A.3:8 - Consequences

Benefits

• Explainability by construction. A conforming assertion about performed Work designates the world-side occurrence, each performer System’s A.13 basis, enacted Method, and any obtaining F.6 attribution or neighboring description, capability, work-to-change, evidence, or aggregation claim on which the current use relies; actual-change identity remains separately inspectable under A.3.4.
• Keep system parts distinct from method and edition claims. A Method, local system-role kind, or description does not become a part of a System by describing its operation; edition succession is also distinct from a part-whole relation. Actual Method-to-Method parts remain governed by A.3.1 and B.1.5.
• Composable analytics without hidden ownership. Exact Work intervals and performed resource-use facts can feed separately recovered B.1.4 or B.1.6 aggregations; the selected policy, evidence, and result remain inspectable at that direct owner.
• Local plurality without whole-context bridges. Exact role taxonomies, ReferenceSchemes, compatibility rules, and use-specific mappings let local practices differ without treating a shared label or one bridge as wholesale equivalence.

Trade‑offs

• More explicit separation when reliance needs it. Start with the smallest grounded performer-assignment, Method, and Work claims; add MethodDescription, capability, policy, plan, change, evidence, and aggregation relations only when a named use depends on them.
• Discipline for reflexive work. Modellers must ground distinct acting and changed positions before using a controller–plant or other reflexive split; this adds only the relation claims the use needs and avoids both self-magic and arbitrary decomposition.