F.6:7 - Archetypal Grounding

F.6:7.1 - Robot Inspection

MaintenanceInspectionAssignment is a declared species under U.SystemRoleAssignment. Its participants include a HolderSystemSlot for the assigned System and a local AssignedSystemRoleKindSlot whose value is an InspectorSystemRole. Its rule applies within the Plant A maintenance scheme and says that the fixed holder is assigned under that kind to supply the inspection contribution; one occurrence is the maximal uninterrupted interval for which that rule stays true for the same participants.

InspectionAssignment-17 : MaintenanceInspectionAssignment
  HolderSystemSlot: Robot-7
  AssignedSystemRoleKindSlot: InspectorSystemRole
  predicateTrueInterval: [2026-07-13T09:00, 2026-07-13T17:00]

InspectionWork-17 was performed under InspectionAssignment-17.

The case basis directly links that Work to that assignment; the matching holder and interval only confirm necessary conditions. Robot-7 is the actor. Separately, the inspection Work enacts TurbineInspection@Maintenance-2026 as its Method. InspectorSystemRole, a sensor capability, algorithm-possession wording, the Method, and TurbineInspectionProcedure-v3 do not perform the inspection. Use A.3.2 to decide whether that last episteme is a MethodDescription. Calibration state, Method adequacy, report quality, and acceptance remain separate.

F.6:7.2 - Two Review Commissions

ProjectReviewAppointmentAssignment is a declared species. It declares three participant positions: HolderSystemSlot, local assigned kind, and ReviewCommissionSlot. ReviewAssignment-A and ReviewAssignment-B are two occurrences with Alice and ReviewerSystemRole in common but different commissions, and both cover the same interval. The case says that Alice performed ReviewWork-A under assignment A and ReviewWork-B under assignment B; it does not establish either crossed pairing. If the facts say only that Alice performed review Work while both appointments covered the interval, leave the attribution unresolved. The readable projection “Alice is reviewer” selects neither assignment and creates no generic assignment.

F.6:7.3 - Reviewer and Review Report

CommissionReviewAssignment is a declared species. It declares three participant positions: holder, local reviewer kind, and commission. Its rule applies to admitted review commissions and says that the fixed holder is appointed under the identified commission to supply the review contribution; one occurrence is the maximal uninterrupted interval for which that rule stays true. ReviewAssignment-82 is its occurrence for Alice and Commission-82, and it covers ReviewWork-82. The case identifies this as the assignment under which Alice performed that Work. ReviewReport-82 is a separate U.Episteme; it may state the attribution, and evidence may support reliance on that statement, but neither creates the Work–assignment fact. Use A.15.PROD only for a current report-inception claim. The report is neither the performer nor the attribution.

F.6:7.4 - Standard Used during Safety Work

A safety MethodDescription cites a standard, and source prose says that the standard has a “normative role”. Do not create an assignment for the standard. The standard remains an episteme in the external-rule, source-use, specification-use, or evidence relation selected by the claim.

A safety engineer or tool System can separately hold a covering safety-analysis assignment and perform dated safety Work. Attribution names the assignment occurrence and the case fact linking it to the Work; it does not use the standard as performer.

F.6:7.5 - Access Label and Approval Work

An access directory says Alice has DB-Admin. That entry describes an access or policy relation under its own scheme; it is not automatically an ApproverSystemRole assignment.

ApprovalCommissionAssignment is a declared species. It declares three participant positions: holder, local approver kind, and ApprovalScopeSlot. Its rule applies to admitted release scopes and says that the fixed holder is commissioned to supply approval within the identified scope; one occurrence is the maximal uninterrupted interval for which that rule stays true. ApprovalAssignment-481 is its occurrence for Alice and the current release scope. If it covers ApprovalWork-481 and the case identifies it as the assignment under which Alice performed that Work, the attribution is grounded. The directory entry may support a separate authorization claim but cannot substitute for the assignment or its link to the Work.

F.6:7.6 - Distributed Performers and Child Work

A.13 first recovers ReviewTeam-9 and Alice as the two exact actual performers through TeamReviewAssignment-9 and MemberReviewAssignment-A9, and A.15.1 independently admits JointReviewWork-9. Because this example expressly represents assignment-bound attribution for each performer, F.6 afterward establishes one relation for each Work-assignment pair through those same assignments. Neither assignment identifies or stands for the other performer. If AliceFindingCheckWork-9 is separately admitted as child Work after its own A.13/A.15.1 basis passes, add its covering assignment and F.6 link only because this example also expressly attributes that child Work, and keep its Work-part relation to JointReviewWork-9 separate.

F.6:7.7 - Passive Test Article

TestArticle-7, admitted as a U.System, holds TestSubjectAssignment-7 throughout ValidationWork-7. ValidationRig-2, also admitted as a U.System, actually performs the Work under its own ValidationPerformerAssignment-7; only that Work-attribution link is established. The test article’s assignment and presence during the interval do not make it a performer. If the project needs to say that the article participated passively in the validation, use the domain rule that defines that participation; while no such rule is current, return the A.6.RCD missing-governor result rather than treating the assignment as participation.