ADM.6:5 - Archetypal Grounding

ADM.6:5.1 - A valid read grant and a failed identity route

A visiting researcher has an effective appointment and a valid archive read grant for 2 October. The supplied access policy additionally requires an accepted identity result for the person using the service. The portal’s device credential succeeds, but its identity service cannot complete the required person check.

The handler establishes three facts: the grant is valid, the requested use is within it, and the person-check result is unavailable. The device result cannot answer the missing person question. The handler has no authority to remove that requirement.

The supplied support instruction permits the identity support officer to perform a qualified attended check through a protected channel. The handler sends that officer the specific failed attempt and needed identity question. This is a resolution request; the researcher does not yet have usable archive access.

The officer performs the prescribed check and returns an accepted result for this person and attempt. The archive provider then completes the authorized access setup. The researcher successfully opens the permitted archive material, supplying evidence of usable provision through ADM.9. These are three distinct results: the check, its use in handling, and access that actually works.

If the attended route is unavailable too, the handler reports the unavailable check and the existing support or challenge route. The valid grant is preserved; it does not supply missing identity evidence. A different service that does not depend on that check may proceed under its own conditions.

ADM.6:5.2 - A settled negative and a genuine alternative basis

A request for 25 September cites only an appointment effective on 1 October. The service rule requires an effective appointment at use and prescribes a response explaining the failed condition. ADM.3 supplies the negative temporal result; the handler issues that response. No further eligibility decision is needed for the supplied appointment.

The requester then identifies a different appointment said to begin on 1 September, but the relevant decision and scope are unavailable. The new question goes to its issuing office: does that appointment cover this person, work and requested date? If an adequate existing decision is recovered, use it. If it is not recovered, preserve the gap. The later descriptive record of a valid September appointment would not itself make that appointment begin later.