A.15.2:4.5 - How WorkPlan meets Work

Ask one concrete question first: “Did Work W satisfy plan item I under policy F?” Identify W under A.15.1, then name exact WorkPlan episteme P, declaration-local item I, and policy episteme F. Check only the independently obtaining facts that F requires—for example, enacted Method, required assignments, and Work extent in the hospital case below. Put the answer in a separate C.2.1 assertion whose EntityOfConcern is P. The assertion neither changes P nor admits a WorkPlanFulfilmentRelation kind.

A positive answer requires every fact in F’s positive criterion. State a negative answer only when F contains an applicable failure or closure criterion and the case facts satisfy it. Missing occurrence facts return missing-information; an absent predicate or policy authority returns missing-governor. Neither stop is a negative claim. The assertion keeps W, P, I, F, polarity, and the supporting facts explicit; a matching label, window, ticket, record link, or policy name closes nothing. Several Work occurrences may satisfy different parts of I, or one consolidated Work may satisfy several items, only when F states that mapping. Unplanned Work remains valid Work; a separate assertion may classify it as unplanned for one named variance or improvement use.

If a receiving practice repeatedly needs the same parameterized fulfilment rule but consumes no relation-occurrence identity, use A.6.RCD disposition 3 to publish one predicate-definition episteme with one truthful exact EntityOfConcern, participant meanings, derivation, applicability, polarity, dependencies, and currentness; it is not a RelationSignature or relation kind. Only when a named receiver also needs distinguishable fulfilment occurrences may A.6.RCD return a relation-kind candidate for E.24/E.24.UK admission, a standalone direct subject settlement, and later A.6.REL discipline. Until those requirements are met, return the exact blocker only for the stronger use; do not infer partlessness, deny the local assertion or reusable predicate semantics, or add a universal fulfils edge.

A variance question is handled in the same economy. Use a separate local comparison assertion unless the measurement, evaluation, acceptance, resource, or temporal pattern already states the exact comparison. Name one planned value in exact P and I, one independently established actual value, the comparison method, scale, qualification window, and result. Do not make variance an intrinsic field of a Work occurrence, enter it into P’s identity-bearing claim content, or rewrite the plan. Common comparison questions include:

• schedule variance: actual Work extent against the planned window, using the exact temporal comparison and any B.1.4 aggregate needed by the receiving KPI;
• resource or cost variance: exact A.15.1 performed resource-use facts or a B.1.6 aggregate result against the planned budget;
• method variance: actual enactsMethod against the intended method, including an exact substitution claim when the comparison asserts substitution;
• description-selection variance: the method-description episteme cited by a named assertion about a Work occurrence or by a separately governed instruction-use claim, compared with the description reference planned earlier; call either object an edition only when the C.2.1 EpistemeEditionRelation predicate obtains, and do not treat that episteme as enacted;
• acceptance-target variance: a separately governed measurement, evaluation, or acceptance verdict against the planned target; and
• assignment variance: for every actual performer, compare the exact obtaining assignment occurrence used by F.6 with the corresponding intended performer and local system-role-kind conditions in the plan. Check the occurrence’s directly declared species, actual holder System, assigned local system-role-kind value, every additional participant that the plan constrains, and the part of its covering interval constrained by the plan. Report a species mismatch when the actual occurrence instantiates a different assignment species; when the species matches, report an occurrence-value mismatch only for a holder, assigned-kind value, plan-relevant additional participant, or interval value that differs from the plan. Do not collapse either comparison into a label match.

Manager’s view: A plan that cannot support one exact later local fulfilment or variance question is only a calendar picture for that use, not yet a reliance-bearing WorkPlan.