fpf.tools
Library / Systems Engineering Principles Framework
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 7715–7736

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 08:25:59 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 08:26:43 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 08:50:20 UTC

SYSE.4:4.4 - Recover performed Work, direct results, and evidence use

When the challenge is performed, identify the dated Work and performer through A.15.1 and the applicable assignment and Work-attribution patterns. Then use the direct pattern for the result:

  • C.16 for a measurement result, its uncertainty, and comparability;
  • C.32.ACE for an architecture-characteristic eval programme and its separately typed result;
  • A.1.1 for model applicability, actual model use in assigned Work, or fixed-content coherence;
  • C.28 when the conclusion is causal rather than merely observational;
  • the applicable test, comparison, acceptance, safety, security, legal, certification, or other specialist result pattern when that is the actual claim.

Use A.10 to make the descriptive claim-bound evidence/provenance path replayable. Keep the source, carrier, performed Work, result, result episteme, provenance relation, currentness assessment, evidence use, assurance result, and decision question distinct. The path represents independently established relations; it moves no result and creates no evidence relation. Use G.11 and C.27.TA when source currentness, evidence age, calibration, configuration time, observation window, or decay changes admissible use.

A planned challenge is not evidence. A performed test is not its result. A result becomes evidence for this claim only through the named use and its conditions. Provenance, repetition, automation, or a familiar tool does not widen that use.