Professional and technical sources
| Source | Contribution used here | Applicable limit |
|---|---|---|
| GFMAM Asset Management Landscape, third edition, June 2024 | Professional asset-management concerns, particularly value-oriented decisions, investment, lifecycle work and configuration. | A professional landscape does not validate this repertoire’s effectiveness or prescribe its pattern boundaries. |
| IAM, Asset Management — an Anatomy, version 4, July 2024 | Proportionate appraisal of costs, risk, benefits and time; §7.5.6 supplies the service-loss and recovery comparison used in EAM.6. | EAM develops its own dependency and interval construction; the source does not qualify the case equipment or its recovery times. |
| ISO/TC 251 public ISO 55001 account and ISO 55000:2024 — Asset management — Vocabulary, overview and principles, catalogue entry | The ISO/TC 251 account provides management-system context; the separate ISO 55000 entry identifies its vocabulary, overview and principles publication. | Public descriptions and catalogue metadata only; this is not a clause-by-clause application or a conformity or certification claim. |
| NIST Handbook 135e2025, Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program, chapters 4, 7 and 8 | Dated initial, recurring, replacement and ending consequences on a common period; competing alternatives and programme selection; sensitivity/break-even reasoning. | Federal rates, legal eligibility and financing rules do not govern the fictional utility. Its 3% real rate and values are constructed inputs. |
| Water resources planning guideline, updated 16 June 2026, sections 6.1 and 6.4.1–6.4.3 | EAM.4 develops component reconciliation, driver changes and critical-period scenarios, with an unchanged-policy baseline distinguished from proposed measures. | The small construction and examples are EAM adaptations; specialist estimation, jurisdictional duties and the source’s planning horizon retain their own conditions. |
| NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook, section 8.4.2.3 | EAM.5’s degradation-model comparator and its assumptions. | An established statistical method, not a pump-specific diagnosis, threshold or life qualification. |
| US EPA, EPANET 2.2, hydraulic modeling capabilities | EAM.6 compares a sufficient capacity/duration bound with extended-period hydraulic analysis. | The software’s capabilities supply no model or verified hydraulic result for CityWater. |
| Magenta Book, updated 15 May 2026, chapter 2 impact-evaluation approach comparison | EAM.13 distinguishes a sufficient plan update from an inquiry into attributable effects. | Method and evidence comparator; no actual outcome or government evaluation obligation is asserted for CityWater. |
These sources have different jobs. Professional coverage supports recognition of the problem; a technical Method supports a specific operation; actual observations and specialist judgements support a case result. The constructed applications are original teaching examples and are labelled as such. No single source is treated as the authority for all these claims.