Persistent Ecology
What exists and endures. Subjects, Relationships, Capability, Capacity, Offers, Seeks, Materials, Instruments, Evidence, Biography.
The RSM Model
The Model
The RSM Model is the semantic and computational foundation of the Regenerative Systems Metamind. This page shows how it is built: what exists and endures, how possibility becomes coordinated commitment, and how reality changes what the system knows. This page is informative. Each section links to the specification sections that govern it, and the specifications win any conflict.
HOW TO READ THE MODEL
Three planes of one ecology
The three planes of one ecology are a way of reading the model, not a partition of it. Evidence and Biography belong to more than one plane.
Outcome Formation
How possibility becomes coordinated commitment. Intent, Discovery, Configuration, Gap, Dependency, Pathway, Proposal, Commitment, Formation.
Reality and Learning
How the world changes the system. Activity, Event, Observation, Evidence, Evaluation, Outcome, Biography, Learning.
Read on by plane: Persistent Ecology, Outcome Formation, Reality and Learning. The Model represents what exists, what could form, what acts, what changes, and what is learned; a Map renders a useful view of it, and every diagram on this page is a Map. The Metamind is the distributed reasoning that operates across all three planes through the Model: it reads the ecology, reasons about what could form, and learns from what happened, without replacing any plane or relaxing any boundary. In the specifications: three interacting planes (source: 01 §16.1), Model and Map (source: 01 §19), how the Metamind reasons through the Model (source: 01 §19.4).
PLANE 1 · WHAT EXISTS AND ENDURES
Persistent Ecology
The persistent regenerative ecology is the state that endures between outcome cycles. Some of its possibilities are active, some dormant, some latent, and some unknown to the participants who could benefit from them.
- Subjects
- Persons, Organizations, Communities, LivingSystems, Places, Facilities, Materials, Instruments, DigitalAgents and Formations, each with durable identity.
- Relationships
- First-class state with origin, context, lifecycle, provenance, trust, obligations and history. Not a bare edge.
- Capability and Capacity
- What a Subject can credibly do, and how much of it is actually available under bounded conditions.
- Offers and Seeks
- What participants are willing to make available, and what they wish to obtain or make possible.
- Materials and Instruments
- Physical flows with lineage, and formal constructs such as contracts, certifications, loans and permits.
- Evidence and Biography
- What has been observed, attempted, fulfilled and learned, held as context for future reasoning.
Outcome Formation operates on this ecology but does not own it. When a Formation completes, the Facilities, Relationships and Organizations it referenced continue to exist. In the specifications: the persistent regenerative ecology (source: 01 §4).
PLANE 1 · IDENTITY, KIND, DOMAIN TYPE, ROLE
Four questions about every entity
Conventional systems collapse these into one type or profile. RSM keeps them apart because roles and domain classifications change far more often than identity. In the specifications: identity, kind, Domain Type and Role (source: 01 §3.2).
Identity
Which enduring thing is this?
A Person, Organization, Community, LivingSystem, Place, Facility, Material, Instrument, DigitalAgent or Formation keeps one durable identity across every role it plays.
Foundational Kind
What fundamentally different kind of thing is it?
A watershed is not an Organization. A Facility is not the Organization operating it. A DigitalAgent is not a Person. A Material is not merely an attribute of a transaction.
Domain Type
What does this thing mean in one or more domains?
One Organization may be typed as producer, aggregator, processor and education provider without acquiring another identity.
Contextual Role
How is this thing participating here and now?
The same Organization may be a supplier in one Formation, a buyer in another, an evidence provider in a research context, and a member of a Community.
PLANE 1 · SUBJECT VERSUS ACTOR
Subject is a role, not a superclass
Something becomes a Subject when an observation, relationship, claim, evaluation, activity or outcome is about it. Subjecthood describes what an expression concerns. It does not declare what the thing is, or what it may do.
SubjectWhat does this expression concern? Its focus, target, bearer, feature of interest, or affected entity.
ActorWho is responsible for performing the action?
ParticipantWho takes part in this Formation or arrangement?
A laboratory acts as Observer while a soil LivingSystem is the Subject of its Observation. A Person may be, at once, the Subject of an evaluation, the Actor in an Activity, and a Participant in a Formation. A watershed can be the Subject of Observations and Outcomes without ever becoming an Actor. In the specifications: Subject is a role (source: 01 §3.1), Actor and Subject are different roles (source: 01 §8.1).
PLANE 1 · SUBJECT-CAPABLE KINDS
Ten foundational kinds
Any of these can be the Subject of an expression; none is a subtype of Subject. They are the deliberately small set of kinds whose identity, lifecycle, agency or provenance differ too much to hide inside domain labels.
Person
A human individual. Identity persists beyond employer, account or current role.
Organization
A durable institutional or collective legal or operational entity.
Community
A durable structure of belonging or shared context, distinct from any Organization.
LivingSystem
A biological or ecological system capable of state and change: soil, herds, wetlands, watersheds.
Place
A spatially meaningful location or region.
Facility
A bounded physical or operational system that bears capability: a mill, a cold store, a laboratory.
Material
Physical matter whose identity, state, provenance or transformation matters.
Instrument
A legal, financial, policy, technical, measurement or representational construct.
DigitalAgent
A software entity capable of bounded machine action.
Formation
An identity-bearing arrangement that has actually assembled around purpose.
Not every kind can act. Persons, Organizations, DigitalAgents, governed Communities and established Formations may hold agency; LivingSystems, Places, Materials and most Instruments take part without institutional agency. In the specifications: the foundational kinds (source: 01 §3.3), agency is not universal (source: 01 §8.2); the Subject Model.
PLANE 1 · ONE SEMANTIC LANGUAGE
Small grammar, extensible vocabulary
RSM is conservative at the core and expansive at the edge. Foundational kinds, canonical distinctions, protocol verbs, identity, provenance and authority belong to a small, stable grammar. Domain meaning belongs to governed vocabulary and Domain Packs, so assumptions from agriculture, food, water, finance or health never become hard-coded into the kernel.
- Foundational grammar
rsm:LivingSystem. What kind of thing this is. Small, stable, changed only by governance.- Governed domain vocabulary
rsm:agriculture/soil-system. What it means in a domain. Extended domain by domain.- Identity
https://rsmid.org/<rid>. Which actual entity this is. Persists.
Other governed domain paths include rsm:food/grain-lot, rsm:water/watershed and rsm:finance/transition-loan. One entity may carry several domain types at once: a grain lot can be both rsm:agriculture/grain and rsm:food/ingredient without acquiring two identities.
Farmer, buyer, processor, observer, beneficiary, steward and evidence provider describe contextual participation, not permanent identity or new kinds.
The aim is not one enormous ontology of the world. It is one semantic language with a small, stable grammar and an extensible vocabulary for a living ecology. In the specifications: one semantic language (source: 01 §3.4), small grammar, rich ecology (source: 01 §16.3); the Semantic Model and Taxonomy.
PLANE 1 · CAPABILITY VERSUS CAPACITY
Capability is not Capacity
Capability describes what an entity can credibly do. Capacity describes how much of that Capability is actually available within a bounded period, place, quantity, state or set of conditions.
A laboratory can run the soil assay a Formation requires.It has no turnaround Capacity in the month the Formation needs results.
Durable. Changes as an entity learns, invests or loses competence.Bounded. Changes with season, conditions and what has already been committed.
Informs Discovery: who could do this?Decides viability: who can do it here, now, at this volume?
Treating Capability as Capacity is how systems promise supply that does not exist. A Capacity Gap is one of the conditions Outcome Formation has to find. In the specifications: Capability and Capacity (source: 01 §4.3).
EXPLORE · PERSISTENT ECOLOGY
The ecology before anyone asks
Inspect who and what exists in the grain scenario before any Intent. Every node is a different Foundational Kind; none is typed “Subject”, because Subject is the role a thing plays in a statement.
Illustrative scenario, simulated. The participants, quantities and conditions are configurable examples. They do not describe a real deployment, buyer, region or observation. Read the normative walkthrough (source: 04 §27).
Labels: Derived is illustrative reasoning an intelligence layer would own; Operational marks the Proposal; Canonical marks authoritative acts and records within the simulation, not verified real-world authority or agreements; Simulated marks data that is not an observation of anything real.
Assumptions and values · authored reference run
- Values: Intent 20,000 t · 3 seasons · 14 farms · mill 6,000 t per season · 1 laboratory · 1 logistics provider · lender present.
- Each farm can enter about 480 t per season (380–620 t per farm per season). Capability and Capacity are entered separately.
- A second milling line adds 2,500 t per season, assumed at half Capacity for the first harvest.
- Viability comes from an illustrative reasoning step. RSM does not prescribe the algorithm; it belongs to an intelligence layer.
- No regenerative score is computed. Outcomes are evaluated against stated criteria: lot-level traceability to field; protein within the contracted band; practice criteria attested for each field.
- Participants' authority is explicit. Nothing commits on anyone's behalf. Principals, authority bases, Commitments and the Formation exist only inside the simulation.
- Formation conditions, Outcome criteria and which Discovery results count as developable are illustrative, pending specification-owner review.
Winter, before any Intent. Capacity is what each participant could reserve for the coming seasons. Identity does not change with Context; Roles and Capacity do.
14 farms are in the ecology; three are drawn and inspectable, the other 11 enter the same kind of record (about 480 t per season each). Colour follows Foundational Kind and carries no rank. Nothing here is scored.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Valley Mill Company
The Capability to segregate is not the Capacity to segregate 20,000 t.
- Identity
scenario:grain/millScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Foundational Kind
- Organization
- Domain Type
- Flour millerIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Prospective processor
Capacity how much is available, here and now
- Reservable segregated processing Capacity: 6,000 t per season. On the one segregated line; the rest of the mill is not segregated.
Constraints
- Can expand segregated Capacity only with new equipment (a developable Capability)
- Segregation must be auditable lot by lot
- Authority
- Operations director, within the board's capital approval.
- Offers
- Segregated milling services, under stated conditions
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Capacity entered by the mill for the season.
Relationships first-class records, not bare edges
Valley Mill Company operates Valley Mill segregated line
- Term
rsm:relationship/operates· Core term named in specification- Origin
- Facility register
- Lifecycle
- Active
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario.
- Identifier
scenario:grain/relationship/mill-operates-line
Ridgeline Farm supplied (two prior seasons) Valley Mill Company
- Term
- None · Illustrative, no governed term
- Origin
- Delivery records from earlier seasons
- Lifecycle
- Historical
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario.
- Identifier
scenario:grain/relationship/ridgeline-supplied-mill
| Subject | Foundational Kind | Domain Type | Contextual Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organization | Food manufacturer | Prospective buyer | |
| DigitalAgent | Discovery and coordination software | Discovery service for its operator | |
| Organization | Grain farm | Prospective producer | |
| Place | Cropland field | Enrolled field (prospective) | |
| LivingSystem | Agricultural soil system | Affected Subject | |
| Organization | Grain farm | Prospective producer | |
| Place | Cropland field | Enrolled field (prospective) | |
| LivingSystem | Agricultural soil system | Affected Subject | |
| Organization | Grain farm | Prospective producer | |
| Place | Cropland field | Enrolled field (prospective) | |
| LivingSystem | Agricultural soil system | Affected Subject | |
| Material | Certified seed | Planting material available | |
| Organization | Flour miller | Prospective processor | |
| Facility | Milling line | Segregated processing facility | |
| Organization | Testing laboratory | Prospective verifier | |
| Instrument | Laboratory accreditation | Basis for trusted Observations | |
| Organization | Grain logistics provider | Prospective aggregator | |
| Facility | Grain storage and aggregation site | Aggregation point | |
| Organization | Agricultural lender | Prospective financier | |
| Community | Regional farming community | Steward of the watershed | |
| LivingSystem | River watershed | Affected Subject |
Every Subject record 21 Subjects (planning window): identity, kind, domain type, role, Capability, Capacity, authority and provenance
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Hearthstone Foods
A food manufacturer that wants regenerative grain but has not yet asked for any.
- Identity
scenario:grain/buyerScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Foundational Kind
- Organization
- Domain Type
- Food manufacturer · Grain buyerIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Prospective buyer
Capability what it can credibly do
- Purchase and use food-grade grain
- Specify and audit acceptance criteria
Capacity how much is available, here and now
- Purchasing budget for regenerative grain: Approved for a multi-season programme. Subject to board approval of any commitment above one season.
Constraints
- Accepts only lots meeting all acceptance criteria
- Will not buy grain without lot-level traceability
- Authority
- Procurement director, under the buyer's purchasing policy. Commitments above one season need board approval.
- Seeks
- Traceable regenerative grain supply in the region (a standing Seek, not yet an Intent)
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Self-declared Seek; Capability inferred from operating history.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Basin coordination agent
Software that can find and propose, and may not decide.
- Identity
scenario:grain/agentScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Foundational Kind
- DigitalAgent
- Domain Type
- Discovery and coordination softwareIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Discovery service for its operator
Capability what it can credibly do
- Issue authorized ASK operations
- Compute Candidate Configurations, Gaps and Pathways
- PROPOSE arrangements to participants
Capacity how much is available, here and now
No Capacity is entered for this Subject in this Context.
Constraints
- Is not a Principal
- Cannot COMMIT for anyone, including its operator
- Its reasoning is Derived state owned by the intelligence layer
- Agency
- Can discover, reason and propose (Agency).
- Authority
- None of its own. It acts for its operator and may not commit (Agency is not Authority).
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Operator registration.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Ridgeline Farm
Fourth year of regenerative practice. One of 14 farms in the ecology.
- Identity
scenario:grain/farm/ridgeline-farmScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Foundational Kind
- Organization
- Domain Type
- Grain farm · Fourth year of regenerative practiceIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Prospective producer
Capability what it can credibly do
- Grow food-grade hard red wheat
- Attest practice criteria with records
Capacity how much is available, here and now
- Bounded production Capacity it could enter: 480 t food-grade per season. Assumption, range 380–620 t per farm per season.
Constraints
- Rotation fixed for the coming season
- Authority
- The farm's owner-operator.
- Offers
- Food-grade wheat from enrolled fields, under stated conditions
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Self-declared Capacity; practice history from farm records.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Ridgeline Farm — north field
A bounded place, distinct from the farm that stewards it and the soil system within it.
- Identity
scenario:grain/farm/ridgeline-farm/fieldScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Domain Type
- Cropland fieldIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Enrolled field (prospective)
Capability what it can credibly do
No Capability is modelled for this Subject.
Capacity how much is available, here and now
No Capacity is entered for this Subject in this Context.
Constraints
- Bounded by a recorded field boundary
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Field boundary from the farm's land records.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Soil system of Ridgeline Farm's north field
A non-human participant with its own identity, not an attribute of the farm.
- Identity
scenario:grain/farm/ridgeline-farm/soilScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Foundational Kind
- LivingSystem
- Domain Type
- Agricultural soil systemIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Affected Subject
Capability what it can credibly do
No Capability is modelled for this Subject.
Capacity how much is available, here and now
No Capacity is entered for this Subject in this Context.
Constraints
- Changes slowly; seasonal measurements carry wide uncertainty
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Identified by field and soil series.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Creekbend Farm
Second year in transition. One of 14 farms in the ecology.
- Identity
scenario:grain/farm/creekbend-farmScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Foundational Kind
- Organization
- Domain Type
- Grain farm · Second year in transitionIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Prospective producer
Capability what it can credibly do
- Grow food-grade hard red wheat
- Develop practice records (developable Capability)
Capacity how much is available, here and now
- Bounded production Capacity it could enter: 480 t food-grade per season. Assumption, range 380–620 t per farm per season.
Constraints
- Rotation fixed for the coming season
- Authority
- The farm's owner-operator.
- Offers
- Food-grade wheat from enrolled fields, under stated conditions
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Self-declared Capacity; practice history from farm records.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Creekbend Farm — north field
A bounded place, distinct from the farm that stewards it and the soil system within it.
- Identity
scenario:grain/farm/creekbend-farm/fieldScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Domain Type
- Cropland fieldIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Enrolled field (prospective)
Capability what it can credibly do
No Capability is modelled for this Subject.
Capacity how much is available, here and now
No Capacity is entered for this Subject in this Context.
Constraints
- Bounded by a recorded field boundary
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Field boundary from the farm's land records.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Soil system of Creekbend Farm's north field
A non-human participant with its own identity, not an attribute of the farm.
- Identity
scenario:grain/farm/creekbend-farm/soilScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Foundational Kind
- LivingSystem
- Domain Type
- Agricultural soil systemIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Affected Subject
Capability what it can credibly do
No Capability is modelled for this Subject.
Capacity how much is available, here and now
No Capacity is entered for this Subject in this Context.
Constraints
- Changes slowly; seasonal measurements carry wide uncertainty
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Identified by field and soil series.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Westfield Farm
First year in transition. One of 14 farms in the ecology.
- Identity
scenario:grain/farm/westfield-farmScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Foundational Kind
- Organization
- Domain Type
- Grain farm · First year in transitionIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Prospective producer
Capability what it can credibly do
- Grow food-grade hard red wheat
- Develop practice records (developable Capability)
Capacity how much is available, here and now
- Bounded production Capacity it could enter: 480 t food-grade per season. Assumption, range 380–620 t per farm per season.
Constraints
- Transition finance needed to change rotation
- Authority
- The farm's owner-operator.
- Offers
- Food-grade wheat from enrolled fields, under stated conditions
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Self-declared Capacity; practice history from farm records.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Westfield Farm — north field
A bounded place, distinct from the farm that stewards it and the soil system within it.
- Identity
scenario:grain/farm/westfield-farm/fieldScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Domain Type
- Cropland fieldIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Enrolled field (prospective)
Capability what it can credibly do
No Capability is modelled for this Subject.
Capacity how much is available, here and now
No Capacity is entered for this Subject in this Context.
Constraints
- Bounded by a recorded field boundary
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Field boundary from the farm's land records.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Soil system of Westfield Farm's north field
A non-human participant with its own identity, not an attribute of the farm.
- Identity
scenario:grain/farm/westfield-farm/soilScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Foundational Kind
- LivingSystem
- Domain Type
- Agricultural soil systemIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Affected Subject
Capability what it can credibly do
No Capability is modelled for this Subject.
Capacity how much is available, here and now
No Capacity is entered for this Subject in this Context.
Constraints
- Changes slowly; seasonal measurements carry wide uncertainty
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Identified by field and soil series.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Seed lot — food-grade hard red wheat
A physical flow whose lineage later connects fields to delivered grain.
- Identity
scenario:grain/seed-lotScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Domain Type
- Certified seedIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Planting material available
Capability what it can credibly do
No Capability is modelled for this Subject.
Capacity how much is available, here and now
- Seed on hand: Enough for about 900 ha. Germination test current for this season.
Constraints
- Variety meets the protein band only within a range of growing conditions
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Seed certificate and storage record.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Valley Mill Company
The Capability to segregate is not the Capacity to segregate 20,000 t.
- Identity
scenario:grain/millScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Foundational Kind
- Organization
- Domain Type
- Flour millerIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Prospective processor
Capability what it can credibly do
- Mill food-grade grain
- Keep regenerative lots segregated from conventional grain
Capacity how much is available, here and now
- Reservable segregated processing Capacity: 6,000 t per season. On the one segregated line; the rest of the mill is not segregated.
Constraints
- Can expand segregated Capacity only with new equipment (a developable Capability)
- Segregation must be auditable lot by lot
- Authority
- Operations director, within the board's capital approval.
- Offers
- Segregated milling services, under stated conditions
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Capacity entered by the mill for the season.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Valley Mill segregated line
The facility the mill operates; it is not the mill.
- Identity
scenario:grain/mill-lineScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Foundational Kind
- Facility
- Domain Type
- Milling lineIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Segregated processing facility
Capability what it can credibly do
- Process segregated lots with cleaning between runs
Capacity how much is available, here and now
No Capacity is entered for this Subject in this Context.
Constraints
- Throughput fixed by equipment
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Facility register.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Prairie Grain Laboratory
Can observe. Does not decide what the observations mean for an Outcome.
- Identity
scenario:grain/lab/1Scenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Foundational Kind
- Organization
- Domain Type
- Testing laboratoryIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Prospective verifier
Capability what it can credibly do
- Assay protein and residues
- Sample soil organic carbon
Capacity how much is available, here and now
- Assay turnaround Capacity: About 40 lots per week. Outside harvest.
Constraints
- Results are Observations by an accredited observer, not Evaluations
- Authority
- Laboratory director.
- Offers
- Accredited assays, under stated conditions
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Accreditation register.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Prairie Grain Laboratory accreditation
A formal construct that gives the laboratory's results standing.
- Identity
scenario:grain/lab/1/accreditationScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Domain Type
- Laboratory accreditationIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Basis for trusted Observations
Capability what it can credibly do
No Capability is modelled for this Subject.
Capacity how much is available, here and now
No Capacity is entered for this Subject in this Context.
Constraints
- Valid until its stated expiry
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Issued by an accreditation body outside the scenario.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Basin Haulage
Moves the grain without owning it.
- Identity
scenario:grain/logistics/1Scenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Foundational Kind
- Organization
- Domain Type
- Grain logistics providerIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Prospective aggregator
Capability what it can credibly do
- Aggregate and move grain with lot-level chain of custody
Capacity how much is available, here and now
- Aggregation and haulage Capacity: 9,000 t per season. Assumption.
Constraints
- Lots must stay segregated in transit
- Authority
- Logistics manager.
- Offers
- Segregated aggregation and haulage
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Fleet register.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Upper Basin aggregation depot
The site where lots are aggregated.
- Identity
scenario:grain/depotScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Foundational Kind
- Facility
- Domain Type
- Grain storage and aggregation siteIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Aggregation point
Capability what it can credibly do
- Store segregated lots
Capacity how much is available, here and now
No Capacity is entered for this Subject in this Context.
Constraints
- Bins must be cleaned between lots
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Facility register.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Regional Transition Fund
Its Offer is conditional. An Offer is not a Commitment.
- Identity
scenario:grain/lenderScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Foundational Kind
- Organization
- Domain Type
- Agricultural lenderIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Prospective financier
Capability what it can credibly do
- Lend for transition and processing investment
Capacity how much is available, here and now
- Lending Capacity for this region: Sufficient for one processing line and farm transition costs. Only against committed demand and processing.
Constraints
- Lends only when buyer demand and processing are committed
- Authority
- Credit committee.
- Offers
- Transition finance, conditional on committed demand and processing
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Published lending programme.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Upper Basin community
A collective participant, distinct from the farms that belong to it.
- Identity
scenario:grain/communityScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Foundational Kind
- Community
- Domain Type
- Regional farming communityIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Steward of the watershed
Capability what it can credibly do
- Monitor stream water quality with volunteers
Capacity how much is available, here and now
- Volunteer monitoring: Monthly samples at four sites. Spring to autumn.
Constraints
- Membership is not authority to commit for members
- Authority
- Its elected council, for the community's own undertakings only.
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Association records.
Canonical · within the simulation Simulated
Upper Basin watershed
Affected by many participants. It is a Subject of Outcomes, not a backdrop.
- Identity
scenario:grain/watershedScenario identifier, not an RSM ID.- Foundational Kind
- LivingSystem
- Domain Type
- River watershedIllustrative labels, not governed ConceptRefs.
- Contextual Role in planning window
- Affected Subject
Capability what it can credibly do
No Capability is modelled for this Subject.
Capacity how much is available, here and now
No Capacity is entered for this Subject in this Context.
Constraints
- Many land uses drain into it; changes cannot be attributed to one cause from short records
- Provenance
- Simulated record authored for this scenario. Regional hydrology map.
Every Relationship 19 first-class records with term, basis, origin, lifecycle and provenance
| Source | Relationship | Target | Term and basis | Origin and lifecycle |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hearthstone Foods | operates | Basin coordination agent | rsm:relationship/operatesCore term named in specification | Registered when the buyer deployed the agentActive · Simulated record authored for this scenario. |
| Ridgeline Farm | stewards | Ridgeline Farm — north field | rsm:relationship/stewardsCore term named in specification | Land tenure recordActive · Simulated record authored for this scenario. |
| Soil system of Ridgeline Farm's north field | located at | Ridgeline Farm — north field | rsm:relationship/located-atCore term named in specification | Field surveyActive · Simulated record authored for this scenario. |
| Ridgeline Farm — north field | drains into | Upper Basin watershed | rsm:water/drains-intoDomain term named in specification | Regional hydrology mapActive · Simulated record authored for this scenario. |
| Ridgeline Farm | member of | Upper Basin community | rsm:relationship/member-ofProposed term, not registered | Association membership rollActive · Simulated record authored for this scenario. |
| Creekbend Farm | stewards | Creekbend Farm — north field | rsm:relationship/stewardsCore term named in specification | Land tenure recordActive · Simulated record authored for this scenario. |
| Soil system of Creekbend Farm's north field | located at | Creekbend Farm — north field | rsm:relationship/located-atCore term named in specification | Field surveyActive · Simulated record authored for this scenario. |
| Creekbend Farm — north field | drains into | Upper Basin watershed | rsm:water/drains-intoDomain term named in specification | Regional hydrology mapActive · Simulated record authored for this scenario. |
| Creekbend Farm | member of | Upper Basin community | rsm:relationship/member-ofProposed term, not registered | Association membership rollActive · Simulated record authored for this scenario. |
| Westfield Farm | stewards | Westfield Farm — north field | rsm:relationship/stewardsCore term named in specification | Land tenure recordActive · Simulated record authored for this scenario. |
| Soil system of Westfield Farm's north field | located at | Westfield Farm — north field | rsm:relationship/located-atCore term named in specification | Field surveyActive · Simulated record authored for this scenario. |
| Westfield Farm — north field | drains into | Upper Basin watershed | rsm:water/drains-intoDomain term named in specification | Regional hydrology mapActive · Simulated record authored for this scenario. |
| Westfield Farm | member of | Upper Basin community | rsm:relationship/member-ofProposed term, not registered | Association membership rollActive · Simulated record authored for this scenario. |
| Seed lot — food-grade hard red wheat | produced by | Ridgeline Farm | rsm:relationship/produced-byProposed term, not registered | Seed certificateActive · Simulated record authored for this scenario. |
| Valley Mill Company | operates | Valley Mill segregated line | rsm:relationship/operatesCore term named in specification | Facility registerActive · Simulated record authored for this scenario. |
| Ridgeline Farm | supplied (two prior seasons) | Valley Mill Company | No termIllustrative, no governed term | Delivery records from earlier seasonsHistorical · Simulated record authored for this scenario. |
| Prairie Grain Laboratory | holds | Prairie Grain Laboratory accreditation | No termIllustrative, no governed term | Accreditation registerActive · Simulated record authored for this scenario. |
| Basin Haulage | operates | Upper Basin aggregation depot | rsm:relationship/operatesCore term named in specification | Facility registerActive · Simulated record authored for this scenario. |
| Upper Basin community | stewards | Upper Basin watershed | rsm:relationship/stewardsCore term named in specification | Watershed stewardship agreementActive · Simulated record authored for this scenario. |
No Intent exists yet. The buyer's standing Seek and the lender's conditional Offer are canonical expressions; neither asks for anything specific nor commits anyone.
Hearthstone Foods expresses an Intent for 20,000 t. Outcome Formation
PLANE 2 · HOW POSSIBILITY BECOMES COORDINATED COMMITMENT
Outcome Formation
Outcome Formation begins when an Actor expresses or sponsors an Intent concerning a future condition. It reads the persistent ecology for what could make that condition viable, including capabilities that could be developed, not only what is on offer today. That is why Discovery is not matching (the argument is on Why RSM).
The plane carries an Intent through reasoning to the point where participants with authority commit, and a Formation exists. Reasoning can propose. Only Commitment changes authoritative state.
In the specifications: from Intent to Formation (source: 01 §6).
PLANES 2 AND 3 · ELEVEN STAGES
The canonical progression
The canonical progression in full. Stages 1–7 are Outcome Formation; from Formation onward the work meets reality, and Biography feeds the next Intent. Each stage preserves a distinction, and every shorter sequence on this site is a labeled abstraction of this one. In the specifications: Intent is not Outcome (source: 01 §10.1), feedback makes the Model adaptive (source: 01 §11.3), the Formation grammar (source: 01 §17.3).
Canonical / authoritative state Derived / reasoning artifact Projection / view over canonical history
- 01IntentCanonical
What are we trying to make possible? An Actor expresses or sponsors a desired future condition, with quantity, timing, place and acceptance criteria where they matter.
- 02DiscoveryDerived
What exists? Which Subjects, Relationships, Capabilities, Capacity, Materials, Places, Instruments, Evidence, constraints and history are relevant, including capabilities that could be developed.
- 03ConfigurationDerived
What could work together? A combination that might satisfy the Intent. A reasoning artifact, not a social fact: not yet consent, agreement or commitment.
- 04GapDerived
What is missing? Capability, Capacity, Evidence and financing gaps; infrastructure dependencies; policy barriers; geographic constraints; missing relationships.
- 05PathwayDerived
What must change? Develop Capability, reserve Capacity, secure an Instrument, obtain Evidence, build infrastructure, change timing, or establish relationships and conditional commitments.
- 06CommitmentCanonical
What will participants contribute? Production Capacity, demand, capital, processing throughput, testing Capacity, expertise, access, data or infrastructure, committed by a participant with authority.
- 07FormationCanonical
What has actually come together? A new identity-bearing Subject, established when sufficient commitments, governance, authority and conditions exist.
- 08ActivityCanonical
What was done? Action in the world, attributable to an Actor acting under authority.
- 09ObservationCanonical
What was observed? Contact with reality: something perceived or measured by an identifiable observer.
- 10OutcomeCanonical
What actually happened? An evaluated consequence for the relevant Subjects, supported by appropriate observations and evidence.
- 11BiographyProjection
What does the system now know? A projection over canonical history, not current state. It becomes context for the next Intent.
PLANE 2 · CONFIGURATION VERSUS FORMATION
Configuration is not Formation
A Configuration says what might work. A Formation is what has actually come together. Between them lie consent, authority and governance, which no amount of reasoning supplies.
Derived: a reasoning artifact computed from authorized inputs.≠Canonical: a new identity-bearing Subject.
Says the pieces could conceivably work together.≠Exists because participants with authority committed.
Its participants may not know of it, or agree with it.≠Has purpose, governance, Commitments, Activities, Outcomes and Biography of its own.
Can be stored, compared, revised or discarded.≠Does not absorb its participants. Each keeps its identity and sovereignty.
A Candidate Configuration does not become the Formation by changing a status field; the Formation is a distinct canonical object created through a governed establishment boundary. In the specifications: Configuration represents possibility (source: 01 §6.3), Formation as a new Subject (source: 01 §7); the canonical Formation object (source: 04 §27.5).
EXPLORE · OUTCOME FORMATION
From Intent to an established Formation
Follow the first seven stages of the canonical progression. Reasoning can propose; only Principals with authority commit, and only a governed establishment operation creates the Formation.
Illustrative scenario, simulated. The participants, quantities and conditions are configurable examples. They do not describe a real deployment, buyer, region or observation. Read the normative walkthrough (source: 04 §27).
Labels: Derived is illustrative reasoning an intelligence layer would own; Operational marks the Proposal; Canonical marks authoritative acts and records within the simulation, not verified real-world authority or agreements; Simulated marks data that is not an observation of anything real.
Assumptions and values · authored reference run
- Values: Intent 20,000 t · 3 seasons · 14 farms · mill 6,000 t per season · 1 laboratory · 1 logistics provider · lender present.
- Each farm can enter about 480 t per season (380–620 t per farm per season). Capability and Capacity are entered separately.
- A second milling line adds 2,500 t per season, assumed at half Capacity for the first harvest.
- Viability comes from an illustrative reasoning step. RSM does not prescribe the algorithm; it belongs to an intelligence layer.
- No regenerative score is computed. Outcomes are evaluated against stated criteria: lot-level traceability to field; protein within the contracted band; practice criteria attested for each field.
- Participants' authority is explicit. Nothing commits on anyone's behalf. Principals, authority bases, Commitments and the Formation exist only inside the simulation.
- Formation conditions, Outcome criteria and which Discovery results count as developable are illustrative, pending specification-owner review.
Hearthstone Foods' procurement director declares an Intent and issues a DemandExpression: 20,000 t of food-grade regenerative grain over 3 seasons, about 6,667 t a season, against 3 acceptance criteria. Both are canonical records of what the buyer declared. Neither proves the supply exists.
Change the Intent and the ecology
Intent and ecology values
Change the Intent or the ecology. Gaps, Pathways and Configurations are recomputed; Commitments already made are not.
Regional regenerative grain scenario. Simulated results: model output, not evidence for any claim.
Results
Up to date.
- Intent per season
- 6,667 t
- Production Capacity farms could enter (per season)
- 6,720 t
- Segregated processing Gap (per season)
- 667 t
- Production Gap (per season)
- 0 t
- Logistics Gap (per season)
- 0 t
- Plannable supply over the horizon, best Configuration
- 20,000 t
- Viable Candidate Configurations
- 1
Scenario comparison
Results by scenario Result Authored reference (20,000 t) No laboratory Intent per season 6,667 t 6,667 t Production Capacity farms could enter (per season) 6,720 t 6,720 t Segregated processing Gap (per season) 667 t 667 t Production Gap (per season) 0 t 0 t Logistics Gap (per season) 0 t 0 t Plannable supply over the horizon, best Configuration 20,000 t 20,000 t Viable Candidate Configurations 1 0 Sensitivity: how each parameter moves the results
Change in each result when one parameter moves by the step shown, the others held at the values above Parameter Step Intent per season Production Capacity farms could enter (per season) Segregated processing Gap (per season) Production Gap (per season) Logistics Gap (per season) Plannable supply over the horizon, best Configuration Viable Candidate Configurations Intent: grain demanded +500 t +166 t 0 t +166 t +113 t 0 t +160 t -1 Horizon (harvest seasons) +1 -1,667 t 0 t -667 t 0 t 0 t 0 t +1 Farms in the ecology +1 0 t +480 t 0 t 0 t 0 t 0 t 0 Reservable segregated milling Capacity (per season) +500 t 0 t 0 t -500 t 0 t 0 t 0 t 0 Testing laboratories +1 0 t 0 t 0 t 0 t 0 t 0 t 0 Logistics providers +1 0 t 0 t 0 t 0 t 0 t 0 t 0 Assumptions
- Each farm can enter about 480 t of food-grade grain per season (range 380–620 t per farm per season).
- A second segregated line adds 2,500 t per season, at half Capacity for the first harvest.
- One logistics provider moves about 9,000 t per season.
- Viability is judged by an illustrative reasoning step. RSM does not prescribe the algorithm; it belongs to an intelligence layer.
- Acceptance criteria are predicates (traceability, protein band, practice criteria). No regenerative score is computed.
Limitations
- The outputs are Derived. They propose nothing and commit no one; Commitments are made by Principals.
- Simulated scenario: no output is an observation of a real farm, mill, laboratory or region.
Model version 1.0.0, evaluated by rsmone.grain-scenario 1.0.0.
The coordination agent issues authorized ASK operations. Discovery is not matching: it also finds Capability that could be developed. Which results count as developable is illustrative, pending specification-owner review.
- 14 farms could enter about 6,720 t of food-grade grain per season (assumption).
- Farms early in transition could meet the practice criteria with transition finance. Developable
- Valley Mill can segregate food-grade grain (Capability); 6,000 t per season is reservable (Capacity).
- A second segregated line would add 2,500 t per season once installed. Developable
- One accredited laboratory can verify protein and residues.
- Segregated aggregation for about 9,000 t per season.
- Transition finance is offered, conditional on committed demand and processing.
Candidate Configurations are reasoning artifacts, not social facts. The illustrative reasoning step belongs to an intelligence layer; RSM defines what it produces, not how.
Existing Capacity only
Not viable under the stated assumptions
- Plannable supply over 3 seasons: about 18,000 t against an Intent of 20,000 t.
- Limited by segregated processing Capacity in every season.
With processing expansionRecommended · Recommendation, Derived
Viable under the stated assumptions
- Plannable supply over 3 seasons: about 20,000 t against an Intent of 20,000 t.
- Depends on transition finance, which depends on committed demand and a processor reservation.
- Assumes the new line is commissioned at half Capacity before the first harvest.
- Segregated processing Capacity Gap · 667 t per season short. The Intent needs about 6,667 t per season; 6,000 t of segregated Capacity is reservable. The mill has the Capability, not the Capacity. Could be closed by: Processor reservation, Processing expansion.
- Conditional demand. The buyer commits to purchase, conditional on lots meeting the acceptance criteria.
- Processor reservation. Valley Mill reserves 6,000 t per season of segregated Capacity. Depends on: Conditional demand.
- Transition finance. The lender finances the expansion line and farm transition costs. Depends on: Conditional demand, Processor reservation.
- Processing expansion. Install a second segregated line (+2,500 t per season, commissioned at half Capacity for the first harvest). Depends on: Transition finance.
- Verification service. An accredited laboratory assays every lot against the acceptance criteria. Depends on: Conditional demand.
A Pathway stays Derived even when every party can see and discuss it. No one is bound because the reasoning looks attractive.
Proposal Operational · not a stage
The coordination agent proposed With processing expansion to the participants (PROPOSE). A Proposal communicates a prospective arrangement without creating it.
Each Commitment is an authoritative undertaking by a Principal, made through COMMIT after Actor, Principal, authority, policy, semantic and lifecycle checks. In this simulation you perform each Principal's act; nothing commits on its own. The Principals and their authority bases are illustrative, not verified real-world authority.
Commitments the Proposal asks for (simulated) Party Principal and authority Terms State Hearthstone Foods Procurement directorPurchasing policy, with the board approval a multi-season Commitment needs Purchase up to 20,000 t over 3 seasons (about 6,667 t per season), conditional on every lot meeting the acceptance criteria. Canonical · committed in the simulation 14 farms14 separate Commitments Each farm's owner-operatorEach farm commits for itself. Membership of the community gives no authority to commit for a farm. Each farm enters bounded production Capacity of up to 480 t per season from enrolled fields, with practice records. Canonical · committed in the simulation Valley Mill Company Operations directorOperating authority, with the board's capital approval for the new line Reserve 6,000 t per season of segregated Capacity, and commission a second line (+2,500 t per season), subject to equipment installation.Conditional on: Hearthstone Foods. Canonical · committed in the simulation Prairie Grain Laboratory Laboratory directorLaboratory's service authority Assay every lot for protein and residues and sample enrolled fields for soil organic carbon each season. Canonical · committed in the simulation Basin Haulage Logistics managerOperating authority Aggregate and haul enrolled lots with lot-level chain of custody. Canonical · committed in the simulation Regional Transition Fund Credit committeeLending mandate Finance the second line and farm transition costs, subject to the buyer's and the processor's Commitments.Conditional on: Hearthstone Foods and Valley Mill Company. Canonical · committed in the simulation Basin coordination agent NoneA DigitalAgent, not a Principal. Agency is not Authority. Proposed this arrangement. Cannot commit Formation Readiness Derived · conditions appear sufficient
- Met A Proposal has been communicated. The coordination agent proposed "With processing expansion". A Proposal creates no obligation.
- Met The proposed Configuration closes every blocking Gap. Derived assessment by the illustrative reasoning step.
- Met Every required Commitment is canonical. 19 Commitments, each made by its own Principal.
- Met Each COMMIT passed Actor, Principal, authority, policy, semantic and lifecycle checks. Simulated checks. The coordination agent is never accepted as a committing Principal.
- Met Governance terms are accepted with the Commitments. Purpose, decision rules and exit terms travel with each Commitment.
Readiness is an assessment. It cannot establish anything; the establishment operation checks the canonical conditions itself. These conditions are illustrative, pending specification-owner review; the specified Formation conditions (source: 04 §27.5) govern.
Canonical · established in the simulation Simulated
Upper Basin Regenerative Grain Formation
- Identity
scenario:grain/formation/upper-basin-grainA new Subject. The Candidate Configuration did not become it.- Commitments
- 19 canonical Commitments, each made by its own Principal and referenced, not absorbed
- Governance
- Purpose: supply the buyer's Intent from regenerative practice in the Upper Basin.
- Decisions on variations need the buyer, the mill and the majority of committed farms.
- A participant may leave at the end of a season; its own Commitments set the terms.
- Participants keep their own identities; the Formation does not absorb them.
Upper Basin Regenerative Grain Formation begins work. Reality and Learning
PLANE 3 · HOW THE WORLD CHANGES THE SYSTEM
Reality and Learning
From Formation onward the model follows the work into the world (stages 7–11 of the canonical progression). Activities, Observations, Outcomes and Biography are how the system changes. This is where expectation meets reality, and where what happened changes the ecology that the next Intent will discover.
- Activity and Event
- What was done, and meaningful occurrences in the modeled world.
- Observation
- Contact with reality: what was perceived or measured.
- Evidence and Evaluation
- What supports or challenges a proposition, and the criteria applied. They support an Outcome; they are not stages.
- Outcome
- An evaluated consequence for the relevant Subjects, kept plural rather than reduced to one score.
- Biography and Learning
- What the system now knows, and how that changes future context.
In the specifications: reality, evidence and Outcome (source: 01 §10), Biography and learning (source: 01 §11).
PLANE 3 · ACTIVITY VERSUS OUTCOME
Activity is not Outcome
What was done, what was seen, what is claimed and what changed are separate records, so none can stand in for another. These are distinctions, not a sequence of stages.
Activity: what was done.≠That it worked. Completion is not success.
Observation: what was perceived or measured.≠What the measurement means.
Claim: a proposition.≠Its own support.
Evidence: what supports or challenges a proposition.≠The proposition itself.
Evaluation: the method or criterion applied.≠A governed conclusion.
Assertion: a conclusion under identifiable authority.≠Universal truth. Canonical does not mean universally true.
Outcome: an evaluated consequence for the relevant Subjects.≠A single regenerative score.
A training program attended does not establish improved Capability; capital deployed does not establish regenerative impact. In the specifications: Activity is not proof (source: 01 §10.2), claims, evidence and assertions (source: 01 §10.3); the Canonical category (source: 03 §17.1).
PLANE 3 · BIOGRAPHY VERSUS CURRENT STATE
Biography is not current state
Biography accumulates around Persons, Organizations, Communities, LivingSystems, Facilities, Materials, Instruments, Relationships and Formations: what was attempted, which assumptions were made, which Commitments were fulfilled, what Evidence was produced, what followed, and where expectations failed. It is a Projection over canonical history.
History is context for reasoning, not present truth:
- Capacity
- A Facility that had Capacity last season may have none now.
- Certification
- A certification may have expired.
- Relationship
- A relationship may have deteriorated.
- Observation
- An ecological Observation may no longer reflect current conditions.
Present assertions remain subject to lifecycle, observation, provenance and authority. In the specifications: Biography is not current state (source: 01 §11.2); Biography is a projection, not a parallel truth store (source: 04 §15.2).
PLANE 3 BACK TO PLANE 1
The loop closes
Simplified system loop: a simplified abstraction of the canonical progression, following the Concept Paper's complete system loop (source: 01 §16.2). It shows how the planes connect; it is not a separate lifecycle.
- 01Persistent Ecology
Who and what exists?
- 02Outcome Formation
What could come together?
- 03Formation
What has actually committed?
- 04Activity
What happens?
- 05Observation + Outcome
What changed?
- 06Biography + Learning
What does the system now know?
The loop has no final state. Every meaningful Outcome changes the context for later choices, so the ecology the next Intent discovers is not the one the last Intent found. In the specifications: the complete system loop (source: 01 §16.2).
EXPLORE · REALITY AND LEARNING
What happened, how it is known, what is now known
Follow the same Formation through stages 7–11 of the canonical progression. Evidence and Evaluation support each Outcome; they are not stages.
Illustrative scenario, simulated. The participants, quantities and conditions are configurable examples. They do not describe a real deployment, buyer, region or observation. Read the normative walkthrough (source: 04 §27).
Labels: Derived is illustrative reasoning an intelligence layer would own; Operational marks the Proposal; Canonical marks authoritative acts and records within the simulation, not verified real-world authority or agreements; Simulated marks data that is not an observation of anything real.
Assumptions and values · authored reference run
- Values: Intent 20,000 t · 3 seasons · 14 farms · mill 6,000 t per season · 1 laboratory · 1 logistics provider · lender present.
- Each farm can enter about 480 t per season (380–620 t per farm per season). Capability and Capacity are entered separately.
- A second milling line adds 2,500 t per season, assumed at half Capacity for the first harvest.
- Viability comes from an illustrative reasoning step. RSM does not prescribe the algorithm; it belongs to an intelligence layer.
- No regenerative score is computed. Outcomes are evaluated against stated criteria: lot-level traceability to field; protein within the contracted band; practice criteria attested for each field.
- Participants' authority is explicit. Nothing commits on anyone's behalf. Principals, authority bases, Commitments and the Formation exist only inside the simulation.
- Formation conditions, Outcome criteria and which Discovery results count as developable are illustrative, pending specification-owner review.
Every record below is simulated. This scenario contains no real-world Observation. Its “world” is a few authored conditions chosen so that reality departs from the plan:
- Season 2 is dry: yields fall about 10% and more lots fall below the protein band.
- The second milling line is commissioned after the first harvest, not before it as the plan assumed.
- Soil organic carbon changes slowly; three seasons of sampling cannot separate change from measurement error.
- Many land uses drain into the watershed, so a change in nitrate cannot be attributed to the Formation alone.
| Season | Planned | Processing planned / actual | Delivered | Met every criterion | Limited by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6,667 t | 7,250 t / 6,000 t | 6,000 t | 5,820 t | segregated processing Capacity |
| 2 | 6,667 t | 8,500 t / 8,500 t | 6,048 t | 5,322 t | production after the season's yield |
| 3 | 6,667 t | 8,500 t / 8,500 t | 6,667 t | 6,333 t | the Intent's seasonal volume |
Every Activity completed. 17,475 t of the 20,000 t Intent met every criterion. Completion is not success, and a Commitment never guaranteed an Outcome.
Activities and Observations by season 16 Activities, 13 simulated Observations
Activity records what was done; Observation records contact with reality. Neither is an Outcome.
Activity Canonical · what was done, season 1
- Completed late. Install and commission the second segregated line (Valley Mill Company, season 1)
- Completed. Planting and practice work on enrolled fields (14 farms, season 1)
- Completed. Harvest aggregation with lot-level custody (Basin Haulage, season 1)
- Completed. Lot assays for protein and residues (Prairie Grain Laboratory, season 1)
- Completed. Segregated milling (Valley Mill Company, season 1)
- Completed. Shipment to Hearthstone Foods (Basin Haulage, season 1)
Observation Canonical · what was observed, season 1
- Simulated Second line commissioned: After the season-1 harvest; season-1 processing ran on the existing line Commissioning record.
- Simulated Season 1 grain received and milled: 6,000 t (±0.5%, scale tolerance) Weighbridge tickets.
- Simulated Season 1 lots within all criteria: 97% of lots (5,820 t) Accredited protein and residue assays.
- Simulated Season 1 stream nitrate: 0% below the prior five-year mean (Seasonal flow changes alone move this by ±10%) Volunteer stream sampling, four sites.
- Simulated Soil organic carbon baseline: 2.1% mean (±0.15 percentage points) Soil cores, 0–30 cm, enrolled fields.
Outcomes for each affected Subject
Each Outcome is evaluated against its own criteria. There is no combined regenerative score. The criteria are illustrative, pending specification-owner review.
| Affected Subject | Criteria (illustrative) | Evaluation | Uncertainty | Evaluated by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hearthstone Foods | 20,000 t over 3 seasons, every lot meeting the acceptance criteria | Criteria partly met. 17,475 t met the criteria (87% of the Intent). | Low: direct Observations. | Buyer's quality team, under the Formation's governance |
| 14 participating farms | Margins at or above each farm's conventional baseline | Criteria partly met. Most farms above baseline; some below it in the dry season. | Medium: self-reported. | Farms, reviewed by the lender |
| Soil systems of enrolled fields | A measurable rise in soil organic carbon | Not yet determinable. No change distinguishable from measurement error yet. | High over three seasons. | Laboratory, against the sampling protocol |
| Upper Basin watershed | Lower stream nitrate attributable to changed practice | Not yet determinable. Nitrate is lower; attribution to the Formation is not supported. | High: many contributing land uses. | Upper Basin community council |
| Valley Mill Company | Planned segregated throughput in every season | Criteria partly met. Season 1 ran on the existing line because the second line was commissioned late; later seasons had the planned Capacity. | Low: commissioning and throughput are recorded. | Mill and buyer, under the Formation's governance |
Claims and their Evidence 7 claims, 8 simulated evidence records, with the full epistemic chain
A Claim is supported or challenged by Evidence, judged in an Evaluation, and only then stated as an Assertion.
Claims about the Formation's consequences
Every evidence record is simulated.
- Contradicted1
- Insufficient evidence1
- Unverified1
- Partially substantiated1
- Substantiated3
Showing 7 of 7 claims
- Substantiated
Season 1 delivered 6,000 t, of which 5,820 t met every acceptance criterion.
Weighbridge tonnage and accredited assays agree lot by lot.
Assessed by Hearthstone Foods quality team (simulated) · 1 evidence record
Inspect evidence (1)
SupportsSeason 1: received tonnage and lot assays
SubstantiatedSimulated
Sources Season 1 grain received and milled (simulated Observation); Season 1 lots within all criteria (simulated Observation)
Provenance Weighbridge tickets joined to assay results by lot, by Prairie Grain Laboratory (simulated)
- Substantiated
Season 2 delivered 6,048 t, of which 5,322 t met every acceptance criterion.
Weighbridge tonnage and accredited assays agree lot by lot.
Assessed by Hearthstone Foods quality team (simulated) · 1 evidence record
Inspect evidence (1)
SupportsSeason 2: received tonnage and lot assays
SubstantiatedSimulated
Sources Season 2 grain received and milled (simulated Observation); Season 2 lots within all criteria (simulated Observation)
Provenance Weighbridge tickets joined to assay results by lot, by Prairie Grain Laboratory (simulated)
- Substantiated
Season 3 delivered 6,667 t, of which 6,333 t met every acceptance criterion.
Weighbridge tonnage and accredited assays agree lot by lot.
Assessed by Hearthstone Foods quality team (simulated) · 1 evidence record
Inspect evidence (1)
SupportsSeason 3: received tonnage and lot assays
SubstantiatedSimulated
Sources Season 3 grain received and milled (simulated Observation); Season 3 lots within all criteria (simulated Observation)
Provenance Weighbridge tickets joined to assay results by lot, by Prairie Grain Laboratory (simulated)
- Contradicted
The Formation supplied the 20,000 t the Intent asked for.
17,475 t met the criteria, 2,525 t short. Every Activity completed; completion is not success.
- Contradicting evidence 1 record(s) cited against this claim
- Uncertain None material: tonnage and assays are direct Observations.
Assessed by Hearthstone Foods quality team (simulated) · 2 evidence records
Inspect evidence (2)
ContradictsAll seasons: tonnage meeting the criteria
SubstantiatedSimulated
17,475 t of 20,000 t
Sources Season 1 lots within all criteria (simulated Observation); Season 2 lots within all criteria (simulated Observation); Season 3 lots within all criteria (simulated Observation)
Provenance Sum of lots within all criteria, by Prairie Grain Laboratory (simulated)
QualifiesSecond line commissioning record
SubstantiatedSimulated
Sources Second line commissioned (simulated Observation); Season 1 grain received and milled (simulated Observation)
Provenance Commissioning record and season-1 throughput, by Valley Mill Company (simulated)
- Insufficient evidence
Soil organic carbon increased on enrolled fields.
- Uncertain A 0.1 point rise against ±0.15 point uncertainty. Longer records are needed.
Assessed by Prairie Grain Laboratory (simulated) · 1 evidence record
Inspect evidence (1)
QualifiesSoil organic carbon, baseline and follow-up
Insufficient evidenceSimulated
The change is smaller than the measurement uncertainty.
Sources Soil organic carbon baseline (simulated Observation); Soil organic carbon follow-up (simulated Observation)
Provenance Paired soil cores, by Prairie Grain Laboratory (simulated)
- Unverified
The Formation reduced nitrate in the Upper Basin watershed.
Nitrate is lower, but the claim is causal and the evidence is not.
- Uncertain Flow and other land uses could explain the change.
Assessed by Upper Basin community volunteers (simulated) · 1 evidence record
Inspect evidence (1)
Context (bearing not declared)Stream nitrate against the five-year mean
UnverifiedSimulated
A decrease is observed; the samples cannot separate the Formation from other land uses or flow.
Sources Season 1 stream nitrate (simulated Observation); Season 2 stream nitrate (simulated Observation); Season 3 stream nitrate (simulated Observation)
Provenance Volunteer sampling, by Upper Basin community volunteers (simulated)
- Partially substantiated
The transition was economically viable for participating farms.
Most farms report margins above their baseline; some fell below it in the dry season.
- Uncertain Self-reported margins; not audited.
Assessed by Participating farms (simulated reports) · 1 evidence record
Inspect evidence (1)
QualifiesFarm-reported margins
Partially substantiatedSimulated
Reported by the farms; not audited.
Sources Participating farms' margins (simulated Observation)
Provenance Self-reported, by Participating farms (simulated reports)
Assessments are made by the named assessor against the cited evidence. They are not independent audits unless a source says so, and colour only repeats what the words say.
Observation Canonical Simulated
- Second line commissioned: After the season-1 harvest; season-1 processing ran on the existing line. Commissioning record.
- Season 1 grain received and milled: 6,000 t (±0.5%, scale tolerance). Weighbridge tickets.
- Season 1 lots within all criteria: 97% of lots (5,820 t). Accredited protein and residue assays.
- Season 2 lots within all criteria: 88% of lots (5,322 t). Accredited protein and residue assays.
- Season 3 lots within all criteria: 95% of lots (6,333 t). Accredited protein and residue assays.
The Formation supplied the 20,000 t the Intent asked for.
Evidence Simulated
- All seasons: tonnage meeting the criteria · contradicts. 17,475 t of 20,000 t
- Second line commissioning record · qualifies.
contradicted. 17,475 t met the criteria, 2,525 t short. Every Activity completed; completion is not success. Uncertainty: None material: tonnage and assays are direct Observations.
Hearthstone Foods' quality team, under the Formation's governance, asserts that the Intent was partly fulfilled.
Biography of the Formation Projection over canonical history, 15 entries, including failed assumptions
The Biography is reconstructed from canonical history; it is not a second store of truth.
- Intent Hearthstone Foods declared an Intent for 20,000 t over 3 seasons.
- Discovery The coordination agent discovered Capability, Capacity and developable Capability across the ecology.
- Proposal It proposed "With processing expansion". The Proposal bound no one.
- Commitment 19 Commitments were made, each by its own Principal.
- Formation Upper Basin Regenerative Grain Formation was established as a new Subject with its own identity.
- Activity and Observation · season 1 Season 1: 6,000 t delivered, limited by segregated processing Capacity; 5,820 t met the criteria.
- Activity and Observation · season 2 Season 2: 6,048 t delivered, limited by production after the season's yield; 5,322 t met the criteria.
- Activity and Observation · season 3 Season 3: 6,667 t delivered, limited by the Intent's seasonal volume; 6,333 t met the criteria.
- Outcome · season 3 Hearthstone Foods: criteria partly met. 17,475 t met the criteria (87% of the Intent).
- Outcome · season 3 14 participating farms: criteria partly met. Most farms above baseline; some below it in the dry season.
- Outcome · season 3 Soil systems of enrolled fields: not yet determinable. No change distinguishable from measurement error yet.
- Outcome · season 3 Upper Basin watershed: not yet determinable. Nitrate is lower; attribution to the Formation is not supported.
- Outcome · season 3 Valley Mill Company: criteria partly met. Season 1 ran on the existing line because the second line was commissioned late; later seasons had the planned Capacity.
- Failed assumption · season 1 The plan assumed the second line would run at half Capacity for the first harvest. It was commissioned after it.
- Failed assumption · season 2 The plan assumed steady yields; the dry season cut production and the share of lots in the protein band.
Learning: what changes in the ecology
- Valley Mill's current reservable segregated Capacity is 8,500 t per season, entered by the mill as current state. The Biography records how it got there; it is not where the current figure is read from.
- New Relationships exist: a supply relationship between the buyer and the mill, and the delivered lots' lineage to fields, assays and milling runs.
- Evidence history now shows the protein band is at risk in dry seasons. A future Intent's reasoning can weigh it; it is not a property of any farm.
- The Formation remains a Subject with a Biography. Its participants keep their own identities and may join other Formations.
Biography answers what the system now knows. It is not current state: current Capacity, Evidence and Relationships are read from their own records.
The loop closes: the next Intent discovers a different ecology. The ecology after the Formation
IMPLEMENTATION BOUNDARY
Technology follows the model
No technology gets to redefine RSM semantics. A technology may implement, index, project, transport or reason over part of the Model; it does not acquire authority over what an RSM concept means.
PostGIS≠Place
Graph engine≠Relationship
Vector store≠Truth
LLM≠Assertion
OIDC / identity provider≠Authority
Event broker≠Event semantics
STABLE CONTRACTS AROUND EVOLVING MACHINERY
Architectural sockets
CanonicalRepositorySemanticResolverIdentityResolverAuthorityEvaluatorPolicyEvaluatorSearchIndexGraphProjectionSpatialRepositorySpatialIndexTemporalQueryVectorIndexEmbeddingProviderModelProviderReasoningProviderFederationTransportDisclosureEngineConnectorAdapterBlobStoreTelemetry
The ports exist before the specialized engines do. Several initial adapters may share one physical implementation while preserving distinct architectural responsibilities. Source: Technology and Infrastructure Architecture.
INDEX
The distinctions, in one place
Eight distinctions hold the model together. Each links to the section that explains it.
- Identity · Kind · Domain Type · Role
- Four questions about every entity
- Subject ≠ Actor
- Subject is a role, not a superclass
- Capability ≠ Capacity
- Capability is not Capacity
- Configuration ≠ Formation
- Configuration is not Formation
- Authoritative state ≠ derived reasoning
- Authoritative state and derived reasoning
- Agency ≠ Authority
- Agency is not Authority
- Activity ≠ Outcome
- Activity is not Outcome
- Biography ≠ Current State
- Biography is not current state
GO DEEPER
The specifications govern the model.
The Concept Paper, Subject Model, Semantic Model and Taxonomy, and Canonical Model and Protocol define everything on this page normatively.