A.15.5:4 - Solution

Represent readiness as one domain-local result claim about exact plan content, not as a root U-kind, imported management object, generic container, or default relation occurrence. When persistence matters, C.2.1 identifies the result episteme; A.15.5 supplies the readiness-specific criterion and result-value semantics only.

E.24.UK settlement. This pattern introduces no root U.Readiness, root U.Move, imported TameFlow MOVE kind, FullKitCondition object, independent readiness entity, or default readiness relation. Exact plans, plan components, methods, performed Work, resources, assignments, commitments, permission results, gate decisions, evidence, provenance, and assurance retain their subject patterns.

A.15.5:4.1 - One work-entry readiness claim

Start with one ordinary sentence:

At evaluation time T, checking Work W applied criterion C to intended performance I in PlanItem J of WorkPlan P and returned readiness value R for use through window V; stop or recheck when Q occurs.

P is one exact U.WorkPlan episteme. J and I are declaration-local plan content, not existing future entities. C is one exact criterion episteme whose applicability to this plan item and evaluation time is current. W is one separately identified dated U.Work occurrence with its performer system, covering assignment, enacted method, extent, and any actual A.6.1 bindings or direct participants required by the check. R is a local ReadinessResultValue, not a gate decision, permission, commitment, work occurrence, or universal result kind.

The local value family is:

• ready — every input required by C is determined and satisfies C for V;
• readyWithKnownGaps — C explicitly admits the named gaps for this exact bounded use, every non-waived input is determined and satisfied, and V plus the stop condition expose the remaining risk;
• notReady — an applicable failure or closure condition in C is determined for this case; and
• unknown — one required fact, currentness result, predicate, or applicability basis cannot be determined, and no already determined applicable failure or closure condition settles the result as notReady. Absence of an assertion or persisted episteme is not by itself notReady.

When the answer must persist, one C.2.1 result episteme states this complete local claim. Its exact EntityOfConcern is P; its ClaimGraph names J, I, C, W, R, evaluated input facts, evaluation time, V, and the stop or recheck condition under one effective U.ReferenceScheme. C.2.1 supplies episteme identity. A.15.5 adds no second readiness identity, independent readiness U-kind, or default readiness relation occurrence. If repeated predicate semantics are needed, use A.6.RCD’s reusable-predicate branch; open relation-kind admission only for a named receiver that must distinguish readiness occurrences as such.

The result episteme reports the check. It is not performed target work, and the checking Work is not the result. If a current claim says that exact checking or preparation Work first constituted that episteme, recover only that local entity-identity inception claim under A.15.PROD; A.15.5 does not infer or copy it.

A.15.5:4.2 - Readiness criterion and full-kit inputs

Use one exact readiness criterion when the entry question depends on what must be known, prepared, reserved, gathered, communicated, assigned, or pinned before work starts. The criterion states:

• the exact WorkPlan and its present EntityOfConcern, PlanItem, intended-performance designator, any exact intended-work target and intended outcome or value claim current in the plan, any current intended-work kind or work-family classification, target U.Method, evaluation time, and applicability window it judges;
• each required positive or negative predicate, the allowed named gaps if any, and the rule for ready, readyWithKnownGaps, notReady, and unknown;
• which changed fact, expired interval, new conflict, source revision, or resource or assignment change ends reliance; and
• the stop, degraded-use, preparation, or recheck action for each non-ready result.

Full-kit thinking supplies a recognition palette for inputs; it is not a FullKitCondition object or a field bundle. Open only the input claims that C actually consumes:

1. exact A.15.2 plan content and any A.15.3 planned fillings, with the declaration member and conditions that give each filling meaning;
2. current information, source-currentness, publication, measurement, evidence, or assurance claims under their subject patterns;
3. exact resource-availability or reservation claims, intended performer Systems and local system-role-kind conditions, any already obtaining occurrence of an exact directly declared U.SystemRoleAssignment species when C requires an assignment, capability threshold or fit result, and exact commitment claims when C uses them; plus any exact current work-in-progress or load and flow-policy claims under the pattern that defines their counted work, boundary, threshold, and qualification window;
4. separately performed preparation Work and readiness-checking Work, each with its exact performer system, obtaining assignment, enacted method, temporal extent, and actual direct participants or A.6.1 bindings;
5. exact prospective A.2.8.PER grant, non-prohibition, or conflict facts and their qualification windows when permission is current; and
6. an exact A.21 GateDecisionResult only when a current A.21 profile application governs the declared check applications and their mappings to that decision. The gate decision remains a separate result.

An exact post-launch variance or recheck result may enter only after the target Work is actual and only through the measurement, comparison, evaluation, resource, temporal, acceptance, or other pattern that defines that exact result. Name the target Work, comparison or evaluation rule, local result, qualification window, and subject pattern. It may trigger or inform an explicitly marked recheck; it neither proves that readiness held before entry nor rewrites the earlier readiness result. For each input, name the subject pattern, exact proposition or relation occurrence, and the interval or currentness result on which this readiness check relies. A generic input, evidence, context, resource, assignment, or policy reference supplies none of those facts. Omission says only that the current criterion did not consume that input; it does not prove absence.

Full-kit preparation can include gathering information, coordinating intended performer Systems and local system-role-kind conditions, producing a missing source U.Episteme or source publication, reserving a resource, pinning a planned filling, or creating shared understanding. Those activities are U.Work only when actually performed. The plan can state them before occurrence; the readiness claim may cite them after occurrence; neither object becomes the other.

For every cited preparation or readiness-checking Work occurrence, first recover each actual performer’s A.13 core for the action and independently admit the exact dated U.Work under A.15.1 from its performance history, at least one actual enactsMethod relation, temporal extent, and at least one obtaining locally declared containing-system relation. Only when the readiness claim also needs precise assignment-bound attribution, establish F.6 afterward through the same obtaining A.13 assignment and keep its declared species, participants, holder, coverage, and exact Work-assignment link recoverable. Name another enacted Method, boundary, direct participant relation, or A.6.1 binding only when the readiness claim uses it. The system performs the work; an assignment, plan, method description, checklist, criterion, readiness result, evidence path, or dashboard does not. A planned preparation task remains A.15.2 content until the occurrence facts obtain.

Boundary with planned fillers and appearance-based reliance. A missing planned value stays with A.15.3 as a planned-filling baseline or with the subject pattern when an evidence, currentness, publication, gate, permission, or assurance relation is already known. Use A.15.4 only when a reliance appearance, such as a dashboard label, copied approval, publication face, or credential view, is being used as the reason to treat the readiness or work-reliance claim as carried before that subject pattern relation has been recovered.

A.15.5:4.3 - Commitment and Launch Boundary

Keep commitment facts separate from the readiness value. The criterion may consume exact current commitment claims and their qualification intervals, but ready, readyWithKnownGaps, notReady, or unknown does not mean committed, institute a commitment, discharge one, or authorize entry. State the practical next move—stop, prepare, probe, seek a separately governed commitment, submit to a gate, launch only under its separately satisfied entry conditions, or recheck—as the result’s bounded use and return condition, not as another ontic status family. The older labels readyForProbe, readyForCommitment, committed, blocked, and requiresGateDecision therefore resolve to a local readiness value plus an explicit next move, commitment claim, stop, or gate question; they are not additional ReadinessResultValue members.

Use A.2.8.PER when a pre-entry readiness criterion consumes permission material. Name each exact value and its own qualification: a current GrantedPermissionRelation@Context occurrence with its beneficiary, permitted-action specification, U.ClaimScope, and validityWindow; a distinct NonProhibitionFinding@Context with its frame and evaluationWindow; and any PermissionNormConflictFinding@Context with its overlapWindow, disposition, and, when settled, the subject pattern’s resolution result and effectiveWindow. Non-prohibition is not a grant, a grant does not resolve conflict, and an unresolved current conflict blocks or degrades the readiness use under the criterion. PermissionExerciseRelation@Context and NonViolationFinding@Context require already dated actual work: cite either only as evidence about a different exact Work occurrence, or in an explicitly marked post-launch recheck after the target Work is actual, with its own exerciseInterval or evaluationWindow. Neither retrospective result proves current grant, capability, future exercise or non-violation, readiness, gate passage, or target-work performance. The readiness result institutes no permission, exercises none, resolves no conflict, and turns no non-prohibition finding into a grant. Use A.21 only when a current profile application governs the declared check applications and their mappings to a distinct GateDecisionResult. Keep DecisionLogRef, scope, currentness result, and effective window recoverable for this readiness use. A readiness badge, green tile, full-kit label, or commitment board position is not gate passage; gate passage creates none of the permission objects.

A.15.5:4.4 - Relation to A.15 Family

A.15.5:4.5 - Relation to P2W and Pattern Use

When E.18.1 carries accepted problem-side material to a readiness question, E.18.1 names that carry-through relation and cites A.15.5 for the readiness result. When a user needs to know which pattern to use before readiness is current, use E.11.PUR.