A.15:4.2 - Canonical relations

graph TD
    subgraph "Direct system-role assignment species"
        H["holder H : U.System"] -- "HolderSystemSlot" --> RA["RA : InspectionShiftAssignment<br/><: U.SystemRoleAssignment"]
        K["InspectorSystemRole<br/>exact local kind"] -- "AssignedSystemRoleKindSlot" --> RA
    end

    subgraph "Method, description, and capability"
        M["M : U.Method"]
        D["D : U.Episteme<br/>A.3.2 membership: U.MethodDescription<br/>EntityOfConcern = M"]
        Cap["Qualified ability claim about H"]
        Fit["capability-fit condition"] -- "tests" --> Cap
    end

    W["W : U.Work"] -- "performedUnderAssignment<br/>holder equality check: RA.Holder = H" --> RA
    W -- "enactsMethod" --> M
    style K fill:#fff2cc,stroke:#d6b656,stroke-width:2px
    style Cap fill:#d5e8d4,stroke:#82b366,stroke-width:2px
    style Fit fill:#d5e8d4,stroke:#82b366,stroke-width:2px,stroke-dasharray: 4 4
    style M fill:#d5e8d4,stroke:#82b366,stroke-width:2px
    style D fill:#f8cecc,stroke:#b85450,stroke-width:2px
    style H fill:#e1d5e7,stroke:#9673a6,stroke-width:2px
    style RA fill:#dae8fc,stroke:#6c8ebf,stroke-width:3px,stroke-dasharray: 5 5
    style W fill:#ffe6cc,stroke:#d79b00,stroke-width:2px,font-weight:bold

The diagram shows a simple direct assignment species. A stronger appointment can declare a real additional participant such as a review commission; that specialized occurrence itself is the U.SystemRoleAssignment. Do not create a weaker generic occurrence beside it.

• Capability fit. A MethodDescription, WorkPlan, or work-admission assertion may require a holder capability threshold. The fit condition compares the holder’s qualified ability claim with the receiving work conditions and bounds and may cite declared measures, U.Characteristic values, Q-Bundle slots, or architecture-characteristic criteria. It is neither an assignment participant nor a second capability kind.
• MethodDescription membership. D is a U.MethodDescription only when A.3.2 recovers Method M as its exact EntityOfConcern and at least one substantive way-of-doing claim. “D describes M” is shorthand for that constitution and membership result, not another binary relation.
• enactsMethod(W : U.Work, M : U.Method). This relation states which exact Method the dated Work enacts. A.15.1 defines its participant order, predicate, occurrence identity, and multiplicity. It neither attributes a performer nor turns a description into the Method.
• performedUnderAssignment(W : U.Work, RA : U.SystemRoleAssignment). F.6 defines this relation. For a precise actual performer, RA is the same obtaining assignment used by A.13 for the exact action, scope, working situation, and window. It must be an occurrence of a declared assignment species, have the A.13-qualified System as holder, and cover the Work while the species predicate obtains. The assignment is the attribution ground, not the actor. A record may state the relation without constituting it. Read an existing performedBy(W, RA) claim only through the F.6 compatibility boundary after resolving the holder System; do not author new claims with that spelling.

One assignment occurrence continues through the maximal uninterrupted interval in which its direct species predicate obtains for fixed participants. A declared interval, taxonomy, scheme, KindSignature, assertion, evidence item, or selected model-use structure can describe or interpret the claim but does not create the occurrence or become a generic participant.

For a precise performed occurrence, first recover the A.13 core for the exact actual performer System and action, then admit W : U.Work under A.15.1 from its independent occurrence, Method, extent, and containment facts. Only afterward trace W to the same RA through F.6 performedUnderAssignment when the receiving use needs precise assignment-bound attribution, and compare RA.HolderSystemSlot with the already recovered performer; F.6 identifies neither. Trace W to M separately through enactsMethod. Cite a characteristic profile only when conditionally consumed; cite a MethodDescription, plan, capability claim, evidence item, taxonomy, or scheme separately only when the receiving use relies on it. The performer System acts; the kind, assignment, capability, Method, description, plan, evidence, and record do not.