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.