SYSE.24:5 - Worked Cases

SYSE.24:5.1 - Climate control for a new greenhouse configuration

Small equipment company GreenHeat-4 needs a climate-control System for greenhouse GH-2. Until identity inception, GreenhouseClimateControl-GH2 remains the designator for the intended System in the WorkPlan and descriptions. The receiving use is control of heating, ventilation, misting, and shading during cold-night, rapid- solar-rise, and failed-humidity-sensor conditions. Acceptance requires bounded temperature and humidity performance, no unsafe actuator command after the sensor failure, identified software and controller configuration, recoverable observations, and a supported fallback to manual operation. GreenHeat-4’s authorized management team may choose the obtaining arrangement within its approved equipment budget; electrical-safety acceptance remains with the named specialist authority.

GreenHeat-4’s engineering team develops four complete arrangements:

Arrangement	Agents, Work, Methods, and means	Integration, assurance, support, capability, and exit
Ready controller plus integrator	The controller vendor’s engineering team supplies a configured controller; the integration company’s team performs sensor, actuator, network, and commissioning Work; `GreenHeat-4`’s engineering team maintains greenhouse requirements and accepts the result.	The controller supports the existing field interface, but the greenhouse-specific failure behaviour and configuration export remain unsupported. Vendor support is available for three years; control logic cannot be maintained without vendor access.
Commissioned custom controller	The engineering provider’s team designs and integrates a custom controller using its named engineering Method and supplies source, configuration, test evidence, and support.	The arrangement gives change access and an escrow proposal, but the provider has not shown representative sensor-failure evidence and cannot meet the required commissioning date without narrowing the first configuration.
Internal development with AI assistance	`GreenHeat-4`’s controls engineers lead development; a general AI Agent assists with code and test generation; an independent controls specialist reviews the safety-relevant behaviour.	The company can retain knowledge and change the result quickly, but it lacks a qualified hardware-in-the-loop environment and evidence that the team can complete assurance before commissioning. The receiving team uses its checks of the AI-produced code and tests as evidence for capability and acceptance claims.
Ready controller plus internal supervisory layer	The vendor controller retains safety interlocks and local fallback; `GreenHeat-4`’s controls team develops a supervisory optimization layer through a documented interface.	This preserves a supported safety boundary and gives the company control over greenhouse-specific optimization. The arrangement still depends on the controller interface, configuration export, and vendor update policy; failure of that interface defeats the option.

The parity basis includes the same three operating conditions, commissioning date, interface set, configuration evidence, assurance burden, data access, support horizon, internal capability consequence, expected change latency, and exit condition for all four arrangements. The internal-only and commissioned-custom arrangements do not survive the commissioning-date condition. The ready-controller and hybrid arrangements form a tie-set.

The two survivors have different burdens. The ready-controller arrangement is estimated at EUR 84,000, nine weeks, and eighteen days of GreenHeat-4 engineering Work; later greenhouse-specific changes require a vendor release expected to take four to six weeks. The hybrid arrangement is estimated at EUR 96,000, eleven weeks, and thirty-two days of internal engineering Work; if the supervisory interface remains supported, the controls team can make a greenhouse-specific change within five working days. The operating plan expects at least three such changes during the next three years.

The management team is authorized to commit up to EUR 7,000, forty engineering hours, two hardware-in-the-loop laboratory days, and five elapsed working days to the obtaining decision. Those limits fit the remaining one-week decision reserve without moving the commissioning date. The electrical-safety specialist may authorize the failed-sensor injection in the laboratory; that authorization does not extend to a greenhouse trial.

The management team uses this ChoiceRule: preserve the failed-sensor, configuration-identity, and commissioning- date conditions first. Probe only when the probe stays within the stated limits and every possible outcome changes what the team may lawfully do. If both arrangements survive, choose the hybrid only when its added price is no more than EUR 15,000 and its added internal burden is no more than fifteen engineering days; otherwise choose the ready- controller arrangement.

The proposed replay costs EUR 5,500, thirty-two controls-engineering hours, eight integrator hours, two laboratory days, and five elapsed working days. It uses the intended sensor and actuator interfaces and injects the failed- humidity-sensor condition while checking configuration export and the supported supervisory API. Its possible observations have three decision effects:

an unsafe local fallback or a configuration export that cannot reidentify the tested controller and software rejects both survivors and returns the team to arrangement generation;
a safe fallback and usable configuration export combined with failed supervisory timing or withdrawn API support rejects the hybrid and retains the ready-controller arrangement; and
a safe fallback, usable configuration export, and supported API within the timing limit retain both survivors; the price-and-burden branch of the ChoiceRule then selects the hybrid arrangement.

ChoiceResult-GH2-1 is probe again. Choosing either arrangement without the replay would leave a protected acceptance claim unsupported, while rejecting both would discard a survivor that one bounded replay can retain. This worked case stops at that first useful result. APP-SYSE-04 continues the case through performed replay and a later choice. SYSE.3 begins only after the replay retains an arrangement and exposes its first unsupported realization branch.

SYSE.24:5.2 - Obtain a pipeline-condition account rather than an inspection device

WaterUtility-North must decide which pipe sections enter its next replacement programme. The sought result is engineering episteme PipeConditionAccount-2027 for twelve kilometres of buried pipe; an inspection device is only one possible means. Acceptance requires stated coverage, location error, uncertainty for wall-loss estimates, blind-sample checks, raw observation access, configuration and date of the inspected pipe segments, and a supported relation from observations to replacement decisions. The utility’s engineering team compares four arrangements:

a specialist provider’s field team performs inspection Work and supplies interpreted results but keeps the raw data;
the utility acquires inspection equipment; its engineering team develops internal capability, performs the Work, and maintains the equipment and analysis Method;
the utility leases equipment while the provider’s qualified field team operates it and the provider’s analysts supply raw observations and interpreted results; and
a provider’s field team performs data collection while the utility’s engineering team controls the interpretation Method, acceptance checks, and continuing data custody.

The whole arrangements expose different calibration Systems, field access, operating interruption, performer capability, data rights, configuration identification, blind-sample evidence, support, future repeatability, internal capability, cost, and exit conditions. A purchase price is not compared with a provider invoice alone. The internal arrangement includes training, qualification, equipment maintenance, field Work, analysis, and the cost of delaying the replacement decision. The provider arrangements include acceptance and rework conditions, raw-data access, repeatability, and recovery if the provider leaves the market.

The utility needs the account once within three months and has no present inspection-equipment capability. Its asset-replacement board is authorized to choose the inspection arrangement within a EUR 250,000 ceiling and to allocate at most thirty utility analyst-days. Operations separately authorizes pipe access and interruption; the board cannot supply that result itself.

The equipment-purchase arrangement fails the time condition. The interpretation-without-raw-data arrangement fails the evidence-custody and exit conditions. The Finance result compares funding, the Operations result states pipe-access and interruption conditions, and the legal-practice result states data and remedy terms. The board uses those results but does not replace their Methods or authorities.

The two survivors are compared on the same basis:

Basis	Leased equipment with provider collection and interpretation	Provider collection with utility interpretation
Interpretation capability	The provider presents three comparable surveys and blind-sample results within the required location and wall-loss limits.	The utility’s two asset-integrity analysts have replayed the identified analysis Method on held-back observations from the same instrument family and pipe material; all six blind samples met the same limits.
Field access and time	The provider mobilizes the qualified field team and leased equipment in six weeks and supplies the account in eight weeks.	The same field team completes collection in six weeks; utility interpretation and acceptance take four more weeks. Both arrangements fit the three-month limit.
Evidence custody	The utility receives raw observations in an open format and an interpreted account, but only a summary of the provider’s analysis Method.	The utility receives the raw observations, keeps the identified MethodDescription and analysis configuration, and produces the account itself.
Repeatability and support	Reanalysis depends on the provider’s analysts; the price includes eighteen months of analysis support.	The utility can repeat the analysis; the provider supports instrument calibration and collection for twelve months.
Resources	EUR 230,000 and eight utility analyst-days.	EUR 185,000 and twenty-four utility analyst-days.
Capability and exit	The utility gains inspection data but remains dependent on an analysis provider. After provider exit, another analyst must be qualified before the account can be reproduced.	The utility gains interpretation capability and retains the account, observations, MethodDescription, and configuration. Provider exit affects later collection but not reanalysis of observations already held.

The board’s ChoiceRule first rejects any arrangement that misses acceptance, raw-data custody, or the three- month limit. Among survivors, it prefers the arrangement that the utility can reproduce after provider exit when its total price stays within EUR 200,000 and its internal burden stays within thirty analyst-days. If the utility capability evidence or either resource limit fails, the rule retains provider interpretation instead; if both interpretation claims fail, it returns probe again on one shared blind dataset.

The evidence supports the utility-interpretation branch. ChoiceResult-PCA-2027-1 is choose now: the provider’s field team performs collection and the utility’s engineering team controls the interpretation Method, acceptance checks, and raw-data custody. A further probe would not change which arrangement survives because the utility capability and both resource limits have already been checked on the common basis. In the choice record, state the provider capability evidence still required for field collection, the blind-sample acceptance Work, and the first unsupported field-access branch for SYSE.3. Contracting, inspection, acceptance of PipeConditionAccount-2027, and pipe-replacement decisions still require their applicable Work.