentness, a locally plausible unsupported use, and a stop or reopen condition when each changes that reliance decision. Add producing or interpreting U.Work, each actual performer’s A.13 core, independent A.15.1 admission, Method, actual bindings, and later Work only when those facts are current. Add F.6 afterward only when the receiving account needs precise assignment-bound attribution. A claimed Work-to-value link needs an exact A.6.1 application binding, one local A.15.PROD claim, or a direct subject predicate under its own pattern. Add authority or responsibility only when an exact relation is independently required by the use. A short Work statement may omit an unused assignment identifier only when the complete A.13 core, including its obtaining assignment, and every consumed relation remain recoverable; an assignment is never the authority or responsibility result.
What this does not authorize: A.10 does not approve, authorize, pass a gate, release, create permission or commitment, establish a local system-role-kind classification, establish a U.SystemRoleAssignment occurrence or state, establish a relation among system-role kinds, establish performed Work, establish a domain result, assert a representation correspondence, or raise assurance. It supplies source recovery, provenance, and bounded reliance for the exact neighboring objects named by value.