A changed source changes the available continuation
This separate demonstrative episteme teaches one contrast about G, the exact structure identified in Available continuations when an agent has a usable procedure. Under C.2.1, its identity is the following claim content, that G as EntityOfConcern, and the effective reference scheme stated here. The page and this displayed sequence carry the claims; neither is G.
Claim content. In W0, J0-C enables Continue while J0-O and J0-R disable Obtain and Repair. In W1, the changed source defeats the possessed procedure’s applicability, so J1-C disables Continue. The supplied reachability, permission, usefulness and interval conditions let J1-O enable Obtain; J1-R still disables Repair. G’s constituent set, selected relations, applied constraints and use frame are unchanged.
Reference scheme. T, K, N, Q, R, Continue and Obtain resolve to their exact local bindings in the structure description; Repair remains the third candidate there. rKT, rNT, rQN and rRK retain the defined descriptive predicates and ordered participants. C, O and R-test resolve to the constraint table. W0/W1 and J0/J1 resolve to the stipulated case inputs, affirmative-polarity evaluations and judgement rule in that same description. S, N and ? are the stated satisfied, not-satisfied and unknown values. These references make the claims inspectable about G without implying observations of a deployed agent.
| Read the same structure under two case inputs | What changes | What remains |
|---|---|---|
| Initial W0: the possessed procedure applies and the other execution conditions are supplied. | Continue is enabled; there is no missing applicability contribution to obtain. | Q still seeks N, R still targets K, and both remain potential continuations under their constraints. |
| Changed edition W1: the old applicability premise is defeated; Q is reachable, permitted, useful and timely. | Continue becomes disabled and Obtain enabled. The reason is the changed case evidence, not a new controller or structure. | The required task, descriptive relations and constraints retain their meanings. |
The displayed comparison is not an instruction to execute Continue and then Obtain. It compares availability under two supplied conditions. A successful acquisition would supply a new case fact; only a new judgement could enable Continue, and the actual target action would still need its own execution and observation.
The full description also exposes W2 and W3, omitted from the foreground table. In W2, applicability is unknown and acquisition is blocked, but a qualified fixed-model repair remains available. In W3, individually available acts fail their combined resource/timing condition while the repair exercise remains available. Those branches prevent the two-row teaching slice from implying that obtaining information always resolves a failure.
Try the contrast by changing only one premise. If W1’s permission becomes unknown while its other Obtain conditions stay satisfied, Obtain becomes Unknown; if permission is defeated, it becomes Disabled. The relation Q seeks N still obtains. If instead R no longer targets K, the selected descriptive relation and G’s identity basis change; this is not merely a new source-currentness fact.
This slice omits the selected Methods’ internal operations, a B.1.5 Method whole, dated Work, training effectiveness, human motor learning and a transformation-flow network. Its declared use is to teach the stated potential-versus-current-availability contrast. The body of Case B supplies the separate human mechanisms; it is not another run of K.