A.15.6:4.1 - Recover an actual project as composite U.Work

In Plain use, actual project denotes one composite U.Work occurrence: the performed work whole. A project-focus decision, temporary organization, U.WorkPlan, authorization, schedule, budget, dashboard, or repository is a neighboring object or claim; none supplies another identity for the performed whole.

First recover every actual performer System’s A.13 core: the exact admitted System, local agential system-role kind and classification, obtaining assignment for the scope, working situation, and window, evidence adequate for the local criterion and classification, and any characteristic profile conditionally consumed by a Grade, autonomy, criterion-dependent, or assurance claim. Recover the exact composite performance history, Method actually followed, temporal extent, containing-System relation, and independently admitted Work parts. Use those facts to admit the candidate composite W : U.Work under A.15.1 and state the Work-part relations; do not use an F.6 conclusion as an admission premise. Only afterward, when precise assignment-bound attribution is current, use F.6 to relate that already admitted Work to each performer’s same obtaining A.13 assignment, preserving direct case support, holder equality, species, participants, and coverage. A short attribution account may omit an unused identifier only when every required link remains recoverable. Admit each included Work occurrence independently. A shared project label, plan membership, focus decision, continuity policy, or temporal containment establishes neither the composite Work nor its parthood. Only then apply five project-specific qualification tests to the admitted Work:

1. The composite work has a temporary or transient boundary with a start and a completion or termination condition.
2. An accepted intention episteme states the intended objective and any intended product, service, result, or value. For this qualification, either an existing direct predicate connects its intended-performance designation to the admitted Work and obtains, or one local claim under A.15.2 or A.6.RCD names the plan or decision, designation, Work, applicable policy, and independently obtaining Work facts. If no predicate or claim constructor governs the needed connection, return missing-governor and name the unsupported relation; use test 5’s factually unsupported or missing-information result when a governor exists but the case does not support the positive claim. Do not imply a generic plan-or-decision relation.
3. A work-part and continuity policy says how interrupted, resumed, split, or merged work retains or changes identity; the policy decides an actual ambiguity but does not create the Work or its parts.
4. At least one independently admitted performed Work occurrence is connected to the composite Work by an obtaining work-part relation.
5. For each claim used to qualify the project, name what the claim is about—the participating system, affected referent, transformation, result referent, or another subject actually asserted—and say how that subject matters to the Work. Then choose one truthful claim form: state an obtaining direct relation of the needed kind; use a typed A.6.1 binding for one reusable-operation application; state a local production, inception, or completion claim under A.15.PROD, or another relation-defined claim under A.6.RCD; or return one non-assertability result. For non-assertability, state whether the reason is factually unsupported, missing-information, or missing-governor. Only missing-governor means that no pattern currently admits the relation or claim needed for the question, so only that reason reopens ontology. Project wording and container membership supply none of these links.

No performed work means no actual project occurrence yet. A proposal, charter, authorization, schedule, budget decision, or funded intention can establish a U.WorkPlan and related commitments. It does not backdate performed work, a future system, an assignment, an actual change, or a result.

The project occurrence uses the identity, temporal extent, parts, episodes, continuity, and relation-specific aggregation defined in A.15.1. Project wording adds no second identity rule. When a reader asks for the project result, ask first: What exactly is the result, and result of or for what? Keep that referent in the kind or claim already established for it, then apply test 5. If the required governor exists, the available case basis is sufficient to apply its positive test, and that test fails, return one non-assertability result with reason factually unsupported; if a fact needed to decide the test cannot be recovered, use missing-information; only when no predicate, applicability condition, or other rule defines the required relation or claim use missing-governor and reopen ontology. A negative additionally needs an applicable non-obtaining criterion or complete closure basis and satisfying facts. Otherwise keep an intended target in the plan.

Whole-project roll-up requires obtaining work-parthood plus an aggregation policy defined for the one relation and measure being aggregated. Outputs, effects, verdicts, epistemes, deliveries, and uses do not become one result merely because they share the project label.