EM-WRK-06 · Subject model · W2
Dependencies and Impact Analysis
Typed cross-object dependencies, prerequisites and constraints with scope and evidence. Does not imply automatic causality.
Partially published; research continues
Claude: complete-initial-study-plus-single-frozen-audit-remediated; Grok: complete-reconciled.
Published results
Research note, in Russian: Canonical/runtime promotion remains governed by the package allocation, identity and dependency holds.
Subject boundary and candidate types
- Dependency
- DependencyType
- CriticalityAssessment
- ImpactScenario
- DependencyEvidence
Deep research questions
- Which edges permit transitivity?
- How are blocking, usage, funding and a causal claim distinguished?
- How is graph incompleteness accounted for in impact analysis?
Verifiable invariants
- Type and direction are mandatory
- A cycle is allowed only under the rules of the specific type
- The absence of an edge does not prove independence
End-to-end acceptance scenario
For an API change and a resource delay, obtain different impact sets; unknown relationships reduce the completeness of the answer.
Negative case
Any path in the graph is declared a proven causal chain.
Approaches to compare
- PMI: project/program/portfolio
- Process-based and flow-based organization of work; compare Scrum/Kanban against primary sources
- Tracker object practice: container, issue, workflow and binding to the business initiative
Candidates in the live catalogue
- WM-XCT-037 · Dependency / Impact · 0.3.0-research.1 · installable
Semantic fit requires boundary research; a published model does not by itself complete this card.
Result requirements
Every card is executed together with the full research contract: definitions, fields and cardinalities, lifecycle, sources, data mastership, rights, the five object facets, at least eight invariants, positive and negative examples, dependencies, migration and applicability limits.