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.