SYSE.Application:4.2 - 2. Construct complete obtaining arrangements
GreenHeat-4’s managers initially propose buying a controller or having an AI Agent write one. The engineering
team applies SYSE.24 and rejects those two phrases as a usable option set. A purchase is one relation inside an
arrangement; an AI Agent is one possible performer of named Work. The team follows
SYSE.24:4.2–4.3 backwards from accepted greenhouse behaviour to local protective control, supervisory demands,
identified interfaces and the evidence needed for their integration. It then varies what is supplied: a ready
controller with integration, a commissioned whole, an internally developed whole, or a ready protective
controller with an internal supervisory complement. For each division it adds the receiving Work that remains
and follows the result forward to the same acceptance conditions. The hybrid is plausible only while its
interface keeps supervisory optimization inside the controller’s qualified protective envelope. This
construction yields the four arrangements below; the common questions keep their comparison recoverable.
| Arrangement | Agents, Work, Methods, and means | Evidence, integration, 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 stated field interface and can be commissioned in nine weeks. Greenhouse-specific failed-sensor behaviour, configuration export, and the supervisory interface remain unsupported. Vendor support is offered for three years; changing the control logic requires vendor access. |
| Commissioned custom controller | The engineering provider’s team designs and integrates a custom controller and supplies source, configuration, test evidence, and support. | The provider estimates sixteen weeks against a twelve-week need date. It proposes source escrow but has supplied no representative failed-sensor evidence for this hardware family. |
| Internal development with AI assistance | GreenHeat-4’s controls engineers lead the Work. A general AI Agent assists with code and test generation. An independent controls specialist reviews safety-relevant behaviour. | The company would retain knowledge and change access, but it has no qualified hardware-in-the-loop environment and no evidence that the team can finish assurance within twenty weeks. AI-produced code supplies no capability or acceptance result by itself. |
| Ready controller plus internal supervisory layer | The vendor controller retains local safety interlocks and manual fallback. GreenHeat-4’s controls team develops greenhouse-specific supervisory optimization through a documented interface. | The arrangement is estimated at eleven weeks and preserves internal change capability above the safety boundary. It still depends on configuration export, interface timing, and the vendor update policy; failure of any one defeats the arrangement. |
The Finance result compares resource and cash consequences. The Organization Change result states the proposed
human–AI–provider Work allocation and its authority gaps. The safety result states the protected failed-sensor
condition. The commercial and legal results state the proposed access, update, data, and remedy terms.
SYSE.24 uses those results but does not recreate their Methods or decide their questions.