A.15.8:10 - SoTA-echoing source effects

Use source traditions for the action they change and keep their scope limits. The links and publication/status labels below were checked 2026-08-27. Correct a citation or publication-status label in its row without reopening the action when the used distinction and limit are unchanged. Reopen only the affected row and action when a source change alters the inventory, boundary, probe, observation, or decision supported by this pattern.

Source tradition	Source-use and currentness disposition	Action-changing contribution retained	Limit retained
Clark and Chalmers, “The Extended Mind” (1998)	Retain as historical lineage and a live contrast; reject constitutive extension as an FPF System-admission or performer-attribution rule.	Makes constitutive extension a live alternative and therefore forces an explicit boundary rather than an implicit “extended performer”.	Coupling or parity is not an FPF System-admission test, Work-attribution rule, or design Method.
Hutchins, cockpit memory (1995), and Hollan, Hutchins, and Kirsh, distributed cognition (2000)	Retain as historical cognitive-science lineage; adapt only the search for information propagation and material supports.	Inspect information propagation and material supports around activity, not only an unaided person.	An analytical unit is not automatically one System or capability holder, and the human-technology lineage is not universal ontology.
Hollnagel and Woods, cognitive systems engineering, and Fern, NASA HMI study (2016)	Retain human-factors and cognitive-systems-engineering lineage plus the 2016 NASA application; adapt only coordination/recovery search and stress-scenario use.	Add coordination, synchronization, interface, and recovery relations and use stress scenarios instead of component lists alone.	“Joint cognitive system” remains a source-local stance and supplies no general whole identity, authority, safety, or evidence rule.
NASA, Objective Function Allocation Method, page updated 2024	Adapt the current official project record as a scoped systems-engineering and human-factors allocation example.	Compare alternative human, automation, and robotic allocations as performance configurations rather than by static stereotypes.	Allocation quantities and trade-offs remain systems-engineering and human-factors Methods.
ISO 6385:2016 and ISO/IEC CD 25589	Use the current published ergonomic standard as a scoped inventory reference and the unfinished committee draft as a specialist contrast.	Make workers, equipment, space, environment, interaction, and current human-machine-teaming questions visible in the inventory.	One is ergonomic and human-centred; the other is an unfinished specialist draft. Neither creates a transdisciplinary `WorkSystem` or team kind.
Hodgetts and Jones, interruption recovery (2006); Ratwani and Trafton, cue association (2010); Ülkü et al., resumption timing (2025)	Retain the 2006/2010 human-task studies as empirical lineage and adapt the 2025 study as a current bounded probe source.	Make actual return cues and resumption conditions testable rather than inferred from perfect-run performance.	Bounded human laboratory tasks establish no universal cue, delay, mechanism, threshold, or transfer to unlike Work.
Chandy and Lamport, distributed snapshots (1985), and Marinho et al., workflow provenance (2021)	Retain mature distributed-systems lineage and adapt the 2021 provenance result as a non-human recovery stress test.	Supply the decisive non-human contrast: recovery may require consistent process, channel, control-flow, and provenance state.	Snapshot and provenance techniques are direct computing Methods, not universal FPF algorithms or proof that every Work needs a checkpoint.
Hu, Wang, and McAuley, MemoryAgentBench (ICLR 2026), and Liu and Gabriel, PM-Bench (COLM 2026)	Adapt these current conference benchmarks only for their configuration-specific probe distinctions.	Separate retrieval, updating, long-range use, forgetting, deferred-intention execution, and environment monitoring into configuration-specific probes.	Benchmark labels are not FPF kinds or capability holders; the reported results do not transfer outside tested agent configurations without evidence.