A.6.P:4.11a - Recover service/access claims through their concrete rules
Start with the decision, not a facet list. Ask what the reader must choose, do, accept, explain, restart, or stop. Then write one plain sentence naming the concrete subject or relation. If the source sentence carries several claims, write several plain sentences and name the pattern that defines or constrains each claim. The first useful result names each referent or relation, the claim needed for the current decision, and the next action. Add an exact C.2.1 assertion and ClaimGraph identity only when a named downstream use must carry or compare that claim independently.
Source-domain guard. Bare service has no default System reading. In ordinary business and physical-world talk it may name a dated occurrence of service provision, a reusable way of providing it, offered outcome or eligibility content, provider participation, or another direct claim. In software talk it may be metonymic wording for an exact process, deployed component, endpoint, application, host, or cluster. Name the referent before choosing Work, Method, U.PromiseContent, a local system-role kind, U.SystemRoleAssignment, U.System, or a direct relation. Never rewrite service automatically as server or as a System.
This table is a local recovery aid. Select the rows for the actual claims and stop when their direct results answer the receiving use.
| Current claim behind service/access wording | Plain action first | Concrete rule |
|---|---|---|
| What a consumer may rely on | State the promised outcome, eligibility, access description, and acceptance content that the present decision uses. | Use one U.PromiseContent episteme under A.2.3. Open a further subject, action, or result claim only through the row and predicate that govern it. |
| Provider or consumer participation | Name the participation meaning, admitted participant, and participation predicate needed now. If the same claim also needs a work-facing System classification, name its local system-role kind under A.2; if assignment identity matters, cite the assignment occurrence and its declared U.SystemRoleAssignment species. | Use the pattern that defines the participation relation. Add A.2 classification or A.2.1 assignment only when that separate identity matters. |
| Individual duty, recommendation-as-duty, or prohibition | State the actual bearer, direct commitment predicate, exact modality, referents, scope and time, constitutive rule, and required instituting basis. Test any responsibility claim separately through its direct domain predicate or return the exact missing governor. | Use one obtaining A.2.8 U.Commitment. |
| Offer, grant, approval, revocation, or another instituting communication | Name the actual communicative occurrence, acting system, participants, and relevant assignment. | Use A.2.9 U.SpeechAct; state any resulting grant, commitment, or delivery through its own relation. |
| Permission, non-prohibition, exercise, non-violation, or conflict | State which permission-side question is current and name the exact bearer or beneficiary, action specification, normative-frame edition, ClaimScope, qualification or validity window, and obtaining case facts that the result needs. | Use the exact A.2.8.PER result. |
| Exact software or physical bearer, access point, delivery entity, or proposed physical/operational arrangement | Name the process, component, endpoint, host, application, cluster, front desk, equipment, arrangement, or other exact referent and state the claim made about that entity. Preserve an arrangement proposed by the source; do not replace it with one convenient endpoint before evaluation. | Use A.1/A.1.SCR only when the repaired claim depends on whether that exact entity is a U.System. |
| Reusable way of requesting, connecting, repairing, providing, or delivering | State the reusable way of doing. | Use one U.Method under A.3.1; handle its description and any dated enactment in their own rows when those claims are current. |
| API, interface, access procedure, runbook, or other description | Name the claim-bearing description and what it describes. | Use C.2.1; use U.MethodDescription only after A.3.2’s same-individual membership test, and add publication or specification use only when current. |
| Intended delivery, connection, repair, or provisioning | State the intended Work and its intended fillings. | Use one U.WorkPlan under A.15.2; open the Work row when performed history becomes current. |
| Actual service provision, request handling, connection, provisioning, repair, or delivery | Recover each exact actual performer through A.13, then use A.15.1 to admit one dated occurrence and name its Method, extent, and containing System. Add F.6 only when this service account also consumes precise assignment-bound attribution; its absence or failure leaves the Work intact. | Use A.15.1 U.Work and only direct Work relations that obtain. |
| Capability to provide or sustain service or access | Name the holder, work or result, conditions and attained bounds; recover the support whose currentness matters. | Use the qualified holder-ability claim and separate fit comparison under A.2.2. |
| Ticket, case, log, measurement, evidence, or evaluation | State the particular claim carried or supported and the decision that relies on it. | Use C.2.1 for the episteme and only the measurement, evaluation-operation, result-binding, or A.10 evidence relations needed now. |
| Promise use, outcome delivery, fulfilment, or acceptance | State the exact relation claimed and its participants. | Use A.2.3 relations when their conditions hold, plus separately governed evaluation, result, delivery, or acceptance relations actually used. |
| Current status, connectivity, entitlement, delivery, acceptance, exposure, or another subject relation | Name the bearer and direct relation or characteristic asserted now. | Use A.19.SPR while the state wording remains unresolved; otherwise use the pattern that defines the asserted relation or characteristic, adding Work only for a dated performed occurrence. |
| No current direct relation states the needed claim | Preserve the participants, write the sentence the next task needs, and name the decision that cannot proceed. | Record the established A.6.RCD result missing-governor[...] and retain that exact unresolved sentence. |
Four language probes. Use these probes to select the current question and its relevant rows.
- “My service stopped.” Ask what stopped. Service-provision Work may have ceased; an exact deployed software or physical bearer may have stopped or become unavailable; or promised availability or fulfilment may have failed. The sentence alone selects none. State, Work, promise, evidence, and fulfilment remain separate. Use A.1.SCR only if the repaired bearer claim itself depends on systemhood.
- “Which services do we provide?” Name the offerings or promise contents being compared and any provider assignments that are current. Open performed Work or fulfilment only when the question needs those claims.
- “How is this service provided?” A reusable way of providing it selects a Method; a procedure or API text selects an episteme and perhaps MethodDescription; a dated provision selects Work. The wording alone selects none.
- “Restart the service.” Name the exact bearer to restart—for example, a process, deployed component, endpoint, host, application, or cluster—and the action’s governor.
Addressability is an aid, not a classification rule. If the sentence says call, visit, connect to, route to, restart, deploy, or scale, use it to ask which exact access point, delivery bearer, or other entity the claim concerns. Apply A.1 only when the repaired claim depends on systemhood. Actual Work still passes A.15.1, and every relation is tested against its defining predicate and obtaining condition. An endpoint may be an access point without being the whole delivery system.
Internet-access case. “We sell internet access” first becomes the commercial claim the reader needs: promise content, permission, provider or consumer participation, status, fulfilment, or another direct relation. For the promise reading, state the concrete claim—for example, Customer-18 may rely on PromiseContent-IA-18 for the named connectivity outcome and acceptance content—using the pattern that defines or constrains it. If actual participation matters, state the exact direct provider and consumer participation predicates. State local system-role classifications or assignments separately only when their own A.2/A.2.1 conditions hold. If the source instead proposes the physical or operational whole InternetAccessArrangement-CA17, preserve that exact entity beside ProviderGateway-2, HomeRouter-18, and the status claims; use A.1.SCR only when the decision depends on whether the arrangement itself is a System. Do not substitute one gateway or endpoint before that evaluation. Keep the connection Method and API or procedure description separate. ProvisionConnectionPlan-18 is intended Work; ConnectionEstablishmentWork-42 is one dated occurrence. A real grant uses A.2.8.PER and is not inferred from a credential. Connectivity status, measurement, evidence, evaluation, delivery, fulfilment, and acceptance each need their own claim. After these claims are recovered, use A.1.STM only when the live question is how one result contributes to use of a named project system-of-interest; otherwise stop after stating the direct claim.
Physical repair-shop case. For “The repair service is delayed,” select the subject from the blocked decision. If the blocked decision is where to leave the machine, name the front desk or intake point and test systemhood only if that decision needs it. If the decision is what physically performs the repair, name the workshop, equipment, or other exact bearer. If it is who is responsible, name the direct responsibility predicate, its actual participants, applicability, and occurrence identity or return the exact missing governor; a provider label, classification, or assignment is insufficient. What the customer was promised is promise content; an individual deadline duty is a separately obtaining commitment; how repair is done is a Method; the procedure card is a separate description; the repair that happened is dated Work. Fulfilment or acceptance requires its own relation.
No duplication boundary. A.6.P defines only this recovery move. The recovery table introduces no common service/access kind or record. When the named decision depends on systemhood, cite A.1.SCR for the exact bearer or arrangement assertion. When the next question asks how an already recovered result contributes to project use, cite A.1.STM. State every other subject assertion under its exact predicate or constraint.
The selected predicate, its obtaining rule, and the current facts determine the result.