B.3.4:4.3 - Treat epistemic debt as an optional planning indicator

A team may call its outstanding evidence-review or maintenance obligations epistemic debt (ED). If it needs a number, define the counted entities, dependency treatment, scale and unit, policy purpose, and meaning of the action threshold. An epistemic_debt_budget is then a named planning-policy limit, not a universal allowance of harm.

For example, a team may count distinct overdue review obligations to plan assessor capacity. Ten duplicate paths to one obligation do not create ten obligations. Separate obligations consuming the same source may still require different judgements for different uses.

Elapsed days can contribute to a justified priority rule or deterioration model. B.3.4 supplies no default rate, sum or automatic level downgrade. A planning count is not a probability of failure, and zero overdue reviews does not establish an adequate assurance case.