{"schema":"https://ver.cy/schemas/card/1.0.0","id":"vr.wm-knw-016","code":"wm-knw-016-assumption","url":"https://ver.cy/models/wm-knw-016-assumption/","name":"Assumption","alternateNames":[],"kind":"world-model","status":"published","version":"0.3.0-research.1","language":"en","classifiers":{"family":"World Models","category":"Information and virtual systems","entryKind":"entity","plane":"","domain":["INF.KNW.ASM"],"industry":["Cross-industry"],"navPath":"NAV.INF.KNW.ASM","tags":["assumption","inf.knw.asm"],"facets":{}},"whatItIs":"Owns assumption identity and immutable revision; proposition reference or marked statement; kind and epistemic status; proposer, owner, steward, approver, reviewer, challenger and affected roles; purpose, reasoning context, scope, jurisdiction, environment, validity interval and review date; rationale, sources, supporting and contrary evidence; confidence, uncertainty, reliability and sensitivity; typed dependencies and affected outputs; consequences if false, impact, exposure, risk, mitigation and contingency; challenge, validation and review; acceptance, activation, invalidation, expiry, correction, supersession, access, retention and loss-aware projections. Proposition, fact, evidence, hypothesis, requirement, rule, risk, issue, decision, plan, test, measurement and source-document masters remain external.","purpose":"Represent one governed premise accepted provisionally for a stated purpose, scope and reasoning context without asserting that it is a verified fact.","scope":{"in":["Assumption identity, proposition role, statement, kind, status, revision and authority","Purpose, context, scope, rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependency, consequence, review and lifecycle","Provenance, governance, access, retention and interoperability"],"out":["Owning proposition, fact, evidence, hypothesis, requirement, rule, risk, issue, decision, plan, test, measurement or source-document lifecycles","Equating acceptance with truth, confidence with probability, contextual validation with universal proof, or missing evidence with support","Executing approval, risk acceptance, protected disclosure, external system mutation, safety action or irreversible deletion"],"boundaries":[{"neighbor":"WM-KNW-007 Claim / Proposition","distinction":"Claim owns truth-apt proposition identity and content. Assumption owns the premise role, acceptance state and reliance context; the registry parent signal remains under joint boundary review."},{"neighbor":"Fact and observation","distinction":"A fact or observation is asserted as established under its evidence rules. An assumption is explicitly accepted despite unresolved verification and never becomes a fact through use alone."},{"neighbor":"WM-KNW-009 Hypothesis","distinction":"A hypothesis is framed for evaluation or testing. An assumption is a premise used by another reasoning or action context and may be testable, untestable or awaiting validation."},{"neighbor":"WM-KNW-008 Evidence / Citation","distinction":"Evidence and citations remain external records. The assumption owns qualified support, challenge and gap bindings, not the evidence content."},{"neighbor":"Requirement, rule, risk and issue","distinction":"These records may depend on or challenge an assumption. Their normative force, assessment, treatment and resolution lifecycles remain external."},{"neighbor":"Decision, plan, model and estimate","distinction":"These contexts rely on assumptions and own accountable choices, execution, algorithms or calculated outputs. The assumption records typed reliance and impact links only."},{"neighbor":"Validation and review","distinction":"A validation activity and its evidence remain external. The assumption owns source-qualified assessment links and contextual status, never a global truth flag."}]},"distinguishingFeatures":["A proposition taken as true for a stated purpose and scope, without being established as fact.","Differs from a hypothesis, which is put to test, and from a requirement, which states what must hold.","Accepting an assumption does not make it true, and confidence in it is not a probability.","Carries a review trigger and the consequence of being wrong, which a plain fact record does not."],"structure":{"bundles":[{"id":"assumption-identity-expression-kind-and-status","name":"Assumption identity, expression, kind and status","description":"Groups the governed Resource Consumption concern for assumption identity, expression, kind and status.","layers":[{"id":"identity-revision-proposition-and-record-boundary","name":"Identity, revision, proposition and record boundary","description":"Groups Resource Consumption context for identity, revision, proposition and record boundary without importing neighboring master lifecycles.","findings":[{"id":"assumption-identifier-namespace-version-revision-predecessor-and-successor","name":"Assumption identifier, namespace, version, revision, predecessor and successor","description":"Records assumption identifier, namespace, version, revision, predecessor and successor as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish assumption identifier, namespace, version, revision, predecessor and successor?","id":"assumption-identifier-namespace-version-revision-predecessor-and-successor-q01","kind":"identity"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses assumption identifier, namespace, version, revision, predecessor and successor, and under which authority?","id":"assumption-identifier-namespace-version-revision-predecessor-and-successor-q02","kind":"ownership"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify assumption identifier, namespace, version, revision, predecessor and successor?","id":"assumption-identifier-namespace-version-revision-predecessor-and-successor-q03","kind":"validation"}]},{"id":"proposition-reference-statement-language-terms-and-formal-expression","name":"Proposition reference, statement, language, terms and formal expression","description":"Records proposition reference, statement, language, terms and formal expression as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish proposition reference, statement, language, terms and formal expression?","id":"proposition-reference-statement-language-terms-and-formal-expression-q01","kind":"definition"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses proposition reference, statement, language, terms and formal expression, and under which authority?","id":"proposition-reference-statement-language-terms-and-formal-expression-q02","kind":"authority"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify proposition reference, statement, language, terms and formal expression?","id":"proposition-reference-statement-language-terms-and-formal-expression-q03","kind":"security"}]}]},{"id":"kind-epistemic-status-and-recognition","name":"Kind, epistemic status and recognition","description":"Groups Resource Consumption context for kind, epistemic status and recognition without importing neighboring master lifecycles.","findings":[{"id":"planning-modeling-estimating-argument-safety-and-operational-kind","name":"Planning, modeling, estimating, argument, safety and operational kind","description":"Records planning, modeling, estimating, argument, safety and operational kind as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish planning, modeling, estimating, argument, safety and operational kind?","id":"planning-modeling-estimating-argument-safety-and-operational-kind-q01","kind":"classification"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses planning, modeling, estimating, argument, safety and operational kind, and under which authority?","id":"planning-modeling-estimating-argument-safety-and-operational-kind-q02","kind":"requirement"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify planning, modeling, estimating, argument, safety and operational kind?","id":"planning-modeling-estimating-argument-safety-and-operational-kind-q03","kind":"privacy"}]},{"id":"proposed-accepted-assumed-axiomatic-unsupported-unknown-and-contested-status","name":"Proposed, accepted, assumed, axiomatic, unsupported, unknown and contested status","description":"Records proposed, accepted, assumed, axiomatic, unsupported, unknown and contested status as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish proposed, accepted, assumed, axiomatic, unsupported, unknown and contested status?","id":"proposed-accepted-assumed-axiomatic-unsupported-unknown-and-contested-status-q01","kind":"state"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses proposed, accepted, assumed, axiomatic, unsupported, unknown and contested status, and under which authority?","id":"proposed-accepted-assumed-axiomatic-unsupported-unknown-and-contested-status-q02","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify proposed, accepted, assumed, axiomatic, unsupported, unknown and contested status?","id":"proposed-accepted-assumed-axiomatic-unsupported-unknown-and-contested-status-q03","kind":"retention"}]}]}]},{"id":"purpose-actors-authority-scope-and-time","name":"Purpose, actors, authority, scope and time","description":"Groups the governed Resource Consumption concern for purpose, actors, authority, scope and time.","layers":[{"id":"proposer-owner-approver-challenger-and-steward","name":"Proposer, owner, approver, challenger and steward","description":"Groups Resource Consumption context for proposer, owner, approver, challenger and steward without importing neighboring master lifecycles.","findings":[{"id":"proposer-owner-steward-approver-reviewer-challenger-and-affected-role","name":"Proposer, owner, steward, approver, reviewer, challenger and affected role","description":"Records proposer, owner, steward, approver, reviewer, challenger and affected role as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish proposer, owner, steward, approver, reviewer, challenger and affected role?","id":"proposer-owner-steward-approver-reviewer-challenger-and-affected-role-q01","kind":"ownership"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses proposer, owner, steward, approver, reviewer, challenger and affected role, and under which authority?","id":"proposer-owner-steward-approver-reviewer-challenger-and-affected-role-q02","kind":"process"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify proposer, owner, steward, approver, reviewer, challenger and affected role?","id":"proposer-owner-steward-approver-reviewer-challenger-and-affected-role-q03","kind":"access"}]},{"id":"authority-signoff-accountability-separation-of-duties-and-escalation","name":"Authority, sign-off, accountability, separation of duties and escalation","description":"Records authority, sign-off, accountability, separation of duties and escalation as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish authority, sign-off, accountability, separation of duties and escalation?","id":"authority-signoff-accountability-separation-of-duties-and-escalation-q01","kind":"authority"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses authority, sign-off, accountability, separation of duties and escalation, and under which authority?","id":"authority-signoff-accountability-separation-of-duties-and-escalation-q02","kind":"event"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify authority, sign-off, accountability, separation of duties and escalation?","id":"authority-signoff-accountability-separation-of-duties-and-escalation-q03","kind":"exception"}]}]},{"id":"purpose-reasoning-context-scope-place-and-time","name":"Purpose, reasoning context, scope, place and time","description":"Groups Resource Consumption context for purpose, reasoning context, scope, place and time without importing neighboring master lifecycles.","findings":[{"id":"intended-use-reasoning-context-decision-plan-model-and-system-boundary","name":"Intended use, reasoning context, decision, plan, model and system boundary","description":"Records intended use, reasoning context, decision, plan, model and system boundary as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish intended use, reasoning context, decision, plan, model and system boundary?","id":"intended-use-reasoning-context-decision-plan-model-and-system-boundary-q01","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses intended use, reasoning context, decision, plan, model and system boundary, and under which authority?","id":"intended-use-reasoning-context-decision-plan-model-and-system-boundary-q02","kind":"measurement"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify intended use, reasoning context, decision, plan, model and system boundary?","id":"intended-use-reasoning-context-decision-plan-model-and-system-boundary-q03","kind":"interoperability"}]},{"id":"population-jurisdiction-environment-location-validity-review-and-observation-time","name":"Population, jurisdiction, environment, location, validity, review and observation time","description":"Records population, jurisdiction, environment, location, validity, review and observation time as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish population, jurisdiction, environment, location, validity, review and observation time?","id":"population-jurisdiction-environment-location-validity-review-and-observation-time-q01","kind":"temporal"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses population, jurisdiction, environment, location, validity, review and observation time, and under which authority?","id":"population-jurisdiction-environment-location-validity-review-and-observation-time-q02","kind":"evidence"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify population, jurisdiction, environment, location, validity, review and observation time?","id":"population-jurisdiction-environment-location-validity-review-and-observation-time-q03","kind":"decision"}]}]}]},{"id":"rationale-evidence-uncertainty-and-sensitivity","name":"Rationale, evidence, uncertainty and sensitivity","description":"Groups the governed Resource Consumption concern for rationale, evidence, uncertainty and sensitivity.","layers":[{"id":"rationale-source-support-challenge-and-gap","name":"Rationale, source, support, challenge and gap","description":"Groups Resource Consumption context for rationale, source, support, challenge and gap without importing neighboring master lifecycles.","findings":[{"id":"motivation-rationale-source-citation-support-and-justification","name":"Motivation, rationale, source, citation, support and justification","description":"Records motivation, rationale, source, citation, support and justification as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish motivation, rationale, source, citation, support and justification?","id":"motivation-rationale-source-citation-support-and-justification-q01","kind":"provenance"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses motivation, rationale, source, citation, support and justification, and under which authority?","id":"motivation-rationale-source-citation-support-and-justification-q02","kind":"quality"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify motivation, rationale, source, citation, support and justification?","id":"motivation-rationale-source-citation-support-and-justification-q03","kind":"identity"}]},{"id":"contrary-evidence-counterclaim-gap-conflict-bias-and-limitation","name":"Contrary evidence, counterclaim, gap, conflict, bias and limitation","description":"Records contrary evidence, counterclaim, gap, conflict, bias and limitation as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish contrary evidence, counterclaim, gap, conflict, bias and limitation?","id":"contrary-evidence-counterclaim-gap-conflict-bias-and-limitation-q01","kind":"evidence"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses contrary evidence, counterclaim, gap, conflict, bias and limitation, and under which authority?","id":"contrary-evidence-counterclaim-gap-conflict-bias-and-limitation-q02","kind":"validation"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify contrary evidence, counterclaim, gap, conflict, bias and limitation?","id":"contrary-evidence-counterclaim-gap-conflict-bias-and-limitation-q03","kind":"classification"}]}]},{"id":"confidence-uncertainty-reliability-and-sensitivity","name":"Confidence, uncertainty, reliability and sensitivity","description":"Groups Resource Consumption context for confidence, uncertainty, reliability and sensitivity without importing neighboring master lifecycles.","findings":[{"id":"confidence-basis-probability-range-distribution-uncertainty-and-reliability","name":"Confidence basis, probability, range, distribution, uncertainty and reliability","description":"Records confidence basis, probability, range, distribution, uncertainty and reliability as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish confidence basis, probability, range, distribution, uncertainty and reliability?","id":"confidence-basis-probability-range-distribution-uncertainty-and-reliability-q01","kind":"measurement"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses confidence basis, probability, range, distribution, uncertainty and reliability, and under which authority?","id":"confidence-basis-probability-range-distribution-uncertainty-and-reliability-q02","kind":"security"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify confidence basis, probability, range, distribution, uncertainty and reliability?","id":"confidence-basis-probability-range-distribution-uncertainty-and-reliability-q03","kind":"composition"}]},{"id":"sensitivity-driver-threshold-scenario-robustness-and-materiality","name":"Sensitivity driver, threshold, scenario, robustness and materiality","description":"Records sensitivity driver, threshold, scenario, robustness and materiality as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish sensitivity driver, threshold, scenario, robustness and materiality?","id":"sensitivity-driver-threshold-scenario-robustness-and-materiality-q01","kind":"quality"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses sensitivity driver, threshold, scenario, robustness and materiality, and under which authority?","id":"sensitivity-driver-threshold-scenario-robustness-and-materiality-q02","kind":"privacy"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify sensitivity driver, threshold, scenario, robustness and materiality?","id":"sensitivity-driver-threshold-scenario-robustness-and-materiality-q03","kind":"relationship"}]}]}]},{"id":"dependencies-consequences-risk-and-contingency","name":"Dependencies, consequences, risk and contingency","description":"Groups the governed Resource Consumption concern for dependencies, consequences, risk and contingency.","layers":[{"id":"dependency-derivation-conflict-and-affected-output","name":"Dependency, derivation, conflict and affected output","description":"Groups Resource Consumption context for dependency, derivation, conflict and affected output without importing neighboring master lifecycles.","findings":[{"id":"parent-child-derived-prerequisite-equivalent-conflicting-and-circular-relation","name":"Parent, child, derived, prerequisite, equivalent, conflicting and circular relation","description":"Records parent, child, derived, prerequisite, equivalent, conflicting and circular relation as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish parent, child, derived, prerequisite, equivalent, conflicting and circular relation?","id":"parent-child-derived-prerequisite-equivalent-conflicting-and-circular-relation-q01","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses parent, child, derived, prerequisite, equivalent, conflicting and circular relation, and under which authority?","id":"parent-child-derived-prerequisite-equivalent-conflicting-and-circular-relation-q02","kind":"retention"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify parent, child, derived, prerequisite, equivalent, conflicting and circular relation?","id":"parent-child-derived-prerequisite-equivalent-conflicting-and-circular-relation-q03","kind":"state"}]},{"id":"dependent-requirement-model-estimate-plan-decision-control-and-action","name":"Dependent requirement, model, estimate, plan, decision, control and action","description":"Records dependent requirement, model, estimate, plan, decision, control and action as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish dependent requirement, model, estimate, plan, decision, control and action?","id":"dependent-requirement-model-estimate-plan-decision-control-and-action-q01","kind":"composition"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses dependent requirement, model, estimate, plan, decision, control and action, and under which authority?","id":"dependent-requirement-model-estimate-plan-decision-control-and-action-q02","kind":"access"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify dependent requirement, model, estimate, plan, decision, control and action?","id":"dependent-requirement-model-estimate-plan-decision-control-and-action-q03","kind":"lifecycle"}]}]},{"id":"false-consequence-exposure-risk-mitigation-and-contingency","name":"False consequence, exposure, risk, mitigation and contingency","description":"Groups Resource Consumption context for false consequence, exposure, risk, mitigation and contingency without importing neighboring master lifecycles.","findings":[{"id":"false-or-invalid-consequence-impact-likelihood-exposure-priority-and-criticality","name":"False or invalid consequence, impact, likelihood, exposure, priority and criticality","description":"Records false or invalid consequence, impact, likelihood, exposure, priority and criticality as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish false or invalid consequence, impact, likelihood, exposure, priority and criticality?","id":"false-or-invalid-consequence-impact-likelihood-exposure-priority-and-criticality-q01","kind":"measurement"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses false or invalid consequence, impact, likelihood, exposure, priority and criticality, and under which authority?","id":"false-or-invalid-consequence-impact-likelihood-exposure-priority-and-criticality-q02","kind":"exception"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify false or invalid consequence, impact, likelihood, exposure, priority and criticality?","id":"false-or-invalid-consequence-impact-likelihood-exposure-priority-and-criticality-q03","kind":"temporal"}]},{"id":"monitor-indicator-trigger-mitigation-contingency-fallback-and-safe-state","name":"Monitor, indicator, trigger, mitigation, contingency, fallback and safe state","description":"Records monitor, indicator, trigger, mitigation, contingency, fallback and safe state as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish monitor, indicator, trigger, mitigation, contingency, fallback and safe state?","id":"monitor-indicator-trigger-mitigation-contingency-fallback-and-safe-state-q01","kind":"process"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses monitor, indicator, trigger, mitigation, contingency, fallback and safe state, and under which authority?","id":"monitor-indicator-trigger-mitigation-contingency-fallback-and-safe-state-q02","kind":"interoperability"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify monitor, indicator, trigger, mitigation, contingency, fallback and safe state?","id":"monitor-indicator-trigger-mitigation-contingency-fallback-and-safe-state-q03","kind":"spatial"}]}]}]},{"id":"challenge-validation-review-lifecycle-and-change","name":"Challenge, validation, review, lifecycle and change","description":"Groups the governed Resource Consumption concern for challenge, validation, review, lifecycle and change.","layers":[{"id":"validation-method-criterion-result-and-evidence","name":"Validation method, criterion, result and evidence","description":"Groups Resource Consumption context for validation method, criterion, result and evidence without importing neighboring master lifecycles.","findings":[{"id":"validation-question-method-input-criterion-threshold-reviewer-and-schedule","name":"Validation question, method, input, criterion, threshold, reviewer and schedule","description":"Records validation question, method, input, criterion, threshold, reviewer and schedule as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish validation question, method, input, criterion, threshold, reviewer and schedule?","id":"validation-question-method-input-criterion-threshold-reviewer-and-schedule-q01","kind":"validation"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses validation question, method, input, criterion, threshold, reviewer and schedule, and under which authority?","id":"validation-question-method-input-criterion-threshold-reviewer-and-schedule-q02","kind":"decision"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify validation question, method, input, criterion, threshold, reviewer and schedule?","id":"validation-question-method-input-criterion-threshold-reviewer-and-schedule-q03","kind":"provenance"}]},{"id":"supported-challenged-confirmed-invalidated-inconclusive-and-not-tested-result","name":"Supported, challenged, confirmed, invalidated, inconclusive and not-tested result","description":"Records supported, challenged, confirmed, invalidated, inconclusive and not-tested result as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish supported, challenged, confirmed, invalidated, inconclusive and not-tested result?","id":"supported-challenged-confirmed-invalidated-inconclusive-and-not-tested-result-q01","kind":"state"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses supported, challenged, confirmed, invalidated, inconclusive and not-tested result, and under which authority?","id":"supported-challenged-confirmed-invalidated-inconclusive-and-not-tested-result-q02","kind":"identity"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify supported, challenged, confirmed, invalidated, inconclusive and not-tested result?","id":"supported-challenged-confirmed-invalidated-inconclusive-and-not-tested-result-q03","kind":"ownership"}]}]},{"id":"lifecycle-review-correction-and-supersession","name":"Lifecycle, review, correction and supersession","description":"Groups Resource Consumption context for lifecycle, review, correction and supersession without importing neighboring master lifecycles.","findings":[{"id":"draft-proposed-accepted-active-challenged-invalidated-expired-and-retired-state","name":"Draft, proposed, accepted, active, challenged, invalidated, expired and retired state","description":"Records draft, proposed, accepted, active, challenged, invalidated, expired and retired state as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish draft, proposed, accepted, active, challenged, invalidated, expired and retired state?","id":"draft-proposed-accepted-active-challenged-invalidated-expired-and-retired-state-q01","kind":"lifecycle"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses draft, proposed, accepted, active, challenged, invalidated, expired and retired state, and under which authority?","id":"draft-proposed-accepted-active-challenged-invalidated-expired-and-retired-state-q02","kind":"classification"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify draft, proposed, accepted, active, challenged, invalidated, expired and retired state?","id":"draft-proposed-accepted-active-challenged-invalidated-expired-and-retired-state-q03","kind":"authority"}]},{"id":"review-trigger-correction-revision-split-merge-replacement-and-supersession","name":"Review trigger, correction, revision, split, merge, replacement and supersession","description":"Records review trigger, correction, revision, split, merge, replacement and supersession as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish review trigger, correction, revision, split, merge, replacement and supersession?","id":"review-trigger-correction-revision-split-merge-replacement-and-supersession-q01","kind":"lifecycle"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses review trigger, correction, revision, split, merge, replacement and supersession, and under which authority?","id":"review-trigger-correction-revision-split-merge-replacement-and-supersession-q02","kind":"composition"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify review trigger, correction, revision, split, merge, replacement and supersession?","id":"review-trigger-correction-revision-split-merge-replacement-and-supersession-q03","kind":"requirement"}]}]}]},{"id":"governance-access-retention-and-interoperability","name":"Governance, access, retention and interoperability","description":"Groups the governed Resource Consumption concern for governance, access, retention and interoperability.","layers":[{"id":"policy-quality-security-access-and-retention","name":"Policy, quality, security, access and retention","description":"Groups Resource Consumption context for policy, quality, security, access and retention without importing neighboring master lifecycles.","findings":[{"id":"completeness-consistency-freshness-traceability-quality-and-assurance","name":"Completeness, consistency, freshness, traceability, quality and assurance","description":"Records completeness, consistency, freshness, traceability, quality and assurance as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish completeness, consistency, freshness, traceability, quality and assurance?","id":"completeness-consistency-freshness-traceability-quality-and-assurance-q01","kind":"quality"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses completeness, consistency, freshness, traceability, quality and assurance, and under which authority?","id":"completeness-consistency-freshness-traceability-quality-and-assurance-q02","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify completeness, consistency, freshness, traceability, quality and assurance?","id":"completeness-consistency-freshness-traceability-quality-and-assurance-q03","kind":"constraint"}]},{"id":"purpose-role-sensitivity-minimum-disclosure-retention-legal-hold-and-tombstone","name":"Purpose, role, sensitivity, minimum disclosure, retention, legal hold and tombstone","description":"Records purpose, role, sensitivity, minimum disclosure, retention, legal hold and tombstone as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish purpose, role, sensitivity, minimum disclosure, retention, legal hold and tombstone?","id":"purpose-role-sensitivity-minimum-disclosure-retention-legal-hold-and-tombstone-q01","kind":"access"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses purpose, role, sensitivity, minimum disclosure, retention, legal hold and tombstone, and under which authority?","id":"purpose-role-sensitivity-minimum-disclosure-retention-legal-hold-and-tombstone-q02","kind":"state"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify purpose, role, sensitivity, minimum disclosure, retention, legal hold and tombstone?","id":"purpose-role-sensitivity-minimum-disclosure-retention-legal-hold-and-tombstone-q03","kind":"process"}]}]},{"id":"standards-crosswalk-conformance-and-loss","name":"Standards crosswalk, conformance and loss","description":"Groups Resource Consumption context for standards crosswalk, conformance and loss without importing neighboring master lifecycles.","findings":[{"id":"assurance-system-risk-analysis-provenance-quality-and-decision-crosswalk","name":"Assurance, system, risk, analysis, provenance, quality and decision crosswalk","description":"Records assurance, system, risk, analysis, provenance, quality and decision crosswalk as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish assurance, system, risk, analysis, provenance, quality and decision crosswalk?","id":"assurance-system-risk-analysis-provenance-quality-and-decision-crosswalk-q01","kind":"interoperability"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses assurance, system, risk, analysis, provenance, quality and decision crosswalk, and under which authority?","id":"assurance-system-risk-analysis-provenance-quality-and-decision-crosswalk-q02","kind":"lifecycle"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify assurance, system, risk, analysis, provenance, quality and decision crosswalk?","id":"assurance-system-risk-analysis-provenance-quality-and-decision-crosswalk-q03","kind":"event"}]},{"id":"profile-version-license-conformance-transformation-and-semantic-loss","name":"Profile, version, license, conformance, transformation and semantic loss","description":"Records profile, version, license, conformance, transformation and semantic loss as a source-qualified Assumption assertion while propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source documents retain external mastership.","questions":[{"text":"Which identity, statement, assumption kind, epistemic status, purpose, scope and revision establish profile, version, license, conformance, transformation and semantic loss?","id":"profile-version-license-conformance-transformation-and-semantic-loss-q01","kind":"validation"},{"text":"Who proposes, owns, accepts, challenges, validates, reviews, revises or discloses profile, version, license, conformance, transformation and semantic loss, and under which authority?","id":"profile-version-license-conformance-transformation-and-semantic-loss-q02","kind":"temporal"},{"text":"Which rationale, evidence, uncertainty, dependencies, false consequences, assessments and interoperability limits qualify profile, version, license, conformance, transformation and semantic loss?","id":"profile-version-license-conformance-transformation-and-semantic-loss-q03","kind":"measurement"}]}]}]}]},"agentConduct":{"may":["Record an assumption with its statement, owner, purpose, scope and review date.","Link the plans, estimates, models and decisions that depend on it.","Check review dates and flag stale or expired assumptions.","Report evidence that contradicts an accepted assumption."],"mustNot":["Present an assumption as an established fact in reports or decisions.","Accept or sign off an assumption on behalf of its owner.","Accept the risk of an assumption being false.","Drop the recorded consequence of the assumption being false.","Silently extend an assumption beyond its stated scope or validity period."],"requiresHuman":["Accepting or signing off an assumption.","Accepting the risk that a critical assumption is false.","Retiring an assumption that decisions still depend on."]},"ethics":{"considerations":["Unstated assumptions about people, for example their needs or behaviour, can carry bias into decisions.","Safety cases and analyses depend on assumptions, so hiding them puts people at risk.","Transparency about assumptions lets those affected challenge a decision."],"affectedParties":["People affected by decisions built on the assumption","Decision makers and analysts","Engineers and safety reviewers","Auditors"]},"owners":{"steward":"Declare the Dimension owner, assumption steward, proposition, evidence, risk, decision, plan and policy masters, plus proposer, approver, reviewer and challenger roles.","roles":[{"name":"Dimension owner","responsibilities":["Own namespace, mastership, delegation, access, retention and federation rules."]},{"name":"Assumption steward","responsibilities":["Own assumption identity, kinds, states, review cadence, version and crosswalk policy."]},{"name":"Proposer or analyst","responsibilities":["Own statement, purpose, scope, rationale, uncertainty and dependency proposal."]},{"name":"Owner or accountable user","responsibilities":["Own operational reliance, monitoring, consequences, mitigation and escalation."]},{"name":"Approver","responsibilities":["Own bounded acceptance or rejection and sign-off rationale."]},{"name":"Validator or reviewer","responsibilities":["Own method, criteria, evidence, assessment and follow-up recommendation."]},{"name":"Challenger or affected party","responsibilities":["Append contrary evidence, impacts, disputes and correction requests without rewriting originals."]},{"name":"Records and access steward","responsibilities":["Own disclosure, retention, legal hold, tombstone and audit policy."]}],"masterSystems":[]},"relations":[{"target":"WM-KNW-007 Claim / Proposition","type":"references","note":"Resolve proposition identity while the registry parent signal remains under joint boundary review."},{"target":"WM-KNW-008 Evidence / Citation and fact, observation and source-document masters","type":"references","note":"Resolve supporting, contrary and missing evidence without importing evidence lifecycle or content."},{"target":"WM-KNW-009 Hypothesis, WM-KNW-013 Constraint / Requirement Rule, risk, issue, decision, plan, model, estimate and test masters","type":"references","note":"Resolve neighboring epistemic, normative, risk and reliance contexts without copying their state machines."},{"target":"OMG SACM 2.3 and SysML 2.0","type":"aligned","note":"Project assumed-claim, argument-context and system-model assumption views."},{"target":"ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 and 15288:2023","type":"aligned","note":"Project requirements and system-life-cycle contexts, traceability and review semantics."},{"target":"ISO 31000:2018, IEC 31010:2019 and NIST SP 800-30 Rev. 1","type":"aligned","note":"Project uncertainty, risk, consequence, likelihood, impact and assessment-method views."},{"target":"NIST AI RMF 1.0","type":"aligned","note":"Project AI context assumptions, limitations, risk, validation and monitoring views while revision remains pending."},{"target":"NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, UK AQuA Book and GAO-20-195G","type":"aligned","note":"Project engineering, analytical and estimating assumption-log profiles with explicit sign-off and sensitivity."},{"target":"PROV-O, DQV, Web Annotation, ODRL and SHACL","type":"aligned","note":"Project provenance, quality, annotation, access-policy and validation-report semantics."},{"target":"DataCite 4.7, RO-Crate 1.3 and Schema.org Claim","type":"aligned","note":"Project persistent identity, packaging, contextual entities and claim discovery metadata."},{"target":"RFC 3339, RFC 2119, RFC 8174 and RFC 8785","type":"aligned","note":"Project unambiguous clocks, declared normative language and deterministic serialization."},{"target":"OMG DMN 1.5","type":"aligned","note":"Project assumption-to-input, knowledge-source and decision dependency views without making DMN the master."},{"target":"WM-KNW-007 Claim / Proposition","type":"neighbor","note":"Claim owns truth-apt proposition identity and content. Assumption owns the premise role, acceptance state and reliance context; the registry parent signal remains under joint boundary review."},{"target":"Fact and observation","type":"neighbor","note":"A fact or observation is asserted as established under its evidence rules. An assumption is explicitly accepted despite unresolved verification and never becomes a fact through use alone."},{"target":"WM-KNW-009 Hypothesis","type":"neighbor","note":"A hypothesis is framed for evaluation or testing. An assumption is a premise used by another reasoning or action context and may be testable, untestable or awaiting validation."},{"target":"WM-KNW-008 Evidence / Citation","type":"neighbor","note":"Evidence and citations remain external records. The assumption owns qualified support, challenge and gap bindings, not the evidence content."},{"target":"Requirement, rule, risk and issue","type":"neighbor","note":"These records may depend on or challenge an assumption. Their normative force, assessment, treatment and resolution lifecycles remain external."},{"target":"Decision, plan, model and estimate","type":"neighbor","note":"These contexts rely on assumptions and own accountable choices, execution, algorithms or calculated outputs. The assumption records typed reliance and impact links only."},{"target":"Validation and review","type":"neighbor","note":"A validation activity and its evidence remain external. The assumption owns source-qualified assessment links and contextual status, never a global truth flag."},{"target":"WM-KNW-007","type":"parent"}],"interaction":{"identity":{"applicability":"required","items":["Authoritative master-system identifier for the assumption and immutable revision, including an assumption-log identifier where that log is authoritative.","Governed globally resolvable assumption or proposition IRI.","Adopting-Dimension UUID or ULID when no authoritative external identifier exists."]},"properties":{"applicability":"not-applicable","items":[]},"recognition":{"applicability":"optional","items":["An assumption record has a statement, owner, purpose, scope, status, review date and the consequence if false.","Often confused with a fact, a hypothesis, a requirement and a risk."]},"capabilities":{"applicability":"required","items":["Register assumption: Create one stable assumption identity linked to a proposition and initial revision.","Express and classify assumption: Record the statement, optional formal expression, assumption kind and epistemic status.","Bind context and authority: Record purpose, scope, actors, authority, location, validity interval and review date.","Accept or sign off assumption: Append accountable acceptance for a bounded purpose without asserting universal truth.","Link dependencies: Bind parent, derived, conflicting and affected requirements, models, estimates, plans and decisions.","Assess uncertainty and impact: Record confidence basis, sensitivity, false consequences, risk, mitigation and contingency.","Challenge assumption: Append contrary evidence, counterclaim, gap or dispute and notify affected contexts.","Validate or review assumption: Apply a declared method and criteria, record contextual outcome and schedule follow-up.","Revise or supersede: Create a correction, replacement, split or merge without overwriting prior reliance history.","Project assumption view: Produce a minimum-necessary standards-aligned view with declared transformation loss."]},"hazards":{"applicability":"required","items":["Decisions resting on stale or false assumptions.","Unsafe designs when a safety assumption fails unnoticed.","Hidden dependencies that spread an error across many analyses."]},"interfaces":{"applicability":"required","items":["W3C PROV-O for provenance.","IETF RFC 2119 and RFC 8174 requirement keywords.","ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 system life cycle processes."]},"context":{"applicability":"required","items":["ISO, OMG, NIST, NASA, UK and US government sources are profiles rather than universal organizational or legal rules.","Authority, sign-off, retention, disclosure, safety and consequences depend on organization, domain and jurisdiction.","Aqua Book and GAO guidance are strong analytical profiles but do not govern all scientific, engineering, legal or operational assumptions."]}},"sources":[{"title":"Structured Assurance Case Metamodel","url":"https://www.omg.org/spec/SACM/","note":"Object Management Group"},{"title":"Systems Modeling Language","url":"https://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/2.0","note":"Object Management Group"},{"title":"Requirements engineering","url":"https://www.iso.org/standard/72089.html","note":"International Organization for Standardization"},{"title":"System life cycle processes","url":"https://www.iso.org/standard/81702.html","note":"International Organization for Standardization"},{"title":"Risk management guidelines","url":"https://www.iso.org/standard/65694.html","note":"International Organization for Standardization"},{"title":"Risk assessment techniques","url":"https://www.iso.org/standard/72140.html","note":"International Electrotechnical Commission"},{"title":"Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework","url":"https://www.nist.gov/publications/artificial-intelligence-risk-management-framework-ai-rmf-10","note":"National Institute of Standards and Technology"},{"title":"Guide for Conducting Risk Assessments","url":"https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/30/r1/final","note":"National Institute of Standards and Technology"},{"title":"Systems Engineering Handbook Appendix","url":"https://www.nasa.gov/reference/system-engineering-handbook-appendix/","note":"National Aeronautics and Space Administration"},{"title":"The AQuA Book","url":"https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-aqua-book","note":"United Kingdom Government Analysis Function"},{"title":"Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide","url":"https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-195g","note":"United States Government Accountability Office"},{"title":"PROV-O: The PROV Ontology","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/","note":"World Wide Web Consortium"},{"title":"Data Quality Vocabulary","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dqv/","note":"World Wide Web Consortium"},{"title":"Web Annotation Data Model","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/","note":"World Wide Web Consortium"},{"title":"ODRL Information Model 2.2","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/","note":"World Wide Web Consortium"},{"title":"Shapes Constraint Language","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/","note":"World Wide Web Consortium"},{"title":"DataCite Metadata Schema","url":"https://schema.datacite.org/","note":"DataCite"},{"title":"RO-Crate Specification","url":"https://www.researchobject.org/ro-crate/specification.html","note":"RO-Crate Community"},{"title":"Schema.org Claim","url":"https://schema.org/Claim","note":"Schema.org Community Group"},{"title":"Date and Time on the Internet","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3339.html","note":"Internet Engineering Task Force"},{"title":"Key words for use in RFCs","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.html","note":"Internet Engineering Task Force"},{"title":"Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174.html","note":"Internet Engineering Task Force"},{"title":"JSON Canonicalization Scheme","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8785.html","note":"Internet Engineering Task Force"},{"title":"Decision Model and Notation","url":"https://www.omg.org/spec/DMN/1.5","note":"Object Management Group"}],"openQuestions":["Reconcile the WM-KNW-007 registry parent signal with the separate identity needed for an assumption role in engineering and analytical logs.","Develop domain-specific assumption kinds, uncertainty methods, validation criteria, risk links, review cadences and authority profiles.","Pin every production crosswalk to exact licensed or open releases and run bidirectional conformance and semantic-loss tests.","Obtain independent epistemology, systems engineering, risk, safety, legal, records, privacy and security review.","Discipline, safety, legal, policy, security, privacy, jurisdiction, analytical-method, licensing and retention profiles require expert review.","Propositions, facts, evidence, hypotheses, requirements, risks, decisions, plans, tests and source-document lifecycles remain neighboring masters.","Universal truth determination, automated risk acceptance, autonomous decision replacement and irreversible enforcement remain future work."],"resources":{"spec":"/models/wm-knw-016-assumption/spec.yaml","agents":"/models/wm-knw-016-assumption/AGENTS.md","source":"https://github.com/ver-cy/world-models/tree/feat/mega-model-registry/research/runs/wm-knw-016"},"provenance":{"origin":"world-models research","builtFrom":["models/wm-knw-016-assumption/spec.yaml","ver-cy/world-models/card-supplements/wm-knw-016-assumption.json"],"providers":["Codex"],"researchStatus":"reviewable-draft","generatedAt":"2026-09-07T09:08:19Z","builder":"tools/build_cards.py@1.0.0"},"completeness":{"sections":{"classifiers":"filled","whatItIs":"filled","purpose":"filled","distinguishingFeatures":"filled","structure":"filled","agentConduct":"filled","ethics":"filled","owners":"filled","relations":"filled","interaction.identity":"filled","interaction.properties":"not-applicable","interaction.recognition":"filled","interaction.capabilities":"filled","interaction.hazards":"filled","interaction.interfaces":"filled","interaction.context":"filled","sources":"filled"},"notes":{"interaction.properties":"Institutional or informational subject: no invented physical properties.","_supplement":"Sections authored in card supplement 1.0.0 by Claude (Opus 5.5) (2026-10-05, unreviewed). Written from the published specification and established practice in the field; no new sources were read. Unreviewed."},"score":1.0}}