C.22.PFR:5 - Archetypal Grounding

Executable first use — an assignment that violates a release criterion. InspectionReleaseAssignment is a declared U.SystemRoleAssignment species defined under A.2.1. It defines the holder and assigned-kind participant meanings, assignment predicate, applicability, and occurrence identity. Occurrence InspectionAssignment-17 has admitted System Robot-7 as holder and local kind InspectorSystemRole as assigned-kind value. It obtains without interruption during [2026-07-13T09:00, 2026-07-13T17:00]. MaintenanceRoles-2026, Maintenance-Scheme-A, and the interval description may interpret or describe the assertion; they are not extra world-side participants. A roster row and InspectionAssignmentAssertion-17 may describe the assignment and interval; neither makes the relation obtain.

A.2.1 identifies InspectionAssignment-17 through the complete real participant set and the maximal uninterrupted period in which the direct species predicate obtains. Demonstrated non-assignment after the stated 17:00 boundary ends it. If the same participant set again satisfies the predicate on the next day after that actual gap, InspectionAssignment-18 is a later occurrence; an evidence gap by itself neither ends nor splits the first occurrence. The subject pattern therefore supplies the participant meanings, obtaining rule, temporal extent, recurrence, and same-versus-new-occurrence rule required of ActualConditionRelationSlot.

The by-value predicate NoInspectorSystemRoleBeforeValidation-v2 uses one direct ConditionToPredicateInputRule: from InspectionAssignment-17 it reads the assigned-kind participant as coordinate assignedSystemRoleKind = InspectorSystemRole on a nominal system-role-kind scale and the holder participant as the direct link to problem-for entity Robot-7. Its adverse region is the declared set of system-role kinds prohibited for that System’s autonomous-inspection release before validation, which contains InspectorSystemRole. The same kind assigned to another System is the nearest inadmissible input because its holder participant does not link the condition to Robot-7; a roster row is inadmissible because it is not the obtaining assignment occurrence.

Robot7ReleaseCriterionApplicability-4 is the separate applicability occurrence. Its four participants are that predicate, Robot-7, autonomous inspection release before validation as the exact U.ClaimScope, and declared window [2026-07-13T08:30, 2026-07-15T18:00]. Because both participant relations obtain and the selected point is adverse, PFR-InspectionAssignment-17 obtains on [2026-07-13T09:00, 2026-07-13T17:00]. The ordinary first-use sentence is:

Robot-7 is assigned as inspector through InspectionAssignment-17, while InspectorSystemRole is prohibited for this System’s autonomous-inspection release before validation during the declared 13–15 July window. This assignment is an actual Problem for Robot-7’s release during its 13 July 09:00–17:00 assignment episode.

Evaluation and reliance remain separate. Admitted SafetyReviewSystem-2 : U.System performs dated InspectionReleaseCheckWork-21 under independently obtaining SafetyReviewAssignment-9 : SafetyReviewWorkAssignment <: U.SystemRoleAssignment; F.6 uses the assignment’s holder projection, and the Work enacts InspectionReleaseCheckMethod-3. The operation application returns true for the adverse predicate. InspectionReleaseCheckAssertion-21 states that result; its evidence path and assurance tuple can warrant one release decision, G.11 can qualify the assertion edition, and the release decision-maker can rely on the assertion or decline that reliance. None is a third PFR participant. A ProblemCard may later designate PFR-InspectionAssignment-17; creating, revising, splitting, or publishing that card changes neither PFR participant nor actuality. If evaluation never occurs, the PFR still obtains. If the assertion is stale, the basis for that reliance may become unresolved, but the world-side relation is not thereby created, ended, or split.

Actuality and recurrence. Selecting another staffing Method and writing a Work order do not end the PFR. Only actual cessation of the A.2.1 assignment predicate at the stated 17:00 boundary ends it. When the same direct species predicate resumes on the next day as InspectionAssignment-18 while the applicability occurrence still obtains, A.2.1 identifies that later system-role-assignment occurrence and its later adverse inception grounds PFR-InspectionAssignment-18. An evidence gap alone establishes neither continuous assignment nor withdrawal and reassignment.

Blocked stress fixture — installed component. Fuse-R17 : U.System and Panel-7 : U.System may be named in a parts claim, but current A.14 supplies no installed-part relation kind, installed-part participant meanings, obtaining predicate, temporal extent, recurrence, or same-versus-new-occurrence rule. Under A.6.REL:5.2, ComponentOf-FuseR17-Panel7 is therefore not minted as an individuated installed-part occurrence here. A parts list, inspection note, removal report, or reinstallation wording cannot fill ActualConditionRelationSlot; the fuse case remains non-conforming until an accepted direct installed-part pattern supplies the complete settlement.

Blocked stress fixture — battery voltage. Current A.18 and C.16 can govern the voltage characteristic, scale, measurement work, result, uncertainty, and assertion. They do not supply a direct voltage-state relation with participant meanings, obtaining, temporal extent, recurrence, and occurrence identity. Therefore TerminalVoltageState-12 is not minted here, and the low-voltage case remains non-conforming until an A.6.RCD decision selects or assigns that direct governor. MeterReport-88, an alarm, or a maintenance card may support a claim but cannot fill ActualConditionRelationSlot or backdate PFR.

Blocked stress fixture — proof gap. Current proof and assurance patterns define or constrain proof epistemes, obligations, evidence, and relying decisions, but this case lacks direct patterns supplying both (a) an individuable unresolved-consequence relation with its obtaining and episode law and (b) the exact proof-use or acceptance object and applicability relation needed by the case. Keep the condition gate and problem-for/applicability gate separate. UnresolvedConsequence-17, ProofUseEntity, and an omnibus proof-gap object are not admitted by this wording; the case remains non-conforming until both direct governors close.

Blocked stress fixture — clinical condition. A diagnosis, assessment, measurement report, and patient label are epistemes or context-dependent cues, not the clinical-condition occurrence or patient identity. This case lacks a clinical-condition pattern supplying the needed participants, obtaining, recurrence, identity, and temporal extent. Until one does, keep the case non-conforming. If patient also names a work-facing classification, recover the classified System and local system-role kind. If an assignment is claimed, recover its holder System, assigned kind, occurrence, and declared U.SystemRoleAssignment species; none supplies the missing clinical-condition relation.

Blocked stress fixture — missed transfer. First distinguish transfer Work, a world-side transfer or delivery relation, a commitment or acceptance relation, and a package or record episteme. E.18’s structural U.Transfer cannot be reused merely by the phrase hand-off failure. This case lacks a direct pattern supplying the exact missed-transfer condition relation, and the phrase receiving work does not decide whether the problem-for entity is intended U.WorkPlan, dated U.Work, or another governed entity. The case therefore remains non-conforming until separate direct governors settle both questions.

Blocked stress fixture — one hot surface, two uses. This case lacks a direct pattern supplying an individuated hot-surface condition relation; a temperature reading cannot substitute for it. If such a governor later exists, hold its one occurrence fixed and use two distinct applicability occurrences when an exact receiving U.Work and an exact U.System have different problem-for fillers, scopes, declared windows, or applicability continuity. Adverse truth would then yield two PFR occurrences sharing only the condition reference. Until the condition gate closes, this remains a multiplicity test, not an asserted example.

Repair branch replay. Keep four outcomes distinct: a repair method is selected; repair work is planned; dated repair work occurs without a demonstrated condition change; or dated repair work is connected through its direct change/result governors to actual cessation or non-adversity of the condition. Only the fourth outcome can end PFR while applicability continues. A work record, result claim, acceptance verdict, or method label is insufficient.