A.15:12a - Coordinated-work evidence and distributed-state relation note

Use A.15 first when the claim concerns which system performed which Work, under which system-role assignment, which Method the Work enacted, and which separate result is claimed. Coordinated Work, routine skill, team alignment, tacit knowledge, and fit among assignment, Method, and Work are not quantum-like by default.

Application choices:

Name the holder systems, local system-role kinds, exact assignments, Methods, Work occurrences, and separate results needed by the claim.
State which Work occurrences and which separate C.2.1 assertions, traces, observations, reports, or metrics make the coordination visible.
Ask whether ordinary system-role–Method–Work alignment explains the case. If yes, stop in A.15.
Add a C.26.2 low-recoverability distributed-state reading only after establishing its collective U.System bearer and boundary under C.26.2, and only when no participant statement, local component report, single evidence record, dashboard, or exported representation carries the inferred state faithfully enough for its intended use. Without that collective bearer, retain ordinary A.15 alignment of individual performers.
State the weakest evidence-bound reading, its time window, rival explanations, and export loss.
Use A.10 for evidence provenance and bounded reliance, and C.26.2:4.11 to select the evidence posture and additional support for the intended use. Obtain a B.3 assurance result for the named target claim and receiving use when an actual assurance claim is current. QLP-3 use or a direct domain requirement for assurance requires that claim and result. Momentary, low-consequence local Work guidance does not by itself require B.3.

The C.26.2 reading is a minimal evidence-bound U.Episteme claim about that collective System. It is not a group mind, performed Work, evidence sufficiency, or assurance by itself.

Position	Required content
Evidence or provenance relation	Exact Work, or a separate assertion, trace, observation, report, or metric about it, connected to the reading through an independently established direct evidence/provenance relation, recoverable through A.10 or G.6
Time window	When the reading holds and when it decays or needs refresh
Probe or occasion	The question, task, workshop, incident, handover, dashboard, or coordination situation that made the state inferable
Weakest claim	The minimal distributed-state reading carried by the sources
Rival explanations	For example, routine compliance, policy, command, coincidence, incentive, documentation, or local skill
Export loss	What is lost when the reading is summarized into one report, score, or statement

Useful outputs are an A.15 alignment claim when assignments and Work explain the case; a C.26.2 reading about the declared collective System within its boundary when the evidence survives ordinary rivals; an A.10 account of the evidence relation; a B.3 assurance result for a current named assurance claim, including the claim required by QLP-3 use or a direct domain rule; or no distributed-state reading when the sources, rivals, or time window cannot be named.