A.15:9 - Consequences

Gain	Cost or trade-off
Teams can ask which System performed which Work, under which assignment and Method, without making a kind or document act.	Reliance-bearing use must recover the assignment occurrence and its declared species rather than stop at a familiar label.
Simple assignments stay simple while commission-, position-, or locus-sensitive assignments preserve their real participants.	Each bounded vocabulary must admit the direct species and local system-role-kind domain it actually uses.
MethodDescription, WorkPlan, Work, result, and evidence can change independently. A MethodDescription can be revised without rewriting past Work; a holder can be replaced when the replacement satisfies the required classification, assignment, and capability-fit conditions.	A decision-relevant case may need several short direct claims instead of one overloaded record.
Responsibility, authority, permission, capability, assignment state, and result stay available without being inferred from assignment.	The receiving use must say which of those stronger relations it truly needs.
The chef analogy and ordinary first sentence make the distinction teachable.	Readers still need one concrete direct-species example so the analogy does not hide assignment identity.

For example, AuditorSystemRole can be the local kind used by an audit-assignment species. A particular assignment names its holder System, but this precise attribution still requires F.6 to relate ApprovalWork-17 to that same assignment and confirm holder equality with the A.13-qualified performer after A.15.1 independently admits the Work. Any decision authority, responsibility, gate effect, Method, capability fit, result, and evidence are separate claims. The kind name and assignment prove none of them.