C.32.LCA:4.4 - Derive a division of decisions from the whole dependence

Start with a feasible incumbent or a whole-problem account, not a fixed number of layers. Ask which decisions need which observations, available actions, resources and time. Group decisions when their strong interaction makes separate choice costly or unreliable. Separate them when different information or response demands make one undivided computation or authorization path impractical.

For every proposed separation, recover the dependence it removes from local consideration. Suppose two devices share a power supply limited to 10 kW. Each local plan can meet its device’s 8 kW demand while their simultaneous demands total 16 kW. Giving both plans a copy of the resource limit does not preserve the joint constraint. Where the work permits different allocations or times, possible constructions include a shared allocation decision, fixed compatible reservations, a request-and-grant interaction, or staggered work. They have different waiting, utilization and change costs. If both devices must draw 8 kW simultaneously, no allocation fits the 10 kW supply; change the available supply, the demand or the simultaneity requirement.

The same question applies to planning and tracking. A planner that ignores actuator effort or response delay can select references that its tracker cannot realize. The joining contribution must restrict the references, supply a feasible trajectory, change the tracking arrangement, or revise the demand. Merely adding a feedback arrow leaves that work undone.

Recover functional contributions before assigning their bearers. Estimating state, choosing among goals, constructing a trajectory or work plan, correcting a deviation and handling an exception can each contribute without requiring a separate module, department or person. State the effect each must obtain, the inputs and initial conditions it needs, and the conditions it must preserve. Then associate it with a possible System or participant and the means through which that effect could be obtained. One bearer can carry several contributions; several bearers can cooperate in one contribution. Keep existence, capability, access and proposed allocation as separate claims.

Construct the cooperation in both directions. Work back from the required intervention to the decision, information and means that make it possible. Follow each missing intermediate result to a possible producer. Then follow a consequential demand forward from the available observations and initial conditions: what changes, what becomes usable next, and how those changes obtain the receiving effect. Explain where contributions must coincide, wait or retain a result between updates. A state estimate that expires before authorization, or a command whose execution has no available bearer, defeats that candidate even if every named function is sensible.

C.32.MWA.PP:4.3–4.7 supplies the general construction across Method, Work, performer, means and allocation structures, including their joint demands. Use that account where the proposed division leaves performance or support unresolved. Here the additional connection is control-specific: explain how the joined contributions turn an observation into a permitted influence on the subject, and how the resulting observation can change the next decision. Change the division or its possible realization when that connection fails; preserve already adequate contributions.

For each candidate, explain how a local result becomes usable by the next participant and how a consequential limitation returns. The result is a candidate arrangement with an operating mechanism, not a collection of independently desirable boxes.