Table of Contents
- Readme
- Control Architecture Design Architectural Reference
- CAD.Reference:1 - What the language helps obtain
- CAD.Reference:2 - The objects and independently useful contributions
- CAD.Reference:3 - Information, tracking and execution must describe the same loop
- CAD.Reference:4 - The layered planning-and-feedback branch
- CAD.Reference:4.1 - The recurring whole problem
- CAD.Reference:4.2 - Why these four contributions belong together
- CAD.Reference:4.3 - Connect dynamics, decisions and computation by their actual quantities
- CAD.Reference:4.4 - Reuse the external foundations without losing the subject transition
- CAD.Reference:4.5 - Several legitimate entries and their returns
- CAD.Reference:4.6 - Worked joint revision
- CAD.Reference:4.7 - Recognition, assurance and the cost of the arrangement
- CAD.Reference:4.8 - Source boundaries, bias and future change
- CAD.Reference:5 - What is covered and what must be supplied
- CAD.Reference:6 - Why one language, with independent uses
- CAD.Reference:7 - Sources, external suppliers and consequential change
- CAD.Reference:8 - Names and continuing references
A. Choose the information available to control
| § | ID & Title | Status | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A.1 | CAD.5 - Choose Observations and Internal State for Control | Stable | Delayed observation; partial sensing; action history; information state; set estimation. “Which sensors and memory let this controller act within its limits?” “Can any action work with these observations?” | Uses A.3.3.PI and C.32.LCA; the main use is self-contained. CAD.2–CAD.4 are conditional receivers of :4.7. |
B. Design a planning-and-feedback architecture
| § | ID & Title | Status | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B.1 | CAD.1 - Derive a Control Decomposition from the Whole Problem | Stable | Control decomposition; information; horizon; computational burden. “Should these decisions be separated?” | Uses C.39 and MMP.9; CAD.2 develops the selected exchange; CAD.4 compares whole candidates. |
| B.2 | CAD.2 - Construct the Planning and Feedback Interface | Stable | Reference meaning; state reconstruction; sample-and-hold; reset; tracking dynamics. “What does the lower loop actually receive?” | Uses the selected decomposition and MMP.18; CAD.5:4.7 supplies the estimate-based branch. |
| B.3 | CAD.3 - Construct a Jointly Admissible Command Domain | Stable | Invariant error; input reserve; constraint tightening; continuation. “Which commands can remain feasible?” | Uses CAD.2’s connected dynamics; CAD.5:4.7 when state is estimated; returns to CAD.1 or CAD.2 on incompatibility. |
| B.4 | CAD.4 - Co-design and Realize the Whole Control Architecture | Stable | Model order; gains; rates; deadlines; whole-candidate comparison. “Which feasible arrangement should be realized?” | Receives applicable CAD.1–CAD.3 and CAD.5 results; uses MMP.22; supplies the broader SYSE.6 decision. |