C.32.MWA.PP:4.3 - Keep the necessary structures distinct and connect their claims
Select only the structures that can change this design. A compact cross-reference is often enough. C.30.ASV:4.5a supplies the Method questions; C.32.MWA:4.1 relates them to separate performance, support and cultural accounts.
| Question | What is being related | What must not be inferred from that relation |
|---|---|---|
| What constitutes the Method, or may substitute for a constituent? | Identified Methods, composition, admitted alternatives and receiving conditions. | A chapter, task assignment or team is not thereby a Method part. |
| What changes and which result can be used elsewhere? | The governed subject, transformation conditions and qualified connections among the supplied flow accounts. | A drawn arrow does not establish an actual transformation, handover or permission. |
| What work must occur, repeat or overlap? | Intended Work and later actual occurrences, their results, timing and relevant constituent work. | Method order does not determine every work schedule; a plan is not performed Work. |
| Who or what can perform it under these conditions? | Capability holders, relevant evidence, tools, supports and provider contributions. | A role title, tool installation or successful heavily assisted attempt does not supply the claimed capability. |
| Which organizational relations make the contribution obtainable? | Parts of actual Systems where established; assignments, interfaces, access, obligations and decision authority. | Working for the same employer is not the same as sharing a Method or having compatible authority. |
| Which resources and costs interact? | Qualified time, shared means, money, attention, information access and the periods in which they are needed. | A total budget or aggregate headcount does not establish simultaneous availability. |
| How does the practice continue among carriers? | Participation, learning, example, recognition, transmission, variation, selection, rejection and loss. | Deliberate intervention does not control or prove every cultural process. |
An individual can hold several compatible assignments. Several Systems can jointly obtain a result. A specialist can serve several organizational units. A Method can be used by several independent performers. Keep these actual relations visible rather than forcing one exclusive-parent tree.
For each important connection, make the local claim explicit: this available or proposed holder can supply this contribution, using these means, in this window, under this permission, and the named receiver can use it under these conditions. Keep obtaining, proposed, contradicted and unresolved relation claims distinct. State the evidence, including whether it comes from observation or a qualified provider, and the receiving use it supports. A table is useful when it makes this comparison easier; it is not a substitute for the explanation.
An actual transformation claim needs the subject, boundaries, before/during/after basis and continuity conditions required by A.3.4. An actual Work claim needs its real performer and occurrence. The current synthesis can remain a useful possible-future arrangement without pretending to supply either.
Retain description relations as well. A WorkPlan’s intended dates, a reusable MethodDescription and a case account can concern connected but different subjects. Record the needed schema correspondences, version relations and losses rather than treating their similar layout as identity.
At a revealing moment, explain what larger work, if any, is being performed through the selected action and how that whole constrains it. The same action can perform constituent Work while evaluation or adaptation is under way; separate product or support Work can merely overlap it. Use B.1.5.EW when this relation is unclear. Keep genuine first–then guards alongside simultaneous contribution. Section :5.2 shows why an answer-bearing prompt can be appropriate for supported execution but defeat a test of independent recovery of the rule.