F.16:8.0 - A complete constructed availability case

Question and gain. Does the supplied June observation support the service promise’s 99.9% availability threshold? The example separates the measurement and acceptance result from a runbook’s approval.

Inputs and direct rules. This is a constructed case, not a report of observed service performance. Take as independently admitted inputs the service-delivery Work Delivery-June and evaluation Work Evaluation-July-1, with their performers’ A.13 cores and A.15.1 admissions already established. The exact A.2.3 promise clause Availability-June concerns the delivery Work’s outcome. Its acceptance specification uses all 43,200 minutes in the 30-day June window, no exclusions, and the rule availability = availableMinutes / 43200; Met means at least 0.999 and NotMet means less. These two values are the declared result scale.

Observation and basis. The supplied C.16 observation Availability-Trace-June directly concerns the promised available/unavailable characteristic of Delivery-June. Under its stipulated complete-coverage measurement basis, exactly the first 40 minutes are unavailable and the remaining 43,160 minutes are available. The observation’s subject, characteristic, window, unit and complete coverage are premises of this case; an alarm log without that measurement basis could not replace it. No distinct indicator relation or F.9 correspondence is needed.

Application and result. During Evaluation-July-1, the declared evaluation Method uses the exact A.6.1 application Availability-Application-June with availableMinutes=43160, totalMinutes=43200 and threshold=0.999. It returns 43160/43200 = 0.999074074... and binds Met as the acceptance result. If a separately recovered F.10 rule maps Met to RequirementStatus=Satisfied for this clause and window, that status can be reported; the application result alone is already the worked conclusion.

Evidence and bounded use. The descriptive A.10 account cites the exact observation-subject/measurement basis, promise-outcome fit, evaluation application and result-binding facts. Those independently established premises supply the evidence demanded by this acceptance rule, so pass is limited to explaining this June result. There is no separately named assurance claim, future-availability conclusion or permission claim.

Replay and boundary. The available and unavailable minutes sum to 43,200; 40 unavailable minutes is below the permitted 43.2; and the computed ratio exceeds 0.999. With 50 unavailable minutes the same rule would return NotMet. If complete coverage were missing, this worked evidence basis would not support either conclusion; return the rule’s missing-evidence question instead of inventing coverage or a pass.