A.6.P.WMR:5.1 - Inspection and machining: one ordinary result, one assurance replay
A source says, the inspection report is the result of inspection. First identify report episteme R-17 and ask what it is relative to. If exact inspection application P-17 actually returned R-17 under its declaration-local result predicate, write: Inspection application P-17 returned report R-17. If the current question is when exact Work first constituted the report, apply A.15.PROD. If neither relation is governed, return missing-governor naming R-17, the proposed application or Work participant, proposed predicate, affected use, and absent definition; name a future pattern or declaration need only when one is identifiable. Do not invent WorkResult.
Now a traveler says, raw stock WP-204 and cutting fluid CF-17 are inputs; the machined part and inspection report are outputs of machining. Exact machining Work W-204-MACHINE and continuing workpiece WP-204 are already identified. The ordinary result is:
Applying A.15.1 identifies W-204-MACHINE with affectedReferent WP-204.Cutting-fluid quantity CF-17 was consumed by W-204-MACHINE during I-204 under MachiningWorkConsumesResource.T-WP204-GEOMETRY is the bounded geometry change of continuing WP-204; W-204-MACHINE caused it under MachiningWorkCausesGeometryChange.
The workpiece remains WP-204, not a newly constituted output. A report binding or inception claim stays open until its own application or A.15.PROD basis is present. If the consumption fact fails, the proposed positive fluid claim is factually unsupported; if it is unavailable, return missing-information; if the relation governor is absent, return missing-governor and name the missing machining-resource predicate and its defining pattern or declaration.
A later measurement-result episteme R-204, diagnostic finding, evaluation verdict, or accepted-deliverable claim is a separately governed claim; delivery or physical transfer of continuing WP-204, and transfer or publication of R-204, are separate again. Shared chronology and one machining case entail none of them: each current claim needs its own direct governor and facts.
Author-side assurance replay — the one fully expanded relation-declaration fixture. Exact published relation-declaration episteme MFG-WORK-REL-2026 contains the defining ClaimGraph for these case-local predicates:
| RelationKind | Direct participants and extent | Obtaining condition and applicability |
|---|---|---|
MachiningWorkConsumesResource | exact consumed resource quantity, exact Work individual admitted under U.Work, and Γ_time | the quantity was actually consumed by that Work during the named extent; applicable only to Plant-7 machining Work |
MachiningWorkCausesGeometryChange | exact Work, independently A.3.4-grounded geometry transformation, and governed extent | that Work actually caused that transformation at the extent; applicable only to the named Plant-7 case |
Separately stipulated world-side facts say that CF-17 was consumed by W-204-MACHINE during I-204 and that this Work caused T-WP204-GEOMETRY. The declaration episteme, work and transformation identities, chronology, and assertion epistemes MFG-RU-CF17-W204 and MFG-WC-W204-TWP204 supply none of those facts. The formal replay therefore yields the same ordinary sentences and the same three failure reasons. This is assurance for the result above, not the entry price for reading it.