#SystemRoleAssignment and Performed-Work Attribution Check

F.6 · Stable · Boundary and use pattern · Normative unless marked informative · Part F - The Unification Suite (U-Suite): Concept Sets, SenseCells, and System-Role Kinds and Assignments

#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: Boundary and use pattern Status: Stable Normativity: Normative unless marked informative

Plain name. Check whether this already admitted Work was performed under this exact system-role assignment.

#Keywords

• already admitted U.Work
• complete post-admission A.13/A.15.1/F.6 basis
• exact Work-assignment relation
• same obtaining A.13 assignment
• direct case fact
• holder equality
• temporal coverage
• performedUnderAssignment
• deprecated performedBy compatibility only
• separate evidence
• conditional profile.

#Relations

#Content

#Use This When

Plain name. Check whether this already admitted Work was performed under this exact system-role assignment.

Use this pattern only after A.15.1 has independently admitted a dated U.Work occurrence. Use F.6 when deciding whether that already admitted Work was performed under a particular assignment occurrence from the U.SystemRoleAssignment family. When it was, the direct world-side performed-under-assignment relation obtains. A separate assertion or record can identify the two occurrences and state that relation.

Typical moments:

• a work record says “Alice reviewed”, “Robot-7 inspected”, or “the operations team approved”, but the assignment occurrence is missing;
• a MethodDescription names a system-role kind and the project must connect actual Work to the assigned performer;
• source wording says RoleEnactment, “played the role”, or Holder#Role:Context@Window;
• a stronger appointment has a commission, position, or locus participant and must retain that occurrence identity during attribution;
• a report, standard, dashboard, or access label is described with role wording although it did not perform Work;
• a corresponding kind or assignment from another context is cited without a current Bridge and local occurrence.

Primary EntityOfConcern. One obtaining performedUnderAssignment relation occurrence between a U.Work occurrence and an assignment occurrence whose species is declared under U.SystemRoleAssignment.

Primary working reader. An engineer, operator, Method author, manager, or FPF author deciding whether a performed-Work attribution is grounded strongly enough for the next use.

First useful move. Confirm that A.15.1 has already admitted the exact dated Work without using an F.6 conclusion. Name that Work and the assignment occurrence under which it is said to have been performed. Recover the assignment's declared species and participant values, then confirm that the actual performer already has the A.13 core for this action, scope, working situation, and window and that this is the same obtaining assignment. Evidence supports those core facts; a characteristic profile enters only for a consumed Grade, autonomy or profile result, criterion-dependent characteristic, or assurance use. Ask what direct case fact links the exact pair. Confirm holder equality and interval coverage; those checks alone do not create the link. If the case does not establish the pair, retain the Work and leave only the attribution unresolved. Otherwise say plainly that the holder System performed the Work under that assignment.

What goes wrong if missed. Assignment is treated as proof of Work, a label replaces the assignment occurrence, a generic assignment duplicate erases a stronger appointment, or a log or report is made the performer. When several assignments overlap, interval coverage then attributes the same Work to all of them even though the exact pair was never established.

What this buys. Attribution is one thin relation. The holder System remains the actor, the assignment occurrence remains linked to its species and participant values, and Work, Method, capability, state, result, evidence, publication, and cross-context use remain separate.

Not this pattern when. Use A.2 for the system-role kind and classification, A.2.1 for assignment species and occurrence identity, A.2.5 for assignment state, A.2.2 for capability, and A.15.1 for the Work occurrence. Use the direct evidence, source-reliance, publication, access, authority, permission, responsibility, status, gate, or decision pattern when that relation is current. Use E.10.ROLE and A.6.RSIR when role denotes another object or relation position.

#Problem Frame

U.SystemRoleAssignment and U.Work classify different world-side occurrences. An assignment occurrence belongs to a declared species, relates fixed participant values, and lasts for one maximal uninterrupted interval in which its predicate remains true. A U.Work occurrence is dated. Their existence does not establish the additional attribution relation.

Use F.6 to state that missing relation between the Work and assignment occurrences. Every assignment species declares a holder slot, and each assignment occurrence supplies its actual holder System. F.6 exposes that holder only so the attribution can compare it with the actual performer already recovered through A.13 and used by A.15.1 to admit the Work; it does not discover a performer. This preserves a commission-sensitive or otherwise stronger assignment instead of replacing it with a generic duplicate.

A roster can assert the assignment; a log can assert the Work and attribution; evidence can support either assertion. Those epistemes help a system know or use the claim. They do not become relation participants or make world-side attribution obtain merely by being stored.

This separation matters because assignment, classification, state, ability, performance, result, evidence, and acceptance vary independently. A system can hold an assignment and do no Work. It can perform poor Work under a valid assignment. A report can accurately describe the Work without performing it.

#Problem

Without the direct attribution relation:

1. Assignment becomes Work. Current assignment is treated as evidence that a system performed one occurrence.
2. Performer comes from a label. Reviewer or Operator is used without a holder and assignment episode.
3. A stronger assignment is flattened. A commission-sensitive appointment is replaced by a weaker generic record.
4. Episodes do not cover. Work is attributed outside the interval in which the exact assignment predicate obtains.
5. Support becomes constitution. A log, report, standard, dashboard, or decision is treated as what makes attribution obtain.
6. Enactment is duplicated. RoleEnactment or RoleEnactmentFact becomes another object beside Work and attribution.
7. Locality is hidden. A context word replaces the exact local kind, assignment species, Work locus, scope, or selected model-use structure.

#Forces

#Solution

Treat performed-Work attribution as one direct relation species under U.Relation.

#Direct Relation Declaration

performedUnderAssignment : U.Relation
  WorkOccurrenceSlot: U.Work, U.EntityRef
  SystemRoleAssignmentSlot: U.SystemRoleAssignment, U.RelationRef

when performedUnderAssignment(W, RA) obtains:
  attributedPerformerSystem(W, RA) := RA.HolderSystemSlot

WorkOccurrenceSlot names a dated Work already admitted under A.15.1 from independently grounded performance history, A.13-qualified actual performer facts, Method, extent, and containment. The typed slot consumes that completed membership result; F.6 neither helps establish nor reopens W : U.Work. The declaration-local SystemRoleAssignmentSlot names one occurrence of an admitted assignment species declared under U.SystemRoleAssignment. Its U.RelationRef names that occurrence and is limited to U.SystemRoleAssignment. Filling the two slots, matching the holder, or finding temporal overlap does not establish that this Work was performed under this assignment; the case must independently establish that link.

For an obtaining attribution:

S = attributedPerformerSystem(W, RA) = RA.HolderSystemSlot

S is the admitted System already recovered as an actual performer through A.13 and used by A.15.1 to admit W; F.6 does not discover it. RA is the assignment under which that Work is now attributed. The projection exposes the holder already carried by RA only to test equality with S; it creates neither performerhood, Work, attribution, classification, nor a generic assignment occurrence and discards none of RA's additional participants.

performedBy remains only a deprecated source relation name. Read it through the direct Work-assignment relation only after A.13 and A.15.1 have independently established the actual performer and admitted Work, and after holder equality is checked. New practitioner-facing claims say that the already recovered performer System performed the Work under the assignment, or name performedUnderAssignment when the relation name is needed; they never make the assignment the performer or use F.6 to discover one.

No evidence, log, status, MethodDescription, result, publication, context record, or assignment-state assertion is a generic attribution participant.

#Obtaining and Occurrence Identity

The direct Work-assignment attribution is a world-side fact, separate from any assertion or evidence. A positive check requires all of the following:

1. W is one exact dated U.Work occurrence already admitted under A.15.1 from its independently grounded candidate-action history, A.13-qualified actual performer basis, Method actually followed, temporal extent, and containing-System relation; that admission neither assumes nor depends on this F.6 relation;
2. the actual performer S has the A.13 core for this action, scope, working situation, and window: S is an admitted System, satisfies and is classified under one exact local agential system-role kind, and holds the same obtaining assignment RA; evidence supports those core facts, while a characteristic profile is required only for a consumed Grade, autonomy or profile result, criterion-dependent characteristic, or assurance use;
3. RA is one named assignment occurrence of a declared U.SystemRoleAssignment species, with all identity-bearing participants and its rule recovered;
4. the case establishes that W was performed under RA, rather than deriving that link from a label, common holder, assignment existence, or temporal overlap;
5. RA.HolderSystemSlot = S, the admitted System that actually performed W; and
6. RA's species predicate obtains throughout the attributed temporal extent of W.

Conditions 1–3, 5, and 6 are five constraints on a valid attribution but do not establish it. F.6 reuses the obtaining A.13 assignment; it does not create the A.13 classification, assignment, evidence, optional profile, or Work. Failure of condition 4 or any constraint leaves W : U.Work intact and leaves only this exact assignment-bound attribution unasserted. Two overlapping assignments held by the same System may satisfy all five constraints while the case links the Work to only one. Use that case fact; if it does not distinguish the assignments, leave the attribution unresolved rather than asserting both.

If attribution concerns only a temporal, episode, or operational part of a larger Work whole, first identify that part as its own U.Work occurrence under A.15.1. Do not hide an unidentified Work portion inside F.6.

When a receiver needs an explicit attribution occurrence:

PerformedUnderAssignmentOccurrenceKey =
  <WorkOccurrenceSlot, SystemRoleAssignmentSlot>

This key identifies an already obtaining relation; it does not make one obtain. The attribution extent follows W. Extending an open Work interval or later recording its end does not create another attribution occurrence while both participants and the direct relation remain the same. Another Work occurrence, separately identified Work part, or assignment episode yields another possible pair whose relation must be checked independently.

An assertion can state the exact pair, and evidence can support reliance on that assertion. Neither the assertion nor its evidence constitutes the world-side relation. Missing evidence leaves reliance unresolved; missing pair grounding leaves the positive attribution unasserted. A demonstrated different performer, non-covering assignment, or false direct pair can support a stronger negative claim.

#Preserve the Exact Assignment Species

Before checking or relying on attribution, recover RA's declared species and occurrence. This distinguishes the assignment even when the final practitioner sentence omits its full declaration. Every species declares:

• a HolderSystemSlot whose ValueKind is U.System;
• a declaration-local AssignedSystemRoleKindSlot whose ValueKind is the exact local system-role-kind domain admitted for that species;
• every additional participant meaning and its ValueKind;
• the rule, applicability, and maximal uninterrupted occurrence identity.

An assignment occurrence supplies one participant value for each slot. In particular, it supplies one local system-role-kind value from the AssignedSystemRoleKindSlot domain; the value does not replace or narrow that declared domain.

A simple assignment may have only holder and kind. A project appointment may also have ReviewCommissionSlot. F.6 accepts both through the family ValueKind and holder projection while retaining the declared species and all participants that distinguish the assignment occurrence. Those participants and the assignment rule still do not establish that the Work was performed under the assignment; the case must establish that link separately. F.6 never creates a two-participant generic assignment beside the appointment.

Taxonomy, scheme, KindSignature, assertion, and assignmentInterval can interpret or describe RA without becoming participants by default. Verify temporal coverage from whether the assignment rule actually holds, not merely from a recorded interval.

Do not replace the species with one Context value. Recover what the source token denotes and use its direct pattern. It can denote a system or Work locus, claim scope, or selected BoundedModelUseStructure; those objects are neither interchangeable nor optional participants of generic assignment or attribution signatures.

#Attribution Check Sequence

1. Start from the exact U.Work occurrence already admitted by A.15.1 without an F.6 premise.
2. Recover the assignment occurrence, including its declared species, identity-bearing participants, rule, applicability, and time span.
3. Find the case fact that directly links this Work to this assignment; do not infer that link merely because the holder and interval match.
4. Confirm that the assignment holder is the actual performer.
5. Confirm that the assignment predicate obtains throughout the attributed Work interval.
6. When all five checks pass, state the F.6 relation or say plainly that the holder System performed the Work under that assignment. If the direct link, a participant, or a required constraint is missing, retain the admitted Work and leave only this assignment-bound attribution unresolved; do not select another covering assignment.
7. Keep assertions and evidence separate: they can support reliance on the attribution claim but do not make the relation obtain.
8. Send classification, assignment state, capability, Method, evidence, source use, result, acceptance, publication, bridge, responsibility, and authority questions to their subject patterns.

This sequence is application guidance, not a new check record or workflow object. Its first useful result is the readable exact relation, an unresolved exact pair with the missing fact named, or a corrected route to the direct neighboring claim.

#Method and Work Boundary

performedUnderAssignment has no Method participant. A separate claim may say that the Work enacts one exact semantic Method. The holder System performs the Work; the Work, not the performer or assignment, enacts the Method.

The assignment, system-role kind, capability, Method, and MethodDescription do not act or perform Work. Citing a description can identify, constrain, or support a receiving use of the Method, but it neither enacts the description nor establishes D : U.MethodDescription; use A.3.2 to test that membership separately.

#Direct Neighboring Relations

#Source Shorthand and RoleEnactment

Holder#Role:Context@Window is readable source notation only. Recover the actual system, local system-role kind, assignment species and occurrence, and the object denoted by Context. The source spelling is not a signature.

When source wording says RoleEnactment or RoleEnactmentFact, recover dated Work and performedUnderAssignment. Do not retain a second enactment kind, fact object, or relation occurrence.

#Lightweight Use

After the Work–assignment link and its necessary constraints are established, ordinary use can stop at:

InspectionWork-17 was performed by Robot-7 under InspectionAssignment-17.

Expose declarations and occurrence keys only when a dependent use must distinguish occurrences, cite one as a participant, compare assertions, or preserve provenance. If the assignment cannot be recovered, lower the claim to “Robot-7 is named as performer in record R” and state the source, reliance, and evidence claims under their direct predicates.

Another pattern may require a complete A.13/A.15.1/F.6 basis when its receiving use needs both admitted Work and precise assignment-bound performer attribution, and may point here instead of repeating this declaration and check sequence. That combined basis has a fixed order: A.13 first supplies every performer's exact System, local agential kind and criterion, classification, obtaining assignment, needed scope, working situation, window, and adequate core evidence; A.15.1 independently admits the dated Work from its performance history, at least one obtaining enactsMethod relation, extent, and at least one obtaining locally declared Work-to-System containment relation; only then does F.6 test every required exact Work-assignment pair through the same obtaining A.13 assignment. The phrase is never an A.15.1 membership test. A missing F.6 relation preserves W : U.Work and leaves only the precise attribution unresolved. A characteristic profile remains conditional, and another enactment or containing-system relation is named only when the receiving use relies on it.

#Invariants

1. Every positive performed-Work attribution links one dated U.Work occurrence to one assignment occurrence of a declared U.SystemRoleAssignment species.
2. SystemRoleAssignmentSlot accepts the family and preserves the assignment's declared species, all participants, rule, applicability, and occurrence identity.
3. The actual performer is the admitted System in RA.HolderSystemSlot; the assignment and kind do not act.
4. RA's predicate obtains throughout the attributed Work interval; a declared window alone does not establish coverage.
5. The species declaration, occurrence participant identity, holder match, and time coverage constrain but do not establish the Work–assignment link.
6. Overlapping assignments are checked pair by pair; an unresolved basis never licenses attribution to every covering assignment.
7. Every positive precise assignment-bound performer attribution starts from an already admitted Work whose actual performer has the A.13 core for the exact action, scope, working situation, and window, then adds its own F.6 link through the same covering assignment occurrence. A characteristic profile remains conditional on its receiving use. A lead, team, member, coordination, allocation, or responsibility claim substitutes for none of these.
8. A passive assigned System is not thereby a performer. Any claimed passive participation needs a rule that defines it; otherwise A.6.RCD returns missing-governor.
9. Assignment does not prove performance, and attribution proves neither classification, capability, state, Method validity, result quality, responsibility, authority, nor acceptance.
10. RoleEnactment wording is repaired to Work plus performedUnderAssignment; no duplicate object remains.
11. Assertions, logs, rosters, evidence, identifiers, and publications can support or designate an attribution but do not constitute it.
12. Missing evidence leaves reliance unresolved; a missing case fact linking Work and assignment leaves the positive attribution unasserted.
13. An episteme does not fill HolderSystemSlot because it describes or supports Work.
14. Cross-context correspondence changes neither assignment identity nor Work attribution.
15. Reduced prose may omit only an assignment identifier unused by the receiving claim, and only after the complete Work–assignment basis remains recoverable.
16. The Method enacted by W remains a separate fact; only the admitted holder System performs W.

#Reasoning Rules

• Accept the attribution only when the case establishes that W was performed under RA, W is a dated Work occurrence, RA is a named assignment occurrence with its participants and rule recovered, the assignment holder performed the Work, and the assignment rule covers the Work interval. A short account may then say that the holder System performed W under RA.
• If W and RA exist, the holder performed the Work, and the assignment covers the interval, do not infer the Work–assignment link. Check the case fact that establishes the link or leave it unresolved.
• If current support for an attribution statement is inadequate, reliance on that statement is unresolved. Do not infer that the Work was not performed under the assignment, and do not treat the statement or evidence as what makes the link true.
• If a source episteme merely names a performer or role, do not claim attribution until the Work and assignment are identified, the case establishes their link, the holder matches the performer, and coverage is checked.

#Archetypal Grounding

#Robot Inspection

MaintenanceInspectionAssignment is a declared species under U.SystemRoleAssignment. Its participants include a HolderSystemSlot for the assigned System and a local AssignedSystemRoleKindSlot whose value is an InspectorSystemRole. Its rule applies within the Plant A maintenance scheme and says that the fixed holder is assigned under that kind to supply the inspection contribution; one occurrence is the maximal uninterrupted interval for which that rule stays true for the same participants.

InspectionAssignment-17 : MaintenanceInspectionAssignment
  HolderSystemSlot: Robot-7
  AssignedSystemRoleKindSlot: InspectorSystemRole
  predicateTrueInterval: [2026-07-13T09:00, 2026-07-13T17:00]

InspectionWork-17 was performed under InspectionAssignment-17.

The case basis directly links that Work to that assignment; the matching holder and interval only confirm necessary conditions. Robot-7 is the actor. Separately, the inspection Work enacts TurbineInspection@Maintenance-2026 as its Method. InspectorSystemRole, a sensor capability, algorithm-possession wording, the Method, and TurbineInspectionProcedure-v3 do not perform the inspection. Use A.3.2 to decide whether that last episteme is a MethodDescription. Calibration state, Method adequacy, report quality, and acceptance remain separate.

#Two Review Commissions

ProjectReviewAppointmentAssignment is a declared species. It declares three participant positions: HolderSystemSlot, local assigned kind, and ReviewCommissionSlot. ReviewAssignment-A and ReviewAssignment-B are two occurrences with Alice and ReviewerSystemRole in common but different commissions, and both cover the same interval. The case says that Alice performed ReviewWork-A under assignment A and ReviewWork-B under assignment B; it does not establish either crossed pairing. If the facts say only that Alice performed review Work while both appointments covered the interval, leave the attribution unresolved. The readable projection “Alice is reviewer” selects neither assignment and creates no generic assignment.

#Reviewer and Review Report

CommissionReviewAssignment is a declared species. It declares three participant positions: holder, local reviewer kind, and commission. Its rule applies to admitted review commissions and says that the fixed holder is appointed under the identified commission to supply the review contribution; one occurrence is the maximal uninterrupted interval for which that rule stays true. ReviewAssignment-82 is its occurrence for Alice and Commission-82, and it covers ReviewWork-82. The case identifies this as the assignment under which Alice performed that Work. ReviewReport-82 is a separate U.Episteme; it may state the attribution, and evidence may support reliance on that statement, but neither creates the Work–assignment fact. Use A.15.PROD only for a current report-inception claim. The report is neither the performer nor the attribution.

#Standard Used during Safety Work

A safety MethodDescription cites a standard, and source prose says that the standard has a “normative role”. Do not create an assignment for the standard. The standard remains an episteme in the external-rule, source-use, specification-use, or evidence relation selected by the claim.

A safety engineer or tool System can separately hold a covering safety-analysis assignment and perform dated safety Work. Attribution names the assignment occurrence and the case fact linking it to the Work; it does not use the standard as performer.

#Access Label and Approval Work

An access directory says Alice has DB-Admin. That entry describes an access or policy relation under its own scheme; it is not automatically an ApproverSystemRole assignment.

ApprovalCommissionAssignment is a declared species. It declares three participant positions: holder, local approver kind, and ApprovalScopeSlot. Its rule applies to admitted release scopes and says that the fixed holder is commissioned to supply approval within the identified scope; one occurrence is the maximal uninterrupted interval for which that rule stays true. ApprovalAssignment-481 is its occurrence for Alice and the current release scope. If it covers ApprovalWork-481 and the case identifies it as the assignment under which Alice performed that Work, the attribution is grounded. The directory entry may support a separate authorization claim but cannot substitute for the assignment or its link to the Work.

#Distributed Performers and Child Work

A.13 first recovers ReviewTeam-9 and Alice as the two exact actual performers through TeamReviewAssignment-9 and MemberReviewAssignment-A9, and A.15.1 independently admits JointReviewWork-9. Because this example expressly represents assignment-bound attribution for each performer, F.6 afterward establishes one relation for each Work-assignment pair through those same assignments. Neither assignment identifies or stands for the other performer. If AliceFindingCheckWork-9 is separately admitted as child Work after its own A.13/A.15.1 basis passes, add its covering assignment and F.6 link only because this example also expressly attributes that child Work, and keep its Work-part relation to JointReviewWork-9 separate.

#Passive Test Article

TestArticle-7, admitted as a U.System, holds TestSubjectAssignment-7 throughout ValidationWork-7. ValidationRig-2, also admitted as a U.System, actually performs the Work under its own ValidationPerformerAssignment-7; only that Work-attribution link is established. The test article's assignment and presence during the interval do not make it a performer. If the project needs to say that the article participated passively in the validation, use the domain rule that defines that participation; while no such rule is current, return the A.6.RCD missing-governor result rather than treating the assignment as participation.

#Bias Annotation

#Conformance Checklist

1. WorkOccurrenceSlot names one dated U.Work occurrence already admitted by A.15.1 without relying on F.6; its actual performers already have the A.13 core for the exact action, scope, working situation, and window, and any characteristic profile is required only by its own Grade, autonomy, criterion-dependent, profile, or assurance use.
2. SystemRoleAssignmentSlot names one assignment occurrence of a declared species under U.SystemRoleAssignment through U.RelationRef.
3. The assignment's declared species, all identity-bearing participants, rule, applicability, and uninterrupted occurrence identity remain recoverable. Each species keeps its SlotSpec ValueKind domains distinct from the participant values supplied by the occurrence; AssignedSystemRoleKindSlot takes one kind value from its declared local system-role-kind domain.
4. The case establishes that W was performed under RA; the assignment's existence, matching holder, and temporal overlap do not establish that link.
5. The assignment holder is the System that actually performed W.
6. The assignment predicate covers the selected Work interval; attribution to a Work part first identifies that part as U.Work.
7. Checks 2, 3, 5, and 6 constrain a valid attribution but do not by themselves establish it.
8. Overlapping assignments are distinguished by all their participants and by checking each Work–assignment link from the case; an unresolved case yields no blanket attribution.
9. Every positive precise attribution for a top-level or child Work occurrence has its own covering assignment and F.6 link to that already admitted Work; lead, team, member, allocation, coordination, and responsibility claims do not substitute.
10. A passive assigned System receives no performer attribution from assignment or overlap; any claimed passive participation uses the rule that defines it or returns the A.6.RCD missing-governor result.
11. F.6 uses performedUnderAssignment and introduces no RoleEnactmentFact or generic assignment duplicate.
12. Assertions and evidence may support reliance on the attribution claim but do not make it true.
13. Classification, assignment state, capability, Method, result, evidence, source reliance, publication, responsibility, authority, gate, and decision claims use direct patterns.
14. Any selected model-use structure is designated by the receiving assertion or use, not by an optional generic slot.
15. Missing evidence leaves reliance unresolved rather than proving non-attribution; missing pair grounding leaves the positive relation unasserted.
16. Source shorthand is unfolded before a receiver depends on hidden values.
17. The Method enacted by W remains a separate fact, and no kind, assignment, capability, Method, or description is made the actor.
18. A short practitioner sentence may omit declaration and occurrence detail only after the Work–assignment link and its constraints are established.

#Common Anti-Patterns and Repairs

#Consequences

Benefits. Assignment and Work remain independently identifiable, while attribution becomes a direct relation that can be cited, supported, corrected, or left unresolved. People, teams, organizations, machines, services, and software systems use the same pattern because every assignment occurrence exposes its admitted holder through the species-declared holder slot.

Costs. Reliance-bearing use must recover both the assignment occurrence and its declared species rather than stop at a familiar label. A compact sentence can split into assignment assertion, Work occurrence, attribution, Method enactment, change or production claim, result episteme, and evidence relation when the receiving use needs them.

Limits. F.6 determines neither classification, capability, readiness, Method validity, Work success, result acceptance, permission, authorization, responsibility, access, nor evidence sufficiency. It governs only attribution of one Work occurrence through one assignment occurrence.

#Rationale

The direct relation is needed because assignment and Work have different occurrence identities. performedUnderAssignment is an additional world-side fact, not a field stored inside either participant. A separate assertion can say that the assignment obtains, the Work occurred, or their attribution relation obtains.

Using the family ValueKind in F.6 does not license a family-wide assignment signature. It lets F.6 project the actual holder from each occurrence through its species-declared holder slot while preserving any commission, position, locus, or other real participant. Creating a generic assignment for F.6 would duplicate the episode and weaken attribution identity.

Making a log, status, decision, or evidence item a participant would confuse attribution with knowledge of attribution. Creating RoleEnactmentFact would duplicate Work and the same relation. Treating a matching holder and temporal coverage as enough would instead attribute one Work to every overlapping assignment held by its performer. The two-participant relation avoids both errors: the case fact linking Work to assignment is checked separately, while assertions and evidence can change without rewriting the Work, assignment, or their link.

#SoTA-Echoing and Source Use

Internal basis, not an external SoTA claim. A.2.1 and A.6.5 supply the declaration-local slot, domain, and participant-value discipline. A.2.5 keeps assignment state distinct from the assignment occurrence. A.6.REL supplies relation obtaining and occurrence identity. A.15.1 supplies dated Work and the actual-performer basis. F.6 uses these as its governing FPF neighbours; they do not replace comparison with external work.

The comparison is qualified on 2026-08-15 for this question and these source editions. gUFO is the current comparator because it directly addresses the classification–relational-aspect–occurrence separation at issue; PROV-O and OCEL answer narrower representation and logging questions and therefore serve as lineage and stress tests. A new edition number, publication status, or harmless wording change does not reopen the comparison. A material change to a distinction used above, or a competitor that offers a better direct Work–assignment attribution solution with at least the same exactness, readability, and use cost, reopens only the affected row and F.6 loci.

Refresh by meaning, not by publication. If A.2.1 or A.6.5 changes how an assignment species declares slot domains or how an occurrence supplies participant values, revisit §§4.3, 5, 7.1, and 9. If A.6.REL changes relation obtaining or occurrence identity, revisit §§4.1–4.2, 5, 7, and 9. If A.15.1 changes the actual-performer or covering-assignment basis, revisit §§4.4–4.6, 7, and 9. If a better direct Work–assignment solution changes the source decision, revisit §13 and only the solution or examples that depend on it. Wording or publication changes that leave these meanings intact require no refresh.

#Relations

Builds on: A.6.REL for relation obtaining and occurrence identity; A.2 for system-role kinds; A.2.1 for direct assignment species; and A.15.1 for dated Work.

Uses when current: A.2.5 for assignment state; A.2.2 for capability; A.3 and A.15 for Method and Work alignment; A.10 for evidence; A.15.4 for encountered-material reliance; C.3.3, F.9, and A.6.9 for cross-context use; and A.1.1 only when a selected model-use structure changes the receiving interpretation.

Coordinates with: F.4 for system-role-kind descriptions; F.5 and F.18 for names; E.17 for publication; and E.10.ROLE for ambiguous source wording.

#Completion Conditions

F.6 use is complete when the reader has one of these results:

• one direct performedUnderAssignment relation between exact Work and assignment occurrences;
• an unresolved attribution assertion naming the missing exact-pair fact, assignment species or participant, coverage, performer, or support claim; or
• a corrected route because the current claim concerns classification, assignment, state, capability, Method, evidence, source reliance, result, publication, permission, authority, responsibility, access, gate, or decision rather than performed-Work attribution.

#F.6:End

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