Available continuations when an agent has a usable procedure

Use this bounded structure description to answer which of Continue, Obtain and Repair has its stated conditions in the supplied case? It applies the formal branch of A.22.CGUS to an illustrative agent task. An ordinary task can stop with the preceding explanation; this unit makes the structural and case distinctions replayable.

Call the selected structure G within this unit. Its identity is the following constituent set, four obtaining descriptive relations, three applied constraints and selection-use frame. The permitted descriptive action is to display availability and the first missing or defeated condition. Stop when that question is answered; obtain a missing case fact from its stated supplier. The display neither executes nor authorizes a continuation.

Constituents and local loci

Each row declares one locus local to G, binds the identically labelled constituent and states its role. These are descriptions and candidate continuations, not records of performed work.

Obtaining relations selected by G

The following local predicates concern written descriptive content. Their meanings, participant order and basis are part of this scheme. They introduce no reusable relation signature or global ontology.

These relations obtain because the descriptions have that content. They do not assert an acquisition, repair or state change has occurred. A missing selected relation leaves this formal identity provisional; the ordinary explanation can remain usable. The case facts below do not manufacture the relations.

Constraints and potential continuations

The domain/interface supplier defines what counts as an applicable procedure, current target observation, sufficient combined ability/resources/timing, resolved prior effect and permitted acquisition. The four constructed cases below stipulate values for those meanings. All required polarities are affirmative; a predicate such as “an applicability contribution is needed” already contains its stated missing-or-defeated meaning.

Individual ability does not establish c. Training access is not one of Repair’s conditions. A constructed repair’s availability also does not establish that it will fix a shared-capacity defect.

All three candidates remain in G’s potential topology. They are alternatives under the constraints, not stages. The case results exhibit Continue and Obtain in different cases and Repair while operational progress is blocked or unknown. After obtaining a new contribution, re-evaluate the affected facts; no unqualified temporal edge or mandatory next action is added to G.

Case inputs and their scope

The source of the following case values is this explicitly constructed teaching scenario. They are stipulated about the current procedure, target, performing arrangement and proposals; they are not empirical observations. The written constituent and relation definitions above remain the descriptive basis in every case.

W0–W3 name four alternative comparison windows. Each window holds its stated facts fixed only until a named fact changes; they are not calendar intervals or a dated execution trace. The initial-to-changed-edition comparison changes the applicability facts while preserving G. W2 and W3 are additional contrasts.

“S” means satisfied, “N” not satisfied, “?” unknown. A missing fact stays unknown. The applicable test is defined for each candidate in all four cases, including when its outcome is unknown.

For an actual use, replace these stipulated facts with applicable evidence from the procedure source, target observation, resource/timing account, permission holder and construction experience. This changes the case result. It does not turn the teaching stipulation into evidence about the deployed system.

Separate judgements and derived current sets

Each row below is one candidate judgement. Its constraint identifies the applicable test and affirmative polarity; its case/window identifies every input and about-subject basis in the preceding table; its dependencies identify the selected obtaining occurrences in the constraint table. The rRK basis is separately the obtaining descriptive relation, not a condition value inferred from a label.

Apply this stated rule: an invalid or internally inconsistent case/test returns Error for the affected judgement; otherwise any required N yields Disabled, all required S plus required obtaining relations yield Enabled, and remaining unknown values yield Unknown. Inspect all facts relevant to the claim before using a decisive N. No error is stipulated in these four cases.

The current sets are derived from those judgements, not from the displayed order:

A new currentness fact normally changes only the affected judgement and set. Changing a selected constituent, obtaining relation, constraint or selection-use frame reidentifies G; changing a locus binding or potential-continuation row reopens CGUS membership. If a case contains conflicting applicability statements, stop that judgement as Error and obtain a corrected case basis.

This whole-structure description exposes all three potential continuations and their current results. It does not describe the selected Methods’ internal algorithms, a B.1.5 Method whole, dated Work, learning effectiveness, human motor learning or a transformation-flow network. Those omissions preserve the narrower availability question; they would be insufficient for a claim about performed or authorized work.