A.15.3:4.5 - Compare later use without changing the plan

When work actually occurs, identify W : U.Work under A.15.1. Independently establish actual relation participation under the relation’s obtaining predicate and each operation argument or result binding under the A.6.1 application-binding predicate. A matching plan row, label, type, or value establishes none of those facts.

If the team must state whether actual use matched the plan, name the comparison policy and the independently established actual facts. A one-off comparison may use A.6.RCD disposition 2 for a local compound assertion. Repeated parameterized comparisons may use disposition 3: keep a compound law subject-bounded when every reuse concerns one exact subject, or identify a reusable predicate-definition episteme when the rule is used across subjects. Do not admit a comparison relation kind unless a later calculation or decision must refer to repeated comparison occurrences as such; then name that use and follow relation-kind admission. None of these comparisons changes the WorkPlan or creates a universal planned-to-actual relation.

An unplanned participant is still an actual participant when the relation’s obtaining predicate holds for the complete participant set. To say that a planned value was missing, excluded, or substituted, apply the comparison policy’s closure or negative criterion to the case facts. An absent log, unresolved reference, or unavailable fact yields missing-information, not a negative use or variance result; absent authority yields missing-governor.