A.15.2:10 - Lowering, repair, and refresh conditions

Lower a candidate U.WorkPlan claim when the reader cannot identify one present EntityOfConcern, the effective U.ReferenceScheme, the horizon, one substantive PlanItem, or its intended-performance designator well enough to coordinate the intended work. Split the claim content when several existing subjects have no one jointly identified EntityOfConcern. Retain any independently identified planning cue, schedule or forecast representation, method-description note, missing-source-relation note, A.15.4 repair request, publication-use cue, readiness-gap note for A.15.5, or evidence-reference note; do not claim a conforming WorkPlan without its membership basis.

When intended method, window, performer System or local system-role-kind condition, capability requirement, resource budget, dependency, commitment, acceptance target, baseline, plan-content claim, local comparison policy, or exception policy changes, repair the exact ClaimGraph. If claim content, present EntityOfConcern, or effective reference scheme changes, C.2.1 identifies another episteme. Then ask separately whether EpistemeEditionRelation obtains between the two exact epistemes and name it only when it does. With no earlier plan episteme in scope, the result is a first plan. When another plan episteme is present but the edition predicate does not obtain, the result is a non-continuing replacement. A changed file, carrier, layout, publication, ticket key, revision label, or change note alone establishes neither reidentification nor continuity.

Do not rewrite an independently identified Work occurrence when only the plan changes, and do not make a revised plan evidence that Work occurred. Repair an actual participant, resource use, change, result, production, delivery, acceptance, evidence, or downstream effect under the pattern that defines that claim. When a one-case local fulfilment or variance assertion is no longer enough, use A.6.RCD disposition 3 if repeated predicate semantics are sufficient. Only when a named receiver needs distinguishable relation occurrences does kind admission open; if no truthful occurrence settlement or governing pattern is available, preserve the plan, local assertions, and reusable definition and return missing-governor for that stronger use.

Refresh the selected plan episteme before relying on it for cross-context coordination, budget reservation, release or gate preparation, work-entry readiness, evidence-reference use, performed-work entry, result measurement, or P2W carry-through. If the proposed reuse crosses the two named reference schemes, resolve both SchemeSenseCell values and test whether their exact F.9 Bridge obtains. Then apply checklist item 7 to the proposed use and its reliance result, and re-establish each value, criterion, commitment, or verdict mapping under the pattern that defines that claim. If the refreshed use claims readiness, performed work, actual participation, evidence, assurance, gate passage, result, publication use, representation, or appearance-based reliance repair, use that claim’s governing pattern and retain only the intended-work claims here.