A.15.2:5 - What a good WorkPlan states (review checklist)

Use this as a human-facing recognition palette, not a rigid schema or a definition by enumeration:

1. Present EntityOfConcern, horizon, and cadence (for example, the current service system and “W36 surgeries” or “daily ETL”), with possible future performances kept as plan-content designators.
2. PlanItem content components with intended-performance designator, target Method, the selected method-description episteme when one plan claim relies on it, planned windows, and dependencies.
3. Intended performer System and local system-role-kind conditions, any reference to an existing assignment occurrence and its declared species, and the A.2.2 capability threshold or fit condition; a proposed holder-and-kind pair or threshold is not an assignment or fit result.
4. Safety envelopes, constraints, and other admissibility conditions for planned work.
5. Resource budgets and exact reservation claims on assets.
6. Acceptance targets with their direct criteria and intended qualification windows.
7. Cross-context interpretation boundary: before copying a planned value, target, or verdict into another context, pin both effective reference schemes and resolve the two F.17 SchemeSenseCell values. F.9 says only whether their Bridge obtains. A separate C.2.1 claim says whether this exact reuse is acceptable in this direction, under this correspondence rule and tolerated loss; A.10 governs ordinary evidence reliance and B.3 governs assurance-bearing reliance. A negative use claim leaves the Bridge true but stops the reuse; a non-passing reliance result stops or narrows it. Establish any value conversion, target comparison, commitment, acceptance, verdict reuse, plan coordination, or Work claim separately under the pattern that defines it.
8. Baseline when the receiving comparison needs one. If this plan is being related to another exact plan episteme and EpistemeEditionRelation actually obtains, name both epistemes and add the change note that makes their attributed difference inspectable. A first plan and a non-continuing replacement carry no such relation; a revision label or change note alone does not create it.
9. Policy pointers to A.15.1 work continuity, B.1.4 temporal aggregation, B.1.6 resource aggregation, and any exact local comparison policy needed by the receiving KPI.
10. Exception question stating how ad hoc or emergency Work will be handled by a local plan-use assertion; use one reusable predicate-definition episteme only for repeated semantics, and require an admitted direct relation kind before claiming fulfilment or exception occurrences.