A.15.2:6.1 - Hospital OR day plan (shift rota + cases)
WorkPlan:OR_DayPlan_2025-08-12-E3 : U.WorkPlan is one C.2.1 episteme. Its present EntityOfConcern is exact existing system OR-Service-System-12 : U.System; its effective reference scheme is HospitalORPlanningScheme-E4; its horizon is 2025-08-12T00:00:00+03:00/2025-08-13T00:00:00+03:00. Proposed case performances remain ClaimGraph designators and are not dated Work occurrences.
One PlanItem:Case_1_Appendectomy coordinates proposed performance PlannedAppendectomy-Case1 through the following exact content.
intended performer and system-role-kind conditions
one performer System satisfying SurgeonSystemRole and AppendectomyLeadCapability-v3; one performer System satisfying AnesthetistSystemRole and ORAnesthesiaCapability-v2; these are intended conditions, not system-role assignments
budget and reservations
90 minutes of OR-3, one SterileKit-A17, and consumables budget ORCase1-Consumables-B3
dependency
positive PreOpClearance-Case1-E2 claim must be current before the planned window starts
acceptance target
procedureCompleteBy10:30, compared under C.27.TA against the exact Work extent after Work occurs
baseline
exact C.2.1 episteme OR-DayBaseline-2025-08-05-E1
Later Work: A.13 first recovers the surgeon and anesthetist as the exact actual performers through their respective obtaining assignments, and A.15.1 independently admits AppendectomyWork-2025-08-12-Case1 : U.Work with workContinuityPolicyRef = SingleProcedureFromAnesthesiaStartToHandover-E1, temporal extent 2025-08-12T09:04:00+03:00/2025-08-12T10:21:00+03:00, and enactsMethod to LaparoscopicAppendectomyMethod-E2. Because the named one-case policy expressly consumes both assignment-bound attributions, F.6 afterward establishes performedUnderAssignment for RA-Surgeon-DrK-2025-08-12 and RA-Anesthetist-DrM-2025-08-12 through those same assignments. The named policy tests the exact within-window claim qualified under C.27.TA. The plan created none of those facts, and either failed F.6 relation would leave the Work intact while preventing this attribution-dependent fulfilment conclusion.
Named one-case policy:ORCase1FulfilmentPolicy-E2 is one exact C.2.1 episteme about exact plan episteme OR_DayPlan_2025-08-12-E3, interpreted under HospitalORPlanningScheme-E4. Its ClaimGraph is limited to item Case_1_Appendectomy and states positive polarity only when the identified Work enacts the target Method, both required performedUnderAssignment relations obtain, and its extent lies inside the planned window. It uses only those four facts for this local conclusion, does not travel to another plan episteme, and admits no fulfilment relation kind.
Visible result: C.2.1 assertion episteme OR-DayPlan-Case1-Fulfilment-Assertion-E1 has OR_DayPlan_2025-08-12-E3 as its exact EntityOfConcern; its ClaimGraph names AppendectomyWork-2025-08-12-Case1, item Case_1_Appendectomy, policy ORCase1FulfilmentPolicy-E2, the four supporting facts, and positive polarity. The result says that this Work satisfies this plan item under that policy. It does not rewrite the plan and does not assert a universal relation.
Nearest false shortcut: a theatre log row carrying key Case_1_Appendectomy and start time 09:04 establishes neither performedUnderAssignment nor enactsMethod. Without those independently obtaining facts the local conclusion returns missing-information; matching labels and times produce neither negative polarity nor fulfilment.
Edition boundary:OR_DayPlan_2025-08-12-E3 is the first plan episteme used for this day, so this case has no EpistemeEditionRelation and needs no change note. If planners later change its ClaimGraph but establish no edition predicate, C.2.1 identifies a new, non-continuing plan episteme. Reusing the day-plan label or adding a Rev-4 note cannot turn that replacement into a continuation; a later policy must name whichever exact plan it judges.
A.15.2:6.2 - Fab maintenance weekend (asset reservations)
WorkPlan:Fab_Maintenance_W36 is interpreted under FabMaintenancePlanningScheme-E3, has horizon [2025-09-06T00:00Z, 2025-09-08T00:00Z), and concerns already identified Fab-Production-System-4 : U.System. Tool_42 and Tool_13 remain exact assets named by the PlanItems; they are not an unproved joint EntityOfConcern.
PlanItem content:Tool_42 chamber clean under ChamberCleanMethod-E2; Tool_13 calibration under ToolCalibrationMethod-E1; the ClaimGraph carries an exact exclusivity constraint with production windows under the named scheduling policy, not a reusable MutuallyExclusive_pl relation kind.
Reservations: nitrogen, DI water, metrology window.
Later local assertion: The exact chamber-cleaning Work occurrence is identified independently as an individual admitted under U.Work. FabChamberCleanPlanUsePolicy-E1 asks whether that Work enacted ChamberCleanMethod-E2, stayed inside the planned window, and kept nitrogen use within the reserved amount. A.15.1 supplies the Work and enactment facts; C.27.TA qualifies the within-window claim; B.1.6 supplies the resource aggregate used in the budget comparison. In this transfer probe the three policy conditions all obtain, so a separate C.2.1 assertion about the plan states positive fulfilment. Early completion and nitrogen underrun additionally require the corresponding strict comparisons. A shared item label or reservation row supplies none of those facts.
WorkPlan:DC_Rollout_Phase-2 is interpreted under DCOperationsPlanningScheme-E5, has horizon [2025-09-01T00:00Z, 2025-09-15T00:00Z), and concerns already identified Service-A-Operations-System : U.System. The Security Audit scheme remains a separate interpretation source used only through the branch below.
Interpretation boundary: Operations uses DCOperationsPlanningScheme-E5; Security Audit uses SecurityAuditScheme-E4. Their acceptance criteria remain separate; apply the branch in checklist item 7 before proposing any cross-context reuse.
Bridge premise: exact F.17 cells OperationsReadyCell-E3 and SecurityAuditPassedCell-E2 participate in F.9 Bridge OpsAuditReadinessOverlapBridge-E1 under OpsAuditPartialOverlapProfile-E1. The Bridge obtains as partial-overlap: both senses exclude a known blocking security defect, while Operations readiness also requires rollback rehearsal and live monitoring and the audit sense applies its own security criteria.
Rejected verdict transfer: C.2.1 claim AuditPassAsOperationsReadyUse-E1 proposes copying GateDecision=pass from A.21 gate SecurityAuditGate-E2 into an A.15.5 work-entry readiness result, from the audit cell to the Operations cell, by identity transfer and with zero tolerance for omitted readiness conditions. The claim is negative because the two senses do not align on rollback rehearsal or monitoring readiness. A.10 evidence-provenance path OpsAuditTransferEvidencePath-E1 has RelianceDisposition=pass for that negative claim, so the team retains the A.21 audit decision and evaluates Operations readiness separately under A.15.5. The obtaining Bridge remains true. A narrower plan use may cite the audit decision as one readiness input; it still cannot transfer the verdict.
PlanItem content:Deploy Service A, Pen-test A; exact dependency and window claims name their predicates and conditions inside the plan ClaimGraph.
Later local assertions: Exact deployment and audit Work occurrences are identified independently as individuals admitted under U.Work. Separate operations and audit evaluations apply their own targets and produce separately governed verdicts; plan-use assertions state exact local fulfilment and per-context comparison without adding those actual facts to the plan content or creating one cross-context fulfilment relation.