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:

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;
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;
if two occurrences are claimed to overlap or follow one another, state their actual intervals and the exact C.27.TA temporal relation; and
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.

Plans, costs, quality statistics, telemetry evidence, and method-reliance claims may depend on whether the selected history is a temporal part, event-bounded episode, operational part, or later occurrence. Name a continuity-policy episteme, effective reference scheme, scope, and qualification window only when that distinction is actually current. Otherwise retain the direct occurrence facts and stop; do not add policy apparatus to a simple uninterrupted case.

A.15.1:5.6 - Work mereology does not compose effects or transformations

A parent Work can have exact work parts without having one composite effect or composite transformation. Any temporal aggregate uses B.1.4; any performed-resource aggregate uses B.1.6; each names its own concern, policy, evidence, and result. Identify every actual transformation independently under A.3.4. Connect one to Work only through a named domain predicate and exact participants, or a C.2.1 local compound claim under A.6.RCD disposition 2 with its constructor, governed bases, participants, and case facts recoverable; otherwise return missing-governor[work-to-change].

Work parthood, method parthood, temporal inclusion, a common affected referent, a list of changed characteristics, or adjacent plan items establishes neither transformation parthood nor a composite transformation. If a production or effect claim needs transformation composition, name the declared composition predicate, its participants, and the facts that make it obtain. If none is available, retain the exact Work and independently identified transformations and return missing-governor[transformation-composition]. A.15.PROD may still recover any independent production-work, entity-inception, or completion claim that does not depend on that missing composition.