A.15.3:5.2 - Planned argument and expected result against A.6.1

A team plans one Pump #37 recognition evaluation. It expects the application to use Pump #37 as candidate and return true if the cited criterion, construction facts, reidentification rule, interpretation basis, and required fastening-relation fact are available and determine satisfaction. The condition reference records that expectation; it makes none of those claims true. Pump37-Classification-Plan-E1_Ref identifies the WorkPlan, HolonRecognitionMechanism-E1_Ref identifies the cited A.6.1:5.7 mechanism edition, and Pump37-ExpectedTrue-Conditions-E1_Ref identifies the separate condition claims.

The WorkPlan carries this copyable planning content:

SlotFillingsPlanItem:
  planItemDesignator: pump37-recognition-baseline
  workPlanRef: Pump37-Classification-Plan-E1_Ref

  intendedPerformanceDesignator: planned-pump37-recognition-use-01
  plannedFillingRows:
    - rowDesignator: candidate-pump37
      targetDeclarationRef: HolonRecognitionMechanism-E1_Ref
      targetOperationDesignator: recognizeAdmittedHolonCandidate
      targetMemberDesignator: candidate
      targetMemberFamily: OperationArgumentDeclaration
      memberDefinitionPattern: A.6.1
      plannedValueOrDesignation: Pump_37_Ref
      planningConditions: Pump37-ExpectedTrue-Conditions-E1_Ref
      declarationEditionPin: HolonRecognitionMechanism-E1
    - rowDesignator: expected-recognition-true
      targetDeclarationRef: HolonRecognitionMechanism-E1_Ref
      targetOperationDesignator: recognizeAdmittedHolonCandidate
      targetMemberDesignator: recognitionJudgment
      targetMemberFamily: OperationResultDeclaration
      memberDefinitionPattern: A.6.1
      plannedValueOrDesignation: true
      planningConditions: Pump37-ExpectedTrue-Conditions-E1_Ref
      declarationEditionPin: HolonRecognitionMechanism-E1

In that operation declaration, candidate accepts exactly one U.Entity through a U.EntityRef; recognitionJudgment returns exactly one carried-by-value member of RecognitionJudgmentValue = {true, false, unknown}. The rows cite those rules instead of redeclaring them.

Later, A.6.1 identifies Pump37RecognitionApplication-2026-07-21T100000Z. The application binds Pump #37 as candidate, but a required fastening-relation fact is unavailable, so it returns unknown. Comparison result: the plan expected true under its cited conditions; the actual application returned unknown because one availability condition failed. An A.6.RCD disposition-2 local compound assertion may state that comparison from the preserved plan edition, application, result binding, and failed condition. It neither rewrites a row nor admits a universal planned-to-actual relation.

The plan rows themselves identify no application, bind no candidate, return no result, prove no A.1 criterion, create no result episteme, and warrant none of those actual-use claims. Those later facts remain with A.6.1, A.1, C.2.1, and the applicable evidence or assurance patterns.