A.2.2:7 - Reconsider the Claim, Its Support or Its Fit
Reopen the value whose governing conditions changed. A different holder changes the subject. Configuration, calibration, wear, staffing, training or environment may change actual ability; evidence and qualification affect warranted reliance; the receiving demand affects fit. Assignment state and authority can separately defeat Work admission while ability remains.
The following constructed cases keep those changes apart:
| Change | Result |
|---|---|
| A new test supports the same measured performance under the same conditions. | Support changes; no changed ability is inferred. |
| A holder has supported throughput 10 units/min; demand rises from 8 to 12 under the same conditions. | The earlier demand fits that bound and the later demand does not. The holder’s ability claim is unchanged. |
| Recalibration or configuration changes what precision the holder can attain while its old report remains. | Actual ability may change; reassess the predicate and the report’s applicability. Unchanged paperwork does not fix the truth. |
| A fault makes the named ability predicate false at t1; repair restores it at t2. | State loss and recovery for the same holder under those times and conditions. No capability-individual continuity decision is needed. |
| RobotArm_A is replaced by RobotArm_B. | The assertion has a different subject; support for A does not automatically establish B’s ability. |
A qualification window expiring may require new support or narrower reliance. An input outside the declared WorkScope defeats this fit basis. A changed Method can change the required bounds without changing the holder. A development intervention may be performed while its target remains unmet; a later successful comparison alone does not establish which intervention caused improvement. Use E.23.CDI and E.23.CAE for those development and attribution questions.