#SystemRoleAssignmentStateRelation - Assignment-State Recognition and Work Admission

A.2.5 · Stable · Definitional (D) · Normative unless marked informative · Part A - Kernel Architecture Cluster

#About this pattern

This is a generated FPF pattern page projected from the published FPF source. It is canonical FPF content for this ID; it is not a FPF Reference product feature page.

#How to use this pattern

Read the ID, status, type, and normativity first. Use the content for exact wording, the relations for adjacent concepts, and citations to keep active work grounded without pasting the whole specification.

Type: Definitional (D) Status: Stable Normativity: Normative unless marked informative

Plain designations. Say “this assignment to a system role satisfies this state condition” for the relation and “state condition for an assignment to a system role” for the predicate.

#Keywords

• assignment-state predicate
• assignment-state relation
• state condition
• time window
• Work admission
• evidence boundary.

#Relations

#Content

#Use This When

Plain designations. Say “this assignment to a system role satisfies this state condition” for the relation and “state condition for an assignment to a system role” for the predicate.

Use this pattern when one exact assignment to a system role already obtains, but a method step, Work occurrence, incompatibility check, or operational gate depends on that assignment satisfying a particular condition during a particular window.

Start with the practical question: Does this exact assignment satisfy this exact state condition throughout the window that matters now? The first useful result is the current SystemRoleAssignmentStateRelation occurrence or its absence. Add an assertion and evidence-use relation only when a later decision must rely on that result.

Typical working moments include these:

• a calibrated inspection robot is assigned to InspectorSystemRole, but inspection Work should start only while calibration, synchronization, and operating-envelope conditions hold;
• an incident commander remains on call, yet a conflict or fatigue condition may make that assignment non-admitting for one response window;
• a method description declares a state condition for an assignment to a system role, while the current assignment has not yet been tested against it;
• two assignments are incompatible only while both satisfy the conditions that make them work-admitting; and
• a model-use structure, KindSignature, reference scheme, or bridge changes the meaning of one predicate clause and must therefore be included in that predicate's semantic basis.

Primary EntityOfConcern. The EntityOfConcern is one obtaining SystemRoleAssignmentStateRelation, a direct relation kind admitted under U.Relation. Its two participants are one exact obtaining U.SystemRoleAssignment occurrence and one by-value SystemRoleAssignmentStatePredicate. The relation's maximal continuous temporal extent comes from uninterrupted predicate truth while that assignment obtains.

Primary working reader. The first reader is an engineer, operator, method designer, safety checker, or manager deciding whether a current assignment can support the next method or Work claim without confusing assignment, capability, state, evidence, gate outcome, and performed Work.

What goes wrong if missed. A system-role label is treated as current readiness. A dashboard value is substituted for the world-side state relation. Missing evidence is read as proof that the predicate is false. Capability is mistaken for Work admission. A state-machine diagram is used as both the ontology and the method order.

What this buys. The reader can identify repeated state episodes inside one continuing assignment, keep evidence and world-side obtaining distinct, combine simultaneous conditions, and pass the exact state claim to the direct pattern governing the next decision or Work use.

Not this pattern when. Use A.2 and C.3 for the exact local system-role kind, A.2.1 for the assignment and its holder, A.2.2 for capability and operating envelope, A.2.7 for relations among system-role kinds, and A.15.1 for Work that actually occurred. Use A.2.4 or A.10 when the current object is the evidence-use relation rather than the assignment-state relation. A displayed status, credential entry, gate decision, or organizational position keeps its own direct pattern.

#Kind Settlement

SystemRoleAssignmentStateRelation is admitted as a direct relation kind under U.Relation.

SystemRoleAssignmentStatePredicate is a local ValueKind declared by this pattern, not another root U-kind. One predicate value is identified by:

1. the exact local system-role kind for whose assignments it is defined;
2. normalized truth-condition ClaimGraph clauses naming the governed qualities or relations tested;
3. its temporal reading;
4. its applicability conditions; and
5. the exact semantic basis whose edition changes meaning, including a KindSignature, reference scheme, bridge, or model-use structure only when the clauses depend on it.

A displayed name such as InspectionReady can designate the predicate. The name alone does not identify it. Ready@InspectorSystemRole and Ready@ApproverSystemRole are different predicate values unless one separately declared predicate has one exact common domain and identical clauses, temporal reading, applicability, and semantic basis.

A compatible semantic-basis edition preserves the predicate only through an explicit predicate-continuity decision showing that those identity-bearing facts continue. A changed system-role kind, truth clause, temporal reading, applicability condition, or meaning-bearing semantic basis yields another predicate.

A SystemRoleAssignmentStateAssertion is a U.Episteme whose EntityOfConcern is the exact assignment or an explicitly individuated state-relation occurrence, according to the claim. Its ClaimGraph names the predicate, direct claim family, and assertionPolarity: affirmative | negative. An affirmative claim may state a known actual extent only after A.2.5 independently establishes obtaining. A receiving evaluation may separately state its target window. Supported, refuted, or unresolved reliance belongs to A.10 or a separately constituted evaluation result or reliance assertion. Assertion, reliance posture, evidence episteme, evidence-use relation, and world-side occurrence remain different objects.

A representation episteme may describe predicates, possible configurations, and possible changes. A statechart or state-machine display is a mathematical or representational lens.

#Problem Frame

An occurrence of a declared U.SystemRoleAssignment species assigns an admitted System to one local system-role kind and supplies any other values required by that species. It does not establish that the assignment satisfies a condition needed by a Method or Work claim in the evaluated interval.

Robot-7 can remain under InspectionShiftAssignment-17 throughout an eight-hour shift while calibration expires at noon. The assignment continues. The InspectionReady state occurrence ends when its predicate ceases to hold. Recalibration can start another occurrence under the same assignment without creating another assignment.

The same distinction appears in social and computational Work. An on-call person can remain assigned while conflicted or fatigued. A service can remain assigned to ApproverSystemRole while one predicate concerns fulfilment approval and another concerns payment authorization. A tool-using agent can expose a capability while a concrete action remains inadmissible for the current task and inputs.

The engineering problem is therefore to identify the exact assignment, predicate, and interval; distinguish affirmative or negative assertion polarity from reliance posture; recognize an occurrence only while the direct predicate is true; and connect an assertion to evidence only when a consequence-bearing use needs that support.

#Problem

Without a direct assignment-state relation ontology, six recurring failures appear.

1. Assignment becomes readiness. Holding an assignment is treated as satisfying every state precondition of every method that names its system-role kind.
2. State label hides the predicate. Ready, Approved, or Active travels between domains although its truth conditions differ.
3. Evidence becomes the state. An evidence or display episteme is treated as the world-side relation.
4. Missing evidence becomes falsehood. An unrecovered or stale evidence path is taken as proof that the predicate does not obtain.
5. Capability becomes admission. A system's ability to perform an operation is overread as current admission of this concrete method or Work claim.
6. State notation becomes method order. A transition arrow is treated as the Work that changes the state, although Method, Work, transformation, and state-change claim have different ontics.

#Forces

#Solution

Start from a readable assertion:

Robot-7's current assignment to InspectorSystemRole satisfies InspectionReady throughout the inspection window.

When a receiving use needs reusable participant typing, use the declared RelationSignature. When it needs occurrence identity, apply the world-side identity rule in section 4.3.

#Direct Relation Declaration

This pattern defines the RelationSignature for SystemRoleAssignmentStateRelation:

These are the only two generic participants. SystemRoleAssignmentStateRelation obtains exactly while the assignment obtains and the fixed by-value predicate is true under its temporal reading. Its actual extent is the maximal continuous interval of that obtaining. An affirmative assertion or occurrence description may state the known extent as systemRoleAssignmentStateExtent only for an independently established occurrence; a receiving evaluation may state a separate declaredSystemRoleAssignmentStateEvaluationWindow. Neither temporal value, assertion polarity, reliance posture, taxonomy episteme, reference scheme, bridge, nor model-use structure is another relation participant.

A relied-on assertion uses a direct evidence-use relation. Another world-side occurrence affects predicate truth only when an exact truth-condition clause cites that occurrence through its subject pattern.

#Predicate Meaning and Semantic Basis

One SystemRoleAssignmentStatePredicate value names:

• the exact local system-role kind for whose assignment species the predicate is defined;
• normalized truth-condition ClaimGraph clauses, each naming its governed quality or relation, actual participants, and subject pattern;
• the temporal reading, such as truth at an instant, throughout a receiving-use window, or for a declared tolerated portion of that window;
• applicability conditions; and
• only the semantic-basis references whose editions can change those clauses or their interpretation.

This content defines one predicate value. The direct qualities and relations keep their own kinds and subject patterns.

Predicates need not be mutually exclusive. Calibrated, Synchronized, and InRange can hold simultaneously; InspectionReady may be a conjunction over them. Use an exclusive state configuration only when the subject-domain model actually needs one.

A shared label does not establish shared meaning. Cross-context reuse needs the same predicate identity or an explicit comparison or bridge stating which truth and admission effects are preserved. A bridge or scheme enters the predicate's semantic basis only when the predicate clauses really depend on it.

#Occurrence Identity and Repeated Episodes

Do not replace the identity rule with a tuple key. One SystemRoleAssignmentStateRelation occurrence begins when one fixed assignment starts satisfying one fixed predicate. It continues while the assignment obtains and the predicate remains true without interruption. It ends when the assignment ceases, the predicate becomes false, or either participant changes. A later return to truth starts another occurrence.

An affirmative assertion or occurrence description may state the currently known systemRoleAssignmentStateExtent. Recording an end boundary for a previously open extent refines the description of the same occurrence when assignment obtaining and predicate truth were uninterrupted. A demonstrated predicate gap separates occurrences. Thus true → false → true produces two state occurrences inside one continuing assignment.

A later correction of an assertion interval, changed evidence relation, assertion edition, dashboard display, or publication creates no world-side occurrence while truth was uninterrupted. An evidence gap gives the receiving use unresolved reliance; it does not demonstrate a gap in predicate truth or add a third assertion polarity.

#Assertion and Evidence Use

For a relied-on state claim, keep this order:

1. name the exact U.SystemRoleAssignment, by-value SystemRoleAssignmentStatePredicate, direct claim family, and affirmative or negative assertion polarity;
2. when A.2.5 independently establishes obtaining and the receiving use needs occurrence identity, individuate the occurrence under section 4.3;
3. state a SystemRoleAssignmentStateAssertion : U.Episteme whose ClaimGraph carries the predicate, direct claim-family reference, polarity, known systemRoleAssignmentStateExtent only for an affirmative claim about an established occurrence, and any separate declaredSystemRoleAssignmentStateEvaluationWindow;
4. include a meaning-bearing semantic-basis reference in the predicate identity, while a non-meaning-changing receiving-use selection stays with that use;
5. use A.2.4 for compact evidence use and A.10 only when fuller evidence-basis detail changes the relied-on use; and
6. let the direct consumer apply the supported assertion under its own subject pattern.

When evaluation itself is current, recover the exact actual evaluator System through A.13 and let A.15.1 independently admit exact dated evaluation W_eval : U.Work. Add F.6 performedUnderAssignment(W_eval, RA_eval) through the same obtaining A.13 assignment only when this account or its receiving use expressly consumes precise assignment-bound attribution; F.6 identifies neither assignment nor performer, and missing or failed F.6 leaves the evaluation Work intact. A separately constituted evaluation result is a C.2.1 episteme whose ClaimGraph states the judgment about the assignment or established occurrence. Work, performer, assignment, result episteme, provenance, and receiving reliance remain neighboring objects; none becomes a state-relation participant or identity discriminator.

The actual state extent, target evaluation window, and evidence-relevance interval answer different questions. Expired evidence lowers reliance without retroactively rewriting an earlier world-side occurrence.

#Work-Admission Use

A.2.5 supplies the state relation and exact assertion form. Use the direct subject patterns when Method selection, a gate decision, authority, or a claim that Work occurred is needed.

For a consequence-bearing admission use, the system performing the consumer's evaluation or decision Work applies that consumer's direct pattern and checks:

1. the exact U.SystemRoleAssignment obtains throughout the receiving decision or Work window;
2. the consumer selects one exact SystemRoleAssignmentStatePredicate, whose truth condition may be an explicit conjunction;
3. each relevant assignment has an obtaining SystemRoleAssignmentStateRelation whose actual extent covers the receiving-use window;
4. the assertion has the evidence relation and currentness that this consumer requires; and
5. every other admission condition is separately established under its subject pattern.

The consumer's direct pattern defines any admit, deny, defer, or unresolved outcome. A.2.5 contributes only the exact state relation on which that decision Work may rely.

#System-Role-Kind Relation Use

When substitution, incompatibility, bundle, or residual qualification among exact local system-role kinds is selected with A.2.7, test state sensitivity through exact assignments, state predicates, and windows.

• Substitution supports one admission condition only when the candidate assignment's current predicate satisfies the selected receiving rule.
• Incompatibility is stated for the exact same-holder or different-holder rule, Work identity condition, overlapping windows, and predicate conditions under which the conflict appears.
• A Work claim needing several system-role kinds uses the independently obtaining assignments and state occurrences needed by that claim. It does not require a Cartesian product of every possible state label.

A conjunction for one Work claim creates no composite system-role kind, assignment, or state predicate by form.

#State-Machine and Change Lenses

Use statecharts or state machines when mutually exclusive configurations, orthogonal regions, guarded changes, or event handling improve the subject-domain model. The notation describes possible configurations and changes; it does not replace the direct relation occurrence.

A change arrow represents a proposed or observed change in predicate truth; it is not the world-side change by form. Recover the exact changed object or relation, then use the direct pattern governing that change. Use the Method description for any prescribed Method order.

When the model needs continuous coordinates rather than discrete labels, use A.19 for the characteristic space and let the by-value state predicate select a region, band, ordering condition, or other exact condition. Measurement and evaluation stay with C.16 and their direct patterns.

#Semantic Basis and Receiving-Use Qualification

Most state claims need no bridge, reference scheme, or bounded-model-use structure. Directly governed truth-condition clauses are enough.

When a KindSignature, reference scheme, bridge, or BoundedModelUseStructure changes the meaning of a predicate clause, include its exact edition in SystemRoleAssignmentStatePredicate semantic basis and therefore in predicate identity. When it changes only how a separate receiving assertion, comparison, or Work use presents or consumes an unchanged predicate, cite it in that receiving use instead. The generic relation signature remains the two-participant declaration in §4.1.

#Working Guidance

1. Write the readable sentence naming the current assignment and state condition; name the receiving-use window only when the current check selects one.
2. Recover the predicate by value: exact system-role kind, normalized truth-condition clauses, temporal reading, applicability, and only meaning-bearing semantic-basis editions.
3. Derive the maximal continuous extent from assignment obtaining and predicate truth; separately check any receiving-use window against that extent.
4. Ask whether the receiving use needs occurrence identity and whether it relies on the state claim. If both answers are no, keep the readable assertion and stop.
5. For relied-on use, make the assertion episteme, polarity, direct claim-family reference, and required evidence-use relation explicit. Record supported, refuted, or unresolved reliance separately; absent evidence is neither negative polarity nor world-side non-obtaining.
6. Leave capability fit, Method selection, gate outcome, authority, assurance, and performed Work with their subject patterns.
7. Put a meaning-changing semantic basis in predicate identity and a merely use-qualifying selection in the receiving use, never in the generic relation signature.

#Worked Slices

#Robot Inspection After Recalibration

Robot-7 already holds this A.2.1 assignment:

Robot7InspectionShiftAssignment-17 : InspectionShiftAssignment
InspectionShiftAssignment <: U.SystemRoleAssignment
  HolderSystemSlot: Robot-7
  AssignedSystemRoleKindSlot: InspectorSystemRole
  assignmentInterval: [2026-08-10T09:00, 2026-08-10T17:00]

The bearing-inspection method description declares InspectionReady, whose clauses require current calibration, clock synchronization inside tolerance, operating-envelope fit, and no active quarantine relation throughout the inspection window.

SystemRoleAssignmentStateAssertion:
  directClaimFamilyRef: A.2.5 SystemRoleAssignmentStateRelation
  SystemRoleAssignmentSlot: U.RelationRef(Robot7InspectionShiftAssignment-17)
  StatePredicateSlot:
    systemRoleKindRef: U.KindRef(InspectorSystemRole)
    NormalizedTruthConditionClaimGraph:
      CalibrationCurrent(Robot-7)
      and ClockSynchronizationWithinTolerance(Robot-7)
      and InspectionOperatingEnvelopeFit(Robot-7)
      and no ActiveQuarantineRelation(Robot-7)
    TemporalReading: continuous truth over the declared inspection interval
    Applicability: bearing inspection Work under InspectionShiftAssignment
    SemanticBasisRefs: omitted; these clauses use the direct subject predicates without another meaning-bearing edition
  assertionPolarity: affirmative
  systemRoleAssignmentStateExtent: [2026-08-10T09:20, 2026-08-10T12:00]

A calibration report is a separate U.Episteme; an A.2.4 evidence-use relation can support reliance on this assertion. At noon calibration validity ends and the predicate becomes false, so the first state occurrence ends while the assignment continues. Recalibration at 12:30 can make the same predicate true again and begins a second occurrence under that assignment.

#Drive Motor in a Pump Assembly

Motor-M1 is the holder of an exact pump-maintenance assignment whose assigned local kind is DriveMotorSystemRole. The current Work claim needs DriveReady, whose predicate names the exact supply relation, torque capability-fit relation, thermal band, and installed-connection relation.

The pump assembly grounds those direct claims; it is not a mandatory context slot. No scheme or BoundedModelUseStructure is required because the direct predicate clauses determine the state. Torque capability can remain while a missing supply relation makes DriveReady false. An affirmative DriveReady assertion states the assignment's condition; use A.15.1 for any claim that pumping Work occurred.

#Socially Constituted Credential State

A clinician holds one exact assignment whose local kind is ProcedureOperatorSystemRole. Predicate CredentialCurrentForProcedure-X depends on an accepted credential decision, its validity interval, and absence of a suspending decision.

The accepted decision relation helps constitute the predicate because the credential ontology says so. A certificate publication may evidence that decision but does not substitute for it. The state occurrence still has the assignment and predicate as participants; evidence and publication remain neighboring relations.

#Two Approval Predicates

ApprovalService-2 holds an exact assignment to ApproverSystemRole. FulfilmentApprovalReady concerns fulfilment-state change; PaymentApprovalReady concerns payment authorization. Their truth clauses and applicability differ, so they are different SystemRoleAssignmentStatePredicate values even if one interface displays both as Ready.

If an independently selected model-use structure changes the meaning of one predicate's clauses, its exact edition belongs in that predicate's semantic basis. If it only selects which already identified predicate a view presents, it remains a receiving-use qualification.

#Approved Standard or Evidence Dataset Is a Different Relation

Suppose a project says, “Standard S is approved.” The standard is an episteme, not a system under a work-facing assignment. Recover the direct status-use, decision, source-use, or publication-use relation.

Likewise, a dataset or report that “plays a role” remains an episteme used through direct evidence, source, measurement, freshness, provenance, or assurance relations. Apply A.2.5 only if an admitted system's exact assignment is being tested by a SystemRoleAssignmentStatePredicate that depends on one of those relations.

#Archetypal Grounding and Bias Control

Physical system. A motor, robot, laboratory instrument, or production cell can hold an assignment while its state predicate changes as physical relations and measured characteristics change.

Human or organizational system. A person, team, or organization can remain assigned while a current conflict, credential, fatigue, resource, or decision relation changes the predicate relevant to one Work claim.

Computational system. A service or agent can expose a capability while each concrete action still needs current assignment, state predicate, task relation, and direct authorization or gate evaluation. This is one specialization, not the universal meaning of assignment state.

Episteme boundary. A representation or evidence episteme can describe or support a state claim.

The main bias risk is label-first reasoning. A familiar state word invites the reader to skip predicate recovery. Repair it by recovering the assignment, predicate by value, actual state extent, and only the assertion and evidence-use relation needed by the receiving use.

#Conformance Checklist

#Common Failure Modes and Repairs

#Consequences

Benefits:

• one assignment can support several separately identifiable state episodes;
• simultaneous predicates remain expressible;
• predicate truth, assertion, evidence use, and Work admission can change independently and be repaired locally;
• Method and gate assertions cite an exact current relation instead of a status label; and
• physical, social, organizational, and computational cases use the same relation discipline.

Costs and limits:

• load-bearing predicates must be written by value, including temporal semantics and any meaning-bearing semantic basis;
• consequence-bearing reliance needs only the evidence currentness and direct consumer that its use requires;
• cross-context reuse may need a continuity or bridge decision rather than label matching; and
• A.2.5 does not define every subject-domain predicate, measurement method, authorization relation, or state-changing Method.

Reopen or lower only the affected claim when the assignment, predicate identity, actual state extent, receiving-use window, evidence relevance, direct consumer rule, or meaning-bearing semantic basis changes. Do not rewrite the system-role kind or assignment when only one state episode changes.

#Rationale

The pattern starts from the world-side relation because state truth can matter before a record exists. A robot can cease to satisfy its inspection predicate before a dashboard refreshes. A credential decision can constitute an institutional condition before a certificate is published. A supported assertion is needed for some reliance uses.

Using uninterrupted predicate truth as the identity boundary distinguishes repeated episodes even when assignment and predicate stay the same. A description may refine an open interval's end without creating another occurrence; a genuine false gap does create a boundary.

Assignment state is neither capability nor Work. Capability says what operations a system can perform in an envelope. SystemRoleAssignmentStateRelation says whether one current assignment satisfies one predicate over an interval. A Work claim states what was actually performed. A Method, gate, or Work pattern may depend on all three, but none proves the others.

#SoTA-Echoing

The sources' transferable contribution is bounded: current action decisions need exact participants and predicates; temporal monitoring can remain unresolved; capability and action admission differ; and state-machine notation is optional modeling machinery.

#Relations

#A.2.5:End

Last Updated: 2026-09-10 — upstream FPF commit a87d0ef4 (github.com/ailev/FPF)