← Back to catalogue
Published

Method / Procedure

vr.wm-act-009 · wm-act-009-method-procedure

Describe a reusable codified way of working, its governed editions, applicability, evidence and scoped adoption.

World Models Activities and processes ACT.MTH
Bundle → Layer → Finding → QuestionsClassifiersWhat it isWhy it existsDistinguishing featuresWhat robots and AI may and may not doMoral aspectsOwnersLinks to other meta-modelsIdentity and identifiersDirect propertiesRecognitionCapabilities and actionsHazards and failure modesStandards and interfacesContext of useSources

Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Filled

6 bundles · 12 layers · 12 findings · 48 questions

Identity and intent Identify the instruction work and the reason for its existence.

Work and edition identity

Keep the reusable work, its immutable edition and its rendering separately addressable.

Work and edition identity

Keep the reusable work, its immutable edition and its rendering separately addressable.

  1. Which authoritative identifier distinguishes this instruction work from its editions and renderings? identity
  2. Is this resource a reasoned method, a detailed procedure, or a separately identified combination? classification
  3. Who is accountable for the work and who may maintain its editions? ownership
  4. Which evidence establishes the received edition and its declared author? provenance

Purpose and reasoning

Describe the intended result and explanatory basis without treating a claim of usefulness as a measured result.

Purpose and reasoning

Describe the intended result and explanatory basis without treating a claim of usefulness as a measured result.

  1. What class of problem does the work address? definition
  2. What reasoning or evidence supports the proposed approach? evidence
  3. Which procedures realize this method and which methods does this procedure claim to realize? relationship
  4. Which claimed benefits remain untested or contested? quality
Codified instructions Describe intended work at instruction level while leaving operational scheduling and execution to consumers.

Instruction content and checks

Represent stable instruction sections, intended outcomes and check points. A method may be explanatory and have no step sequence.

Instruction content and checks

Represent stable instruction sections, intended outcomes and check points. A method may be explanatory and have no step sequence.

  1. Which stable sections or steps constitute this edition? composition
  2. What ordering or conditional interpretation is prescribed between these instructions? process
  3. What types of input and expected output are declared for each instruction? requirement
  4. Which instructions are protected from omission or alteration under the adoption policy? constraint

Reusable content dependencies

Resolve referenced procedures, templates and definitions to explicit versions without absorbing their ownership.

Reusable content dependencies

Resolve referenced procedures, templates and definitions to explicit versions without absorbing their ownership.

  1. Which external instruction or template editions does this work require? relationship
  2. Which dependency mapping preserves section references and which information is lost? interoperability
  3. What is the declared response when a required dependency is unavailable or contradictory? exception
  4. Does the dependency graph contain an unresolved cycle or an unpinned mandatory reference? validation
Applicability and prerequisites State the conditions and practitioner requirements needed to interpret a procedure responsibly.

Scope and operating limits

Record declared applicability and exclusions. No procedure is approved for a particular use merely because its text is available.

Scope and operating limits

Record declared applicability and exclusions. No procedure is approved for a particular use merely because its text is available.

  1. Which settings, domains or locations are included in the declared scope? spatial
  2. Which entry conditions or exclusions limit use of this edition? constraint
  3. Which quantities constrain applicability and how are their units and tolerances defined? measurement
  4. Which hazard classifications require a specialist policy before the instructions may be applied? security

Role and competence requirements

Declare required capabilities and authorization references without certifying any practitioner.

Role and competence requirements

Declare required capabilities and authorization references without certifying any practitioner.

  1. Which capabilities or competence levels does each instruction role require? requirement
  2. Which authorization is required in addition to competence? authority
  3. What kind of external evidence can demonstrate each prerequisite? evidence
  4. How should an adopter record an unmet or unknown prerequisite? exception
Evidence and alignment Distinguish acceptance criteria, test evidence and external conformity claims.

Acceptance and review evidence

Associate edition-specific acceptance expectations and review evidence; actual runs and inspections remain external records.

Acceptance and review evidence

Associate edition-specific acceptance expectations and review evidence; actual runs and inspections remain external records.

  1. What evidence would show that the documented instructions are interpretable and fit for the stated scope? validation
  2. Which review result supports or challenges this exact edition? quality
  3. What metric and sampling assumptions apply to a claimed performance result? measurement
  4. Who disposes of unresolved review findings before local release? decision

Normative references and claims

Keep references, implementation intentions and evidenced conformity distinct and edition-specific.

Normative references and claims

Keep references, implementation intentions and evidenced conformity distinct and edition-specific.

  1. Which external standard editions and clauses are cited or claimed to be implemented? relationship
  2. What evidence supports each conformity assertion and who made it? evidence
  3. Which exclusions, conflicts or approved deviations qualify the asserted alignment? exception
  4. When must a changed external norm trigger review of the claim? temporal
Edition publication and change Govern released content identity, availability and later corrections without changing historical references.

Edition release and status

Separate publication, effectiveness and adoption. Status is qualified by issuer and scope, not a universal current flag.

Edition release and status

Separate publication, effectiveness and adoption. Status is qualified by issuer and scope, not a universal current flag.

  1. What is this edition status and which recorded authority supports it? lifecycle
  2. What are the distinct release, effective and recorded times for the edition? temporal
  3. Which approved content digest and dependency manifest define the released edition? validation
  4. Which controlled locator provides this exact edition to an authorized audience? access

Revision, replacement and withdrawal

Preserve revision lineage and scoped withdrawal reasons. Parallel editions, translations and variants need explicit relations.

Revision, replacement and withdrawal

Preserve revision lineage and scoped withdrawal reasons. Parallel editions, translations and variants need explicit relations.

  1. Which earlier editions are revised, replaced or branched by this edition? lifecycle
  2. Does an erratum change normative meaning or only a rendering? quality
  3. What withdrawal or correction notice was issued and which editions does it affect? event
  4. Which historical content may be retained or removed under the governing policy? retention
Adoption and usable distribution Record scoped uptake and representations while preserving edition, rights and external process boundaries.

Scoped adoption and tailoring

An adopter declares uptake of a pinned edition. Adoption is neither proof of execution nor a conformity certificate.

Scoped adoption and tailoring

An adopter declares uptake of a pinned edition. Adoption is neither proof of execution nor a conformity certificate.

  1. Which adopter is accountable for this adoption record and its scope? ownership
  2. Which exact edition and local variant apply during the adoption interval? temporal
  3. Which tailoring decisions are authorized and how do they differ from the source edition? authority
  4. Which process definitions reference this adoption and where are their master records? relationship

Representations, rights and feedback

Provide controlled renderings and feedback paths without treating a summary or translation as an interchangeable authority.

Representations, rights and feedback

Provide controlled renderings and feedback paths without treating a summary or translation as an interchangeable authority.

  1. How does each translation, handbook or checklist map to its authoritative edition? interoperability
  2. What rights permit reading, copying, adapting or redistributing this representation? access
  3. Which personal or restricted details must be excluded from a distributed view? privacy
  4. Where is feedback about ambiguity or obsolete copies recorded and who reviews it? provenance

Classifiers Filled

Family
World Models
Category
Activities and processes
Entry kind
entity
Navigation path
NAV.ACT.MTH
Domain
ACT.MTH
Industry
Cross-industry
Tags
methodprocedureact.mth
Also called
K6

What it is Filled

One identifiable instruction work, classified as method, procedure or a linked combination, with edition-specific content and adoption declarations. A method can be explanatory rather than sequential. This is a proposed information model, not an execution engine or a universal assurance standard.

In scope

  • Stable instruction-work identity, purpose and reasoning
  • Edition-specific instructions, dependencies, applicability and prerequisite declarations
  • Review evidence references, normative mappings and qualified claims
  • Publication, change, withdrawal, scoped adoption and controlled representations

Out of scope

  • Process scheduling, runtime control flow and actual task execution
  • Practitioner credential issuance, competence assessment and authorization enforcement
  • External standard, organization, document and audit master lifecycles
  • Automatic safety approval, conformity certification or legal authorization
  • Operational details for weapons, detention or controlled items; only policy-level restrictions and specialist references are allowed

Why it exists Filled

Describe a reusable codified way of working, its governed editions, applicability, evidence and scoped adoption.

Distinguishing features Derived, awaiting review

  • Unlike WM-ACT-003: Process definitions own operational flow, scheduling, resource binding and execution context. The sole registry relation is an incoming candidate REFERENCE: a released process definition pins an adopted immutable instruction edition. This model owns instruction publication and scoped adoption; backlinks are derived.
  • Unlike WM-ACT-006: Task instances own assignment, actual performance and completion. A prescribed step is not an executed work item.
  • Unlike WM-REC-001: Document and record masters own generic carriers and record controls; here the subject is the codified instruction work and its edition semantics.
  • Unlike WM-REC-005: Standard artifacts own the referenced norm and version; this model holds clause references and qualified alignment claims, not the norm lifecycle.
  • Unlike WM-ACT-001 and WM-PER-009: Capability and competence definitions remain separate masters; only method-specific prerequisite references and thresholds belong here.
  • Unlike WM-ORG-001: Authors, adopters and reviewers are external party references; their organizational structures and identity lifecycles remain external.
  • Unlike WM-ACT-033: Reviews and inspections remain external activities; this model binds their evidence to the edition and local release decision.
  • Unlike WM-XCT-038 and WM-XCT-004: Policy evaluation and access audit are referenced services; recording an external decision does not implement evaluation, enforcement or audit trails.
  • Unlike WM-XCT-035: Retention rules and disposition execution remain externally governed. This model records policy and disposition references for its own content.

Note: Derived from boundary notes against neighbouring models.

What robots and AI may and may not do Derived, awaiting review

Must not

  • Dangerous applications stay at policy level with specialist authority and restricted disclosure; never generate operational detail from missing steps.
  • Deny ungranted mutation and restricted content access; permission is resolved by the applicable external policy for the actor, action, purpose, edition and audience.

Only with a human decision

  • Allocate a work or adoption ID only under its accountable owner namespace; record evidence and separate edition-specific content.

May

  • Register an instruction work: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Create a local work record with classified purpose and resolved ownership.
  • Propose an edition revision: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Record proposed content changes against an exact edition without mutating a released payload.
  • Check declared release readiness: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Inspect required evidence links and unresolved references for a selected adopter profile; do not decide practical fitness.
  • Record an authorized release: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Bind an externally authorized release declaration to the exact reviewed edition.
  • Record scoped adoption: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Bind an adopter declaration and optional approved variant to the adopted edition.
  • Record withdrawal or supersession: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Associate an authorized notice with affected editions and known adoption references.

Note: Derived from functions, policies, CRUD and access rules; prohibitions were not authored for agents as such.

Moral aspects Derived, awaiting review

  • Limit personal data in authorship, approval and adoption evidence; retain only justified scoped evidence and apply external retention policy.

Note: Sentences mentioning harm, privacy, consent or similar, collected from the specification.

Owners Filled

Steward

Use generic accountable author, maintainer, adopter and reviewer roles resolved through authoritative party identifiers.

Roles

Instruction author
Draft content, purpose and applicability with evidence.
Edition maintainer
Resolve versions, dependencies and change records without overriding author or adopter authority.
Release approver
Record an authorized release decision against exact content and unresolved issues.
Adoption steward
Maintain scoped adopter declarations and approved tailoring references.
Qualified reviewer
Review instruction quality and limits; preserve negative evidence.
Record custodian
Apply scoped access and retention decisions while preserving lawful provenance.

Links to other meta-models Filled

references

  • WM-ACT-003 - Read-only derived backlink to the incoming candidate process-owned REFERENCE. Preserve the process-side edition pin; this is not a newly asserted outgoing registry edge.
  • WM-ACT-006 - Proposed optional binding, not an existing registry edge. Task instances own assignment, actual performance and completion. A prescribed step is not an executed work item.
  • WM-REC-001 - Proposed optional binding, not an existing registry edge. Document and record masters own generic carriers and record controls; here the subject is the codified instruction work and its edition semantics.
  • WM-REC-005 - Proposed optional binding, not an existing registry edge. Standard artifacts own the referenced norm and version; this model holds clause references and qualified alignment claims, not the norm lifecycle.
  • WM-ORG-001 - Proposed optional binding, not an existing registry edge. Authors, adopters and reviewers are external party references; their organizational structures and identity lifecycles remain external.
  • WM-ACT-033 - Proposed optional binding, not an existing registry edge. Reviews and inspections remain external activities; this model binds their evidence to the edition and local release decision.
  • WM-XCT-035 - Proposed optional binding, not an existing registry edge. Retention rules and disposition execution remain externally governed. This model records policy and disposition references for its own content.
  • WM-ACT-001 - Proposed optional binding, not an existing registry edge. Optional proposed capability prerequisite master binding; no capability evaluation is owned here.
  • WM-PER-009 - Proposed optional binding, not an existing registry edge. Optional proposed competence definition master binding; no person certification is owned here.
  • WM-XCT-038 - Proposed optional binding, not an existing registry edge. Optional external policy decision reference; no evaluator or enforcement engine is implemented.
  • WM-XCT-004 - Proposed optional binding, not an existing registry edge. Optional access-audit evidence reference; audit trail semantics remain external.

aligned

  • https://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/2.0/ - Conceptual alignment with reusable method content, qualifications and process use; no metamodel conformance claimed.
  • https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/ - Conceptual Plan and provenance alignment; no complete RDF binding is supplied.

neighbor

  • WM-ACT-003 - Process definitions own operational flow, scheduling, resource binding and execution context. The sole registry relation is an incoming candidate REFERENCE: a released process definition pins an adopted immutable instruction edition. This model owns instruction publication and scoped adoption; backlinks are derived.
  • WM-ACT-006 - Task instances own assignment, actual performance and completion. A prescribed step is not an executed work item.
  • WM-REC-001 - Document and record masters own generic carriers and record controls; here the subject is the codified instruction work and its edition semantics.
  • WM-REC-005 - Standard artifacts own the referenced norm and version; this model holds clause references and qualified alignment claims, not the norm lifecycle.
  • WM-ACT-001 and WM-PER-009 - Capability and competence definitions remain separate masters; only method-specific prerequisite references and thresholds belong here.
  • WM-ORG-001 - Authors, adopters and reviewers are external party references; their organizational structures and identity lifecycles remain external.
  • WM-ACT-033 - Reviews and inspections remain external activities; this model binds their evidence to the edition and local release decision.
  • WM-XCT-038 and WM-XCT-004 - Policy evaluation and access audit are referenced services; recording an external decision does not implement evaluation, enforcement or audit trails.
  • WM-XCT-035 - Retention rules and disposition execution remain externally governed. This model records policy and disposition references for its own content.

What else AI and robots need to interact with it Incomplete

Identity and identifiers required Filled

  • Authoritative master-system identifier
  • Governed global identifier or IRI
  • Adopting Dimension UUID or ULID

Direct properties not applicable Not applicable

Not applicable

Institutional or informational subject: no invented physical properties.

Recognition optional Missing, in the backlog

Not described yet. This gap is in the card backlog.

Capabilities and actions required Filled

  • Register an instruction work: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Create a local work record with classified purpose and resolved ownership.
  • Propose an edition revision: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Record proposed content changes against an exact edition without mutating a released payload.
  • Check declared release readiness: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Inspect required evidence links and unresolved references for a selected adopter profile; do not decide practical fitness.
  • Record an authorized release: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Bind an externally authorized release declaration to the exact reviewed edition.
  • Record scoped adoption: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Bind an adopter declaration and optional approved variant to the adopted edition.
  • Record withdrawal or supersession: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Associate an authorized notice with affected editions and known adoption references.

Hazards and failure modes optional Missing, in the backlog

Not described yet. This gap is in the card backlog.

Standards and interfaces required Derived, awaiting review

  • PROV-O: The PROV Ontology

Context of use required Filled

  • EPA guidance is a historical United States environmental quality-system example, not a globally binding rule. Its own five-year review statement prevents treating availability as current authority.
  • SPEM addresses software and systems methods. Reuse in other domains is a proposed analogy requiring profile validation.
  • Web vocabularies supply alignment terms, not proof of legal rights, safety or conformance.

Sources Filled

  1. Guidance for Preparing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) - United States Environmental Protection Agency
  2. Software & Systems Process Engineering Meta-Model Specification - Object Management Group
  3. PROV-O: The PROV Ontology - World Wide Web Consortium
  4. DCMI Metadata Terms - Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
  5. Data on the Web Best Practices - World Wide Web Consortium
  6. Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps - Internet Engineering Task Force
  7. ODRL Information Model 2.2 - World Wide Web Consortium

Open questions

  • Complete source retrieval observations and current authority, errata, license and claim review for all admitted sources, especially the historical environmental guidance.
  • Develop qualified adoption profiles and fixtures for explanatory methods, parallel editions, stale process pins, unauthorized tailoring, translation changes, partial withdrawal, unknown authority and lawful disposal.
  • Implement nested schemas and versioned neighbor mappings without transferring process execution, competence certification or rights evaluation into this model.
  • Restore independent external review before any canonical or publishable-draft promotion.
  • Independent external review is absent; Claude and Grok were skipped under the owner-authorized waiver.
  • Direct source HTTP status, current authority, errata, licenses and complete claim verification remain open.
  • Nested instance schemas, controlled status vocabularies, neighbor version pins and executable mappings need implementation and tests.
  • Domain-specific safety, translation equivalence, competence evidence, release authority and retention rules require qualified adoption profiles.

Machine files

Card as JSON Specification AGENTS.md Source Card backlog vercy.card/1

Provenance

world-models research · reviewable-draft

Built from: models/wm-act-009-method-procedure/spec.yaml