A.15.1 - U.Work: Dated Performed Work Occurrence

Type: Architectural (A) Status: Stable Normativity: Normative unless marked informative

At a glance. Use U.Work for one world-side dated occurrence only after each claimed performer is an admitted U.System with the current A.13 core basis for the exact action: one local agential system-role kind and its criterion, classification of that System under the kind, one obtaining assignment of that kind, and the scope, working situation, and window needed by the use. Evidence must support those core claims. Admit the occurrence in A.15.1 only when its performance history, at least one Method actually followed, temporal extent, and at least one obtaining locally declared containing-System relation are independently grounded. This membership closes before and does not depend on F.6 performedUnderAssignment; apply F.6 afterward only when the receiving use makes a precise assignment-bound performer attribution. Add an agency-characteristic profile only when the receiving claim consumes a Grade, autonomy or profile result, when the local criterion itself explicitly depends on such a characteristic, or when an assurance use requires it. A WorkPlan, MethodDescription, log, dashboard, assertion, or record is a different object and does not make the Work occur. Start with the ordinary sentence in the compact example below; open the technical relation path only when the receiving claim needs it.

Use this when. Use this pattern when a plan, MethodDescription, schedule, log, telemetry stream, dashboard, approval-looking cue, publication face, result statement, or evidence relation is being treated as if performed Work; or when the exact dated action, A.13-qualified performer basis, Method, interval, or containing-System relation needed for Work admission is missing. Use F.6 separately after admission when a precise claim about the assignment under which the Work was performed is current.

Primary reader. Engineers, operators, process owners, modelers, auditors, and FPF authors who need to say what actually happened without turning plans, descriptions, logs, outputs, measurements, or changes into Work.

First useful object and short-account rule. Name one independently identified dated candidate action, each actual performer System and its A.13 local agential kind, criterion, classification, obtaining assignment, scope, working situation, and window, the Method actually followed, when the action occurred, and one declared relation to a System whose stated boundary contains the complete occurrence. Keep evidence for those facts recoverable; add a characteristic profile only under the conditional branch above. When those facts pass A.15.1, admit the occurrence as W : U.Work. Only afterward, if precise assignment-bound attribution is current, let F.6 test performedUnderAssignment(W, RA) using the same obtaining A.13 assignment and the direct case fact for the exact pair. A Work-only account may stop after admission; a short attribution account may omit an unused identifier only when every required link remains recoverable. Add another enacted Method, containing-System relation, direct Work-to-referent relation, binding, resource-use relation, profile, or assurance result only when the receiving claim needs it. If the next sentence reports a result, change, production, delivery, or judgment, use the matching section 4.6 row; do not make it a Work field.

Use the following route:

1. Recover the direct subject first. If the question is only about a Method, plan, capability, result, change, resource, evidence item, or publication, use that subject’s pattern and stop.
2. Identify the candidate performer as an exact System under A.1 without using the candidate Work to prove systemhood.
3. For every precise Agent claim, recover the A.13 core basis in section 4.0 before using actual performance as evidence; open the characteristic-profile branch only under its stated receiving-use condition.
4. Test the actual bounded candidate action, every actual performer’s A.13 core, at least one Method actually followed, the interval, and one declared Work-to-System relation whose stated boundary contains the complete occurrence. On pass, admit W : U.Work and its A.15.1-owned relations.
5. Only after admission, and only when precise assignment-bound attribution is current, use F.6 with the same obtaining A.13 assignment for each performer.
6. Add direct Work-to-referent, operation-binding, resource-use, result, change, production, delivery, evaluation, or acceptance claims only when their own predicates and case facts obtain.

Compact positive example. Before inspection, Robot-7 is independently admitted as a System. InspectionControllerSystemRole has a declared A.2 membership criterion for goal-directed, condition-sensitive regulation of the inspection action; evidence shows that Robot-7 satisfies it. InspectionAssignment-17 is an obtaining direct assignment of that kind for the service scope, working situation, and window. The exact 09:00–09:20 inspection history, TurbineInspectionMethod, and the declared containment within InspectionService-A independently satisfy the A.15.1 occurrence test, so first admit InspectionWork-17 : U.Work. Then separately use the direct case fact for the pair to establish F.6 performedUnderAssignment(InspectionWork-17, InspectionAssignment-17) and say: Robot-7 performed InspectionWork-17 under InspectionAssignment-17. This example’s assurance use also compares obstacle response, policy choice, persistence, and operational closure, so it cites the corresponding A.13 profile evidence; Work admission itself consumes no such profile unless its criterion or receiving use requires one.

Nearest non-use example. A dashboard says inspection complete but exposes only a schedule row and a copied log. Keep the schedule as WorkPlan content and the log as possible evidence. Until the A.13 performer basis and performed occurrence can be recovered, do not call either one Work.

Recognition check. First, can the team point to one exact dated action, every actual performer System with its A.13 core, at least one Method actually followed, the extent, and one exact containing-System relation? If not, do not admit U.Work. Second, if precise assignment-bound attribution is current, can it point from that already admitted Work to the same obtaining A.13 assignment through the direct F.6 case fact, holder equality, declared species, and coverage? If not, retain the Work and leave only that attribution unresolved.

Stop condition. Stop the admission branch once the candidate is either admitted as one U.Work individual at the needed granularity from the A.13-qualified performer, occurrence, Method, extent, and containing-System facts, or lowered to a truthful neighboring claim. If precise assignment-bound attribution is current, continue only until F.6 establishes or rejects the exact Work-assignment relation. Missing or rejected F.6 attribution never revokes independently established Work membership; it lowers only the assignment-bound attribution. A missing optional profile blocks only the Grade, autonomy, profile, criterion-dependent, or assurance claim that requires it.

What changes in practice. A team no longer promotes a plan, log, output, state change, or assignment into Work. It identifies one occurrence and its actual performer basis first, then adds only the result, change, resource, or evidence relations that the current decision consumes.

What this buys. One independently admitted dated Work identity whose A.13-qualified actual performer Systems, enacted Methods, temporal extent, and required containing-System relations remain inspectable, plus a separately decidable F.6 relation whenever a receiving use needs exact assignment-bound attribution, together with only the direct neighboring relations and conditional profile or assurance claims used by the current decision.

Not this pattern when. Use the direct pattern when the current question concerns agency (A.13), a Method (A.3.1), MethodDescription (A.3.2), plan or schedule (A.15.2), readiness (A.15.5), appearance-based reliance (A.15.4), evidence or assurance (A.10 or B.3), publication-use behavior (E.17, with E.24.PUB for publication identity), or a declarative representation (C.2.P.DR).

A.15.1:1 - Problem Frame

After we have separated which system-role assignment obtains (via U.SystemRoleAssignment), what capability is being relied on (through an A.2.2 qualified holder-ability claim), how in principle the Work is done (the exact U.Method), and which claim-bearing episteme, if selected, describes that Method (U.MethodDescription), we still need a precise concept for what happened as performed Work in real time and space.

Every Work individual has an A.13 core basis for every claimed actual performer System, an independently grounded performance history, at least one enacted Method, temporal extent, and at least one locally declared containing-system relation. Several such relations may obtain under different exact system boundaries. The A.13 core already contains one obtaining assignment for its scope, situation, and window; an F.6 relation may later use that same occurrence but is not a Work-membership premise. A Work stands in a direct work-to-referent, binding, or resource-use relation only when that relation obtains world-side; none is a field stored in the occurrence. A separate assertion or description may designate that individual and state the relations, but the episteme neither creates the relations nor becomes the Work occurrence.

A.15.1:2 - Problem (what breaks without a clean notion of Work)

1. Plan and occurrence confusion. Schedules and diagrams get mistaken for performed work, so audits and KPIs attach to plans or representations instead of dated occurrences.
2. Method-description and work conflation. A method description, code artifact, or SOP is reported as if it were performed work; conversely, logs are treated as recipes.
3. Who and when leakage. People and calendars are baked into method descriptions; reuse and staffing agility collapse.
4. Resource dishonesty. Energy, money, and tool wear are represented as fields or booked to Methods, local system-role kinds, or assignments instead of being stated through separately obtaining resource-use relations involving exact Work individuals; costing and sustainability measures drift.
5. Mereology muddle. Teams hand-wave over work parts, retries, overlaps, or long-running episodes; roll-ups double-count or miss work.

A.15.1:3 - Forces (what the definition must balance)

A.15.1:4 - Solution — admit dated Work occurrences under U.Work

A.15.1:4.0 - Recover the A.13 agency basis before claiming an Agent performer

This pattern does not define another kind of Agent and does not infer agency from Work. In precise FPF prose, Agent is shorthand for the A.13 core result about one exact admitted U.System, one exact local agential system-role kind and its membership criterion, classification of that System under the kind, one obtaining assignment of that kind, and the claim scope, working situation, and time window needed by the use. Evidence must support each asserted core fact. An agency-characteristic profile is a separate conditional result, not a universal member of that core.

Before concluding that a candidate occurrence is Work:

1. admit the exact candidate performer S as U.System under A.1 without using the candidate Work, assignment, capability, or actor-like name to establish systemhood;
2. state the proposed action, relevant objective or norm, conditions, System boundary, scope, working situation, and window without calling the occurrence Work;
3. recover an exact local agential system-role kind K under A.2 whose independently stated membership criterion names the stable work-facing contribution and the minimum goal-directed, condition-sensitive regulation required at this grain;
4. establish with appropriate evidence that S satisfies that criterion and is classified under K;
5. recover one direct A.2.1 assignment species that assigns K and one obtaining occurrence RA whose holder is S, assigned-kind value is K, predicate and participants pass, and extent covers the scope, situation, and window; and
6. open A.13’s agency-characteristic profile only when the receiving claim asserts a Grade, autonomy, or profile value, the local membership criterion explicitly consumes one of its characteristics, or a named assurance use requires it. Then cite only the characteristic values, evidence, and qualification limits that use consumes. Otherwise the core basis stops at item 5 plus the evidence needed to establish items 1–5.

The local membership criterion is the positive discriminator. It may require selection or regulation among admissible continuations, or maintaining or returning to a declared target under relevant perturbation. Initiating, continuing, redirecting, regulating, pausing, and stopping are possible evidence, not a universal checklist. A closed loop can pass a narrow Grade-free regulation role and fail a broader inspection, diagnosis, or project-decision role. A separately asserted Grade still requires the auditable profile specified by A.13. This preserves A.13’s agency spectrum without turning that optional characterization layer into a universal Work precondition.

Only then use section 4.1 to test the actual bounded candidate action, Method followed, time, containing-System relation, and other facts used by the Work claim. On pass, A.15.1 admits W : U.Work without assuming an F.6 conclusion. After that admission, F.6 may attribute W through the same obtaining RA; actual performance cannot be used to bootstrap the A.13 classification or assignment, and F.6 cannot be used to bootstrap Work membership. A profile cannot substitute for the local criterion, classification, or obtaining assignment.

Do not infer agency from systemhood, acting eligibility, an actor-like product name, assignment alone, capability, causal power, physical change, participation, containment, being the project system-of-interest, or one irrelevant feedback loop. If the exact local kind or its criterion, classification, obtaining assignment, required scope, situation, or window fit is missing, lower the sentence to functioning, behaviour, interaction, causal participation, transformation, or an unresolved performer claim as the available evidence warrants. If only a conditionally required profile or assurance basis is missing, retain any independently grounded core agency and Work claims and lower only that stronger profile, Grade, autonomy, or assurance claim.

A.15.1:4.1 - Definition and occurrence identity

U.Work is the admitted U-kind for dated 4D occurrence holons. One Work individual is one independently identified performed occurrence with its own temporal extent. Admit a candidate when the exact performance history is grounded; every claimed actual performer is an admitted U.System with a current A.13 core basis under section 4.0 for the exact action, scope, working situation, and window; the action actually follows at least one exact Method; its extent is known; and at least one locally declared Work-to-System relation places the complete occurrence inside an exact System boundary. On admission, state the obtaining enactsMethod and containing-System relations. A.15.1 neither assumes nor requires F.6 performedUnderAssignment to establish W : U.Work.

Elsewhere in FPF, a complete A.13/A.15.1/F.6 basis is the combined post-admission basis used only when a receiving claim needs both admitted Work and precise assignment-bound performer attribution. Its order is fixed: section 4.0 supplies the A.13 core and evidence for every performer; A.15.1 independently admits one dated Work occurrence with at least one obtaining enactsMethod relation, its temporal extent, and at least one obtaining locally declared Work-to-System relation whose stated boundary contains the complete occurrence; only then does F.6 test the link through the same covering A.13 assignment occurrence for every precisely attributed performer. This combined basis is not the A.15.1 admission test. A missing F.6 link leaves W : U.Work intact and leaves only the exact assignment-bound attribution unresolved. Add an A.13 characteristic profile only when the receiving claim consumes a Grade, autonomy or profile result, a criterion-dependent characteristic, or an assurance result. The canonical F.6 relation performedUnderAssignment(W, RA) is checked only after W is admitted and attributes that exact Work occurrence to one exact assignment occurrence. For an obtaining attribution, its attribution-facing holder projection is S = attributedPerformerSystem(W, RA) = RA.HolderSystemSlot; this projection does not discover S, and the direct case fact must establish that the System already recovered through A.13 performed W under RA. The assignment must also cover the attributed extent. In practitioner prose name both objects: S performed W under RA. If the relation is unresolved, retain the independently admitted Work and do not assert that sentence. The legacy spelling performedBy(W, RA) is a deprecated compatibility alias only; do not author new claims with it, and never say that RA performed W. One or more exact enactsMethod relations connect the Work individual to the U.Method values actually enacted. At least one locally declared Work-to-System relation locates the complete occurrence under an exact containing-system boundary; several may obtain under different valid boundaries. Direct work-to-referent, binding, and performed resource-use relations are recovered independently only when they obtain and the current claim needs them. An occurrence designator permits reference but does not identify work by label, ticket, trace, record, or storage convention; an assertion or description about the occurrence is a separate U.Episteme.

The actual enactsMethod relation obtains between the Work occurrence and the exact U.Method; it is not a field of either participant. An exact U.MethodDescription may be cited when its claims identify, constrain, or justify that method for the receiving use; the description is not enacted and its fields do not become actual work bindings. A selected model-use structure likewise enters only through the exact receiving relation whose interpretation it changes.

Call a selected method description, continuity policy, or criterion an edition only when an exact C.2.1 EpistemeEditionRelation connects it to the earlier episteme and obtains. Otherwise name the selected episteme, or say that one episteme is a non-continuing replacement for another.

A.15.1:4.1a - Direct Work relations used by this pattern

These relations are world-side facts, not fields stored in Work. For each A.15.1-owned relation below, both participants must already be independently admitted under the stated kinds. The exact relation kind plus the ordered participant pair identifies the relation occurrence for ordinary use; if a later claim must distinguish its history or compare two occurrences, use A.6.REL. A changed participant pair identifies another occurrence. State a relation only when its predicate passes.

To recover these connections in practice, B.1.5.EW starts with an action and asks what encompassing work is under way through it. Adding a value can be part of computing a total while report preparation is ongoing. This does not make the report complete, create a separate occurrence for every description, or count the same resource use several times. Independently claimed Work parts still satisfy the predicates above.

Containing Systems. Current assertions do not use bare executedWithin. Declare a direct local predicate such as workOccursWithinPlantBoundary(work, system) with participant order <U.Work, U.System>. Its predicate must say which exact system delimitation and qualification window make the complete Work occurrence lie within that System for the stated use, and must route that delimitation to A.1, A.14, or the applicable domain pattern. Its ordinary occurrence identity is the exact local relation kind plus the ordered Work–System pair. The A.15.1 occurrence basis includes at least one such obtaining relation. The same Work may stand in several true containing-System relations at different valid boundaries; no universal uniqueness or automatic “immediate” System is assumed. A part relation between Systems, organizational accountability, colocation, or a diagram does not by itself create another Work-containment relation. If the use needs one and none is declared and grounded, return missing-governor[work-containment]. Historical executedWithin is only a route cue to recover this local relation; do not author a new current claim with it.

Retries and resumptions. Bare retryOf and resumptionOf are likewise route cues, not complete universal relation names. A domain that needs either relation declares a local two-participant species over <U.Work, U.Work>. A retry predicate states which earlier Work ended without satisfying which independently named completion condition, which target remains current, and which facts make the later Work another attempt rather than mere repetition. A resumption predicate states the earlier unfinished Work, the interruption boundary, and the direct continuity facts that make the later Work continue it rather than start another attempt. For either species, the exact local relation kind plus its ordered later–earlier pair identifies the ordinary occurrence; the declaration states applicability and whether more than one predecessor is allowed. A repeated label, shared Method, or temporal adjacency establishes neither relation. A continuity-policy episteme may support an ambiguous judgment but is not a participant and cannot replace the local predicate.

Ordinary interval relations are not an A.15.1 synonym list. When a Work use needs overlap, precedence, containment, or another interval relation, use C.27.TA to name the temporal bearer, reference, intervals, direct temporal predicate, and the use that needs it; use B.1.4 only when those already recovered relations are aggregated. These declarations also do not replace F.6 performedUnderAssignment or a domain-specific Work-to-referent predicate. A consumer names the relation and actual participants rather than citing “the Work record.”

If the receiving sentence says that a referent changed, identify one exact U.Transformation independently under A.3.4. If a declared domain predicate relates exact Work W and transformation T, name that predicate, its participant order, and the facts that make it obtain. If no one direct predicate suffices but a one-case compound claim does, use A.6.RCD disposition 2 only when the substrate-admitted constructor, governed base predicates, actual participants, and case facts are recoverable; the result is C.2.1 claim content, not a relation kind or occurrence. Otherwise retain W and T separately and return missing-governor[work-to-change], or A.6.RCD’s missing-substrate result when the proposed constructor itself has no current semantics. Shared time, referent, or wording does not establish that Work-to-change claim. A morphism, delta expression, state-plane trace, pre-state, or post-state may represent or support the neighboring change claim; none is a Work field or identity discriminator.

Memory aid: Work = “how it went this time” (dated, resourced, attributable).

A.15.1:4.2 - Core occurrence references and neighboring links

When current Work also uses live steering. One current Work occurrence may enact both its domain Method and the A.15.7 steering Method, but only if each enactsMethod relation is independently grounded. Merely consulting the pattern or a MethodDescription, or admitting the steering Method as a submethod of a composite Method, proves neither enactment. The next-action answer says what should happen next; it neither creates another Work occurrence nor changes Work that has already occurred. Treat choosing as a smaller Work occurrence only when its own A.15.1 basis and its relation to the larger Work are both needed and grounded.

When a separate assertion or description episteme describes one Work occurrence, recover the following content at the granularity required by the current use. Each item names an occurrence designator, a world-side relation or temporal fact, or a reference to another episteme; the list is not a slot or field schema for the Work individual:

1. Occurrence and extent — one occurrence designator plus exact start and end, or an explicitly open end for in-flight work; add location only when the work claim depends on it.
2. Performer System and agency basis — for admission, name every actual performer U.System and its A.13 core, including the obtaining assignment for the action, scope, situation, and window. After Work admission, use F.6 only when the receiving claim needs the exact assignment under which that System performed the Work; keep the declared species, holder, other participants, and coverage recoverable.
3. Enacted method — actual enactsMethod -> U.Method. Cite methodDescriptionRef -> U.MethodDescription only when the receiving claim depends on that exact description episteme; the description is not enacted.
4. Containing Systems — name at least one locally declared Work-to-System predicate, its actual Work and U.System participants, and the exact system boundary and qualification window that make it obtain. Name several when different valid boundaries matter to the receiving use. A System’s part relation to a larger holon does not by itself establish another Work-containment relation.
5. Work-to-referent relation used by the claim — name the declared domain predicate, its participant order, and the actual Work and referent participants only when that predicate obtains and the receiving claim uses it. “Work on X”, shared timing, a record mention, or a convenient affected field establishes no such relation. If the use needs the relation but no predicate governs it, keep the Work and referent and return missing-governor[work-to-referent]. An obtaining work-to-referent fact does not by itself assert change, production, delivery, or acceptance.
6. Actual participation and bindings — for an operation argument or result, name one identified A.6.1 application and its exact declaration-local binding. For another participant, parameter, supplied constituent, premise, or reference use, name the declared subject predicate, participant order, and actual values. If the required route is absent, name the missing relation or binding in the missing-governor result rather than asserting it. A MethodDescription field, plan row, type-compatible value, or log token establishes none of them.
7. Performed resource use — name the declared resource-use predicate and its actual Work, resource, amount, unit, and extent participants at the boundary needed by costing or sustainability use. If no predicate governs the needed use, return missing-governor[resource-use]; do not infer use from colocation, timing, or a plan estimate.
8. Continuity policy for an unresolved segmentation — when a named identity, episode, retry, resumption, or aggregation use has more than one defensible segmentation, cite workContinuityPolicyRef to the exact C.2.1 episteme whose claims state the branch criterion and tolerances for that use, and interpret those claims under its effective U.ReferenceScheme. If the criterion or its applicability cannot be recovered, leave that segmentation unresolved. The episteme is a U.MethodDescription only if it independently satisfies A.3.2’s method-description criterion. A simple uninterrupted occurrence needs no continuity-policy reference; the policy supports a judgment about the occurrence and neither constitutes nor rewrites it.
9. Work mereology and temporal relations — exact parent, part, predecessor, successor, overlap, retry, or resumption relations only when their predicates obtain.
10. Actual change and production claims — identify each actual transformation independently under A.3.4; connect it to Work only through a declared domain predicate with its exact Work and transformation participants or a filled A.6.RCD disposition-2 claim with recoverable constructor, base predicates, participants, and case facts. Otherwise return missing-governor[work-to-change]. Keep the current A.15.PROD production-work, entity-identity-inception, and production-completion claims separate. None follows from work identity or parthood.
11. Evaluation and downstream claims — use the one matching §4.6 row for evaluation work and result, evidence use, delivery or transfer, and acceptance; omit every row that is not current.
12. Evidence, publication, and model use — cite only the exact evidence-use, publication-use, currentness, claim-scope, reference-plane, bridge, or selected model-use relation needed by the receiving claim.

A.15.1:4.3 - Clear distinctions in a Work claim

A.15.1:4.4 - Publication-use boundary for U.Work

A publication about one Work occurrence projects an already declared assertion or description episteme; it does not create the world-side occurrence, add performed-occurrence facts, or make a plan, source reconstruction, dashboard, publication face, or carrier count as performed work.

Preparation is classifiable as one Work individual under U.Work only after it actually occurs and its performer’s A.13 basis, at least one enacted Method, temporal extent, and at least one obtaining locally declared Work-to-System containment relation are independently grounded. After that admission, establish the covering assignment’s F.6 attribution separately only when the receiving preparation claim needs precise assignment-bound performer attribution. Add a Work-to-referent, binding, or resource-use fact only through its own obtaining relation when the receiving claim needs it. WorkEntryReadiness@Context under A.15.5 asks whether intended Work is ready to enter a Work boundary; a readiness label, full-kit checklist, or launch-looking cue is not a performed occurrence.

A.15.1:4.5 - Crossing visibility for work publications

When a work publication relies on another selected method-description episteme, name that episteme and the relation the publication actually uses; do not infer an edition from a version label or later date. For a semantic crossing, name the two F.17 sense cells and test the F.9 Bridge predicate profile, then state the proposed action, direction, rule, and tolerated loss in a separate C.2.1 bounded-use claim. For a reference-scheme, claim-scope, model-use, reference-plane, unit, or publication change, cite the direct relation that the publication actually uses. State reliance through the applicable A.10 account of independently established evidence-use relations or the B.3 assurance result, and state any penalty only under its separate policy; none of these facts changes the Work occurrence’s identity.

A claim that a planned, gate-selected, or launch-labelled value was actually used requires a named direct predicate with its actual participants to obtain, or an exact A.6.1 operation-application binding to connect one identified application to that value. If the required predicate or binding rule is undefined, keep the planned designation and return missing-governor[actual-use]. If the rule exists but its positive test fails or lacks a deciding fact, keep the planned designation and return factually unsupported or missing-information, respectively. Do not back-fill a plan or infer an actual binding from shared wording. Pre-state and post-state references remain with an independently governed transformation or comparison claim; bracketing the Work interval does not bind them to the occurrence.

A.15.1:4.6 - Route a result or consequence without folding it into Work

Start with the ordinary sentence the reader needs, then select exactly one row for each separate claim. An absent row stays absent; the table is not a result record to fill.

Three-question result check. (1) Did the work occur? Name W, every actual performer’s A.13 basis, the grounded performance history, enacted Method, time, and at least one declared relation to a containing System under an exact boundary. If the use also needs exact assignment-bound attribution, run F.6 only after that admission and name its separate result. (2) What separate result or consequence is claimed? Name the exact returned value, entity, change, production claim, or transfer and use its row above. (3) Who judged or accepted what, by which criterion and evidence? Name the evaluation work, result, evidence relation, and acceptance relation separately. Stop after the last current question.

A.15.1:5 - Work mereology (how occurrences form holarchies)

Work identity is occurrence-grounded and 4D. Start from the actual performance history: work-entry and end events, occupied spatiotemporal extent, actual performer Systems with their A.13 bases, enacted Methods, the exact locally declared containing-system relations needed by the use, any direct work-to-referent relations, actual bindings, resource use, and exact work-part or temporal relations. A separately asserted F.6 relation relates the Work to the obtaining assignment under which it was performed; it neither admits nor reidentifies the Work. A distinct actual work-entry after an established completion or termination identifies a later occurrence; a proper work part and its parent are distinct individuals; independently grounded concurrent performances are distinct. A record, trace, policy episteme, or later judgment creates none of them.

A.15.1:5.1 - Parts and wholes of Work (occurrence facts)

• Temporal-part (TemporalPartOf_work). Both participants are independently admitted Work individuals. The first is a proper temporal sub-occurrence of the second under the §4.1a predicate, with its own exact extent and performed content. Use it when a later resource, evidence, KPI, acceptance, repair, or aggregation claim needs that Work part as an individual. A bare interval, telemetry window, or evidence slice stays a C.27.TA temporal aspect or its direct domain object; it is not the first participant of TemporalPartOf_work.
• Episode-part (EpisodeOf_work). Both participants are independently admitted Work individuals. The first is an event-bounded performed sub-occurrence of the second under the §4.1a predicate. Entry, resumption, mode switch, switch-to-method, interruption, switch-away, completion, or a declared pause may supply candidate boundary events. Cite an exact workContinuityPolicyRef only when direct facts permit more than one grouping for the named use; timestamps, a policy, or an episode-looking label alone establish no episode relation.

workContinuityPolicyRef designates the exact C.2.1 episteme whose claims state the named use, boundary events, tolerated variation, and branch criterion. Interpret those claims under that episteme’s effective U.ReferenceScheme. Add a U.ClaimScope, temporal qualification window, or model-use structure only when changing it changes the segmentation assertion; otherwise omit it. The policy episteme supports classification of the already existing history for that use. A later or competing policy episteme can support another identity or segmentation assertion. Call it an edition only when an exact C.2.1 EpistemeEditionRelation obtains between the exact earlier and later epistemes; without that relation it is a non-continuing replacement. Either way, the policy neither becomes a U.MethodDescription by policy form nor changes the occurrence, its parts, or their actual facts.

• Operational-part (OperationalPartOf_work). A work-part occurrence that may enact a factor of a recovered U.Method, for example, an incision occurrence within an appendectomy occurrence, possibly overlapping with others in time. If a method-description reference is used, it identifies, describes, constrains, or evidences that method factor; the referenced U.MethodDescription is not enacted. If no U.Method factor is recovered, keep the material as the work part, evidence segment, telemetry segment, mechanism material, system-component behavior, or missing-source-relation note that was actually identified; do not infer a method factor from its label.
• Concurrent work parts (derived use-side reading; no fourth parthood relation). First state each exact work-part relation to the same parent. Then use C.27.TA to state the exact temporal-overlap predicate, reference, intervals, and use. If a claim also says that the parts were coordinated, name its declared coordination predicate and actual participants. Shared parentage and overlap do not by themselves establish coordination, and ConcurrentPartOf_work is not introduced as a primitive work-part relation.

Naming threshold. Do not mint a durable public U-kind or durable named work object, or infer a separate work occurrence for every interval, telemetry segment, pause, or episode-looking wording. Use a derivative part relation for an independently admitted Work part; give that part a durable name only when downstream use needs its own resources, evidence, KPI, acceptance, repair, aggregation, cross-context reliance, or source-relation return use. In other cases keep the temporal relation, evidence slice, telemetry segment, method-description constituent, missing-source-relation note, or other concrete neighboring object that the task actually needs.

Didactic rule: Method composition is not proof of Work decomposition, and Work decomposition is not proof of method composition. A temporal work part may enact the same whole method during a slice. An episode may continue one method or mode, span several operational parts, or repeat the same method fragment; an evidence policy may support a finer segmentation claim without changing method identity. An operational part may correspond to a method factor only when that factor is recovered as U.Method.

Quick choice test.

• Ask “do I need only an interval or aspect, or an independently admitted Work sub-occurrence?” Use C.27.TA or the direct temporal object for the first. Use TemporalPartOf_work only for the second, after its proper-sub-occurrence predicate passes.
• Ask “does this named use need an event-bounded fragment of the parent?” If yes, recover the candidate boundary events. Cite workContinuityPolicyRef only when interruption, resumption, switch, replacement, or pause leaves the grouping ambiguous for that use; then use EpisodeOf_work only when its direct predicate is satisfied.
• Ask “which performed sub-occurrence has its own actual performer System with an A.13 basis, temporal extent, enacted Method, affected referent, bindings, resource use, or separately consumed place in an aggregation?” If that is current, use OperationalPartOf_work or another declared Work-part relation. When precise assignment-bound attribution is also current, check the separate F.6 relation only after admitting the sub-occurrence. A neighboring evaluation or effect claim does not establish Work parthood by itself.
• Ask “which way-of-doing part is being composed?” If the answer needs preconditions, effects, interface, and whole-method relation, recover a U.Method submethod under A.3.1 and B.1.5; do not make the work part itself carry the method identity.

A.15.1:5.2 - Key relations among Work

Temporal order and overlap. A.15.1 supplies each Work occurrence and its exact extent; it does not declare precedes, happensBefore, overlaps, contains, and within as interchangeable relation names. Use C.27.TA to name the temporal bearer, reference, exact intervals, direct temporal predicate, and use that needs it. A differently named predicate is used only when its own declaration gives the same participant meanings and law. Use B.1.4 after those temporal facts are recovered when the task asks for a roll-up.

Retry and resumption. Use only a locally declared retry or resumption species that passes §4.1a. Name that predicate and the actual later–earlier Work pair. Bare retryOf or resumptionOf wording is a prompt to recover the local relation, not a positive claim.

Causal use. If one Work occurrence is claimed to explain, trigger, or cause another, keep the Work-to-Work relation separate from the causal-use claim. Use C.28 or the pattern that defines and tests that causal use.

A.15.1:5.3 - Work-occurrence relations used by Part B roll-ups

A.15.1 supplies the identity of each independently identified Work occurrence or Work part and makes its exact temporal and performed resource-use relations recoverable. It does not itself return a temporal aggregate or resource ledger.

• Temporal coverage. When a receiving use needs utilization, elapsed time, phase coverage, or another roll-up over Work intervals, open B.1.4. Its recovered ContextTemporalAggregation@Context, coverage and non-overlap conditions, aggregation policy, and optional Gamma_time notation govern union, hull, or another admitted temporal aggregate. The work intervals remain A.15.1 facts.
• Resource aggregation. When a receiving use needs a total over materials, energy, time, money, tool wear, or another performed resource value, open B.1.6. Its recovered WorkResourceAggregation@Context, typed resource-accounting basis, evidence refs, overlap or deduplication policy, ledger, aggregation rule, and optional Gamma_work notation govern the aggregate. Each contributing performed resource-use relation obtains separately with its exact Work occurrence as a participant; any ledger or assertion about that relation is a separate episteme.

Manager’s tip: cite the exact B.1.4 or B.1.6 aggregation result and policy beside the KPI. A Work-part list, shared parent, or operator spelling supplies neither the aggregate nor its policy.

A.15.1:5.3a - Before A Timetable Becomes Architecture Evidence

A timetable, workflow row, or architecture table can help locate candidate Work. It does not establish a Work occurrence, whole, part, overlap, or order. Before relying on such rows in an architecture decision:

1. identify each Work occurrence from every actual performer’s A.13 basis, independently grounded performance history, enacted Method, actual interval, and an obtaining relation to a containing System; when precise assignment-bound attribution is current, apply F.6 separately after admission;
2. if several rows are claimed as parts of one Work whole, identify that whole and every part independently, then state the exact Work-part relation that holds;
3. if two occurrences are claimed to overlap or follow one another, state their actual intervals and the exact C.27.TA temporal relation; and
4. state coordination, participation, resource use, result, or acceptance only through its own obtaining relation when the architecture decision needs it.

Two activities with similar names or one planned time window can still be distinct Work, and a schedule row may remain only plan content. If the actual occurrence or required relation is missing, preserve the plan, description, interval, or separately grounded Work that is available and stop the stronger architecture claim.

A.15.1:5.4 - Identity and reidentification of Work

Two descriptions, assertions, records, or traces resolve to the same Work occurrence only when they designate the same actual world-side performance history, not merely the same name, policy label, similar policy content, or later date. First compare the direct facts at the selected grain:

• the same actual work-entry or start and compatible occupied spatiotemporal extent;
• the same performance history, with each actual performer System’s A.13 basis, enacted Method, and the locally declared containing-system relations used by the identity claim, plus every actually obtaining work-to-referent, binding, and resource-use fact used by that claim, placed at the interval where it obtains; any separately asserted F.6 relation remains an attribution fact rather than a Work-identity discriminator;
• compatible work-part and temporal relations; and
• no fact that already identifies distinct individuals: a proper part versus its parent, independently grounded concurrent performances, or a later work-entry after the first occurrence’s established completion or termination.

A corrected or later description of the same actual start, open end, or completed end can refine the assertion without changing the occurrence. A change of performer, assignment, enacted Method, referent, binding, resource use, or obtaining containing-system relation during an otherwise unended performance history is an actual change to state explicitly; that change alone neither splits nor preserves the Work occurrence.

When a named receiving use must decide whether an interruption, resumption, method or mode switch, performer replacement, retune, rework, referent or binding change, or composite boundary stays inside one parent, cite the exact continuity-policy episteme, its effective reference scheme, applicable scope and window, and the branch criterion it applies to those facts. The selected policy can support one identity or segmentation assertion for that use. A later or competing policy episteme may support another assertion; call it a later edition only when the exact C.2.1 EpistemeEditionRelation obtains, and otherwise treat it as a non-continuing replacement. Neither branch retroactively changes what occurred.

A.15.1:5.5 - Interruptions, retries, resumptions, and description changes

• Established end and later entry: identify a later Work occurrence when the first occurrence has actually completed or terminated and another work-entry occurs. A larger composite Work may contain both only through explicit work-part relations.
• Retry: identify the later Work occurrence independently. Add a retry relation only through a locally declared species whose exact predicate connects it to the ended attempt and whose participant meanings, identity, cardinality, and applicability are stated; bare retryOf remains only a route cue.
• Ambiguous interruption or resumption: preserve the actual boundary events and facts. If a named use must decide same-parent versus separate-occurrence grouping, apply its exact workContinuityPolicyRef; without that criterion, return an unresolved segmentation rather than making the policy implicit.
• Performer, assignment, method, referent, binding, retune, or mode change: state the actual change where it occurs. Split or retain the parent only when the direct facts already decide the boundary or a policy current to the named identity, episode, retry, resumption, or aggregation use supplies the criterion.
• Method-description episteme change: record the newly selected description episteme separately. That selection neither splits nor preserves Work by itself; only an accompanying actual occurrence change enters the boundary judgment. Call the two descriptions editions only when their exact C.2.1 EpistemeEditionRelation obtains.
• Rework: identify the later performance independently. Relate it as another occurrence, episode, or operational part only after the applicable direct predicate and any genuinely needed boundary policy are satisfied. Keep causal attribution with the governing causal-use pattern.

These rules answer Work-occurrence identity and segmentation. When the current question is instead whether exact performer, support, and continuation-state relations let the admitted occurrence continue or recover under interruption, handoff, or degraded support, use the actual-Work branch of A.15.8. It neither splits nor preserves the Work occurrence; return every identity, retry, or resumption claim here.