SYSE.7:4.1 - Perform the Move

1. Name the receiving decision and its decision-changing claims. State the decision, decision subject, intended use, project focus, current option set, and the claims for which a changed value, contradiction, or evidence result could change the choice.
2. Recover each described subject. For every needed claim, identify the actual System, intended referent, selected structure, configuration, part, environment, Work occurrence, Method, or other holon concerned. Distinguish an individual from its kind, one part structure from another selected structure, and a current configuration from a possible-future candidate.
3. Select the description uses. Choose the smallest set of epistemes needed, for example, to express, calculate, compare, communicate, realize, observe, or assure those claims. Examples include a use account, functional description, physical-structure description, equation model, state model, interface account, configuration record, trial result, or operating observation. Include each one only for a stated use.
4. Identify each episteme and expression. Record claim content, EntityOfConcern, effective reference scheme, edition, source, provenance, modeled interval or effectivity, assumptions, omissions, and relying Work. Separately identify any material expression or publication object—for example, a carrier, publication form, rendering, executable expression, database object, or generated summary—when its identity changes use.
5. State interpretation and model-use conditions. As needed by the decision, name conditions such as units, coordinate frames, scales, tolerances, abstractions, parameter sources, boundary conditions, solvers or inference procedures, and validation limits. State the project’s interpretation separately from language rules and tool capabilities.
6. Recover cross-description relations. For every material link, state its participants and relation: same subject under different schemes; part or interface correspondence; claim dependency; source derivation; configuration applicability; transformation from one expression to another; test-to-claim assessment; or another direct relation. If the project lacks a governed relation kind or evidence for that claim, record an unsupported correspondence rather than inventing a generic trace edge.
7. Check collisions at the claim level. Compare claims only after subject, configuration, interval, scheme, scale, and tolerance are aligned or their differences are explicit. Classify the result as agreement for the bounded use, an explainable difference, an unresolved contradiction, a missing interpretation, or a missing world-side check.
8. Check correspondence to realization and observation. Identify which claims describe candidates or intentions and which concern actual configurations or occurrences. Connect design claims to relevant observations—for example, from realization, integration, trials, commissioning, operation, or affected Systems—through their evidence and configuration relations. Do not let description-to-description consistency substitute for physical adequacy.
9. Choose publication forms for actual users. Publish only the forms needed by the receiving Work and its users. Reuse or author a viewpoint only when U.View membership and conformance matter. Keep the source episteme, view, publication occurrence, form, carrier, and audience use separate.
10. Assign maintenance Work. For each material entry, identify the Agent assigned to change its description, decide a contested interpretation, accept a cross-description relation, or stop reliance, together with the needed capability and authority. Specify the observations that call for refresh and the Work that will update the affected account.
11. Return the bounded result. Make the usable claims, contradictions, unsupported correspondences, gaps, reliance limits, and refresh conditions available to the named engineering decisions and dependent Work.

This numbered list is a learning unfolding governed by A.22.CGUS, not a claim that description Work occurs in one serial lifecycle. Description production, realization, checking, operation, and decision Work can overlap. The displayed order expresses a logical dependency: claims cannot be compared until their content and subjects are recoverable. It does not prescribe the order of performed Work.