OCE.6:11.2 - Source Contributions and Boundaries
| Source line | Retained contribution | Use boundary |
|---|---|---|
Current FPF A.2.1, A.2.2, A.6.REL, A.13, A.15.1, F.6, and A.10 | Direct assignment species, holder capability, relation obtaining, performer, Work, assignment-bound attribution, and evidence remain separate. | Obtain responsibility, authority, resource, and access predicates from their owning domains; select a coordination Method for the organization’s contribution. |
| Joseph and Sengul, current organization-design review | Configuration, control, channelization, and coordination expose different organization-design features and consequences. | Use these design features to find the local assignments and enabling relations that need current evidence. |
| Grote et al., contribution-based engineering role modeling | Required contributions and stakeholder evidence can expose candidate holder/role bundles and gaps. | Use the bundles as candidate input; establish assignments and positions, recover authority, and assess capability separately. |
| Fraccaroli, Zaniboni, and Truxillo, work-design review | Technology, algorithmic management, diverse work arrangements, and affected-person outcomes change holder and enabling conditions. | Recover assignment identity and authority and access predicates from the applicable local rules. |
| Waterson et al., function allocation for responsible AI | Allocation should expose interdependence, joint operation, decision points, responsibility points, outcomes, authority, and dynamic trust. | The evidence comes from an early framework and small experiments. Test its fit for the local human–AI arrangement; qualify responsibility allocation and authority transfer under their own rules. |
Reopen when a recurring assignment species or enabling relation lacks an applicable definition, when a stronger direct source changes the holder/enabling action, or when actual use shows that the partial-result states cannot guide Work entry.