A.15.2:4.4 - Plan mereology (composition of plans ≠ composition of methods or work occurrences)
Keep three separations crystal-clear:
- Method composition admits a composite
U.Methodonly when A.3.1/B.1.5 supplies the submethods, whole-forming relations, and whole-level commitments. - Work organization starts with exact A.15.1 work-part relations. Temporal overlap is an independently governed interval fact under C.27.TA, and coordination is a separate direct claim when it obtains. Shared parentage or overlap creates neither a
ConcurrentPartOf_workprimitive nor coordination. - Plan-content organization arranges declaration-local
PlanItemcomponents inside the exact ClaimGraph for coordination. It is epistemic organization, not world-side work or method mereology.
Common plan-content claim families include:
- precedence or dependency constraints naming exact source and target item designators, start or finish conditions, and any prerequisite or gate condition;
- overlap or exclusivity constraints naming the exact scheduling policy and the windows it permits or excludes;
- refinement claims stating which intended-performance designator is preserved and exactly which window, constraint, target, or budget is tightened; and
- alternative claims stating the alternatives and the independently governed condition used to choose among them.
Start with the readable plan constraint—for example, “item B starts only after clearance claim C for item A is current.” Keep that claim inside the WorkPlan ClaimGraph and name the two item designators, the condition, scope, and qualification. A graph edge, row order, or repeated spelling creates no world-side ordering, assignment, resource use, work parthood, or relation kind. If several plans reuse the same parameterized rule, A.6.RCD may supply a predicate-definition episteme. Open relation-kind admission only when a named receiver must distinguish occurrences of that relation; then E.24/E.24.UK and the standalone direct pattern must supply obtaining and identity before A.6.REL is used. If the rule, its source predicates, or occurrence identity cannot be stated, return the corresponding A.6.RCD blocker rather than minting Precedes_pl, MutuallyExclusive_pl, Refines_pl, or another pseudo-kind here.
Didactic rule: A PlanItem does not force an identical work shape. A later one-case comparison with an independently identified Work occurrence remains a separate local plan-use assertion unless an admitted direct relation has actually been supplied.