C.30.AD.BA:3.2 - Bridge inspection twin

A bridge operator combines an as-maintained geometry model, structural-member view, inspection history, strain telemetry, and a simulation view. The bridge remains the built asset across model editions. The structural-member and sensor-placement structures are selected explicitly; each description keeps exact C.2.1 identity and each claimed view exact E.17.0 conformance. Inspection and telemetry claims retain their evidence, grounding, source-use, and currentness relations. A revised simulation model retains the same C.2.1 episteme identity when its claim content, EntityOfConcern, and effective reference scheme are unchanged. Otherwise identify another episteme; assert an EpistemeEditionRelation only when its historical-continuation predicate obtains. Assess any declared lineage or continuity claims separately for the intended reuse.

When the operator compares an original design description with the as-maintained geometry, inspection history, and live telemetry, designRunSeparationUse cites the exact design-side description and design Work, the exact run-side descriptions and inspection or maintenance Work, their source-to-use and currentness refs, and any separately governed design-to-realization correspondence. actualTransformationRefs remains absent unless an exact repair or other physical change satisfies A.3.4. The architecture description can therefore support a decision to inspect or redesign a connection while retaining the route back to the geometry publication, measurement descriptions, and selected structures. It cannot treat a successful data-exchange check, recent sensor sample, simulation result, polished dashboard, or local design/run classification as proof that the bridge architecture is adequate or that design and realized objects are identical.