HRCM-F — Harm Resolution Criteria Module
OOF® Origin Open Foundation®
Independent Methodological Authority
Canonical Definition
The HRCM-F — Harm Resolution Criteria Module governs how the criteriarequired for legitimate Harm Resolution are defined, qualified, applied,
satisfied, maintained, and reassessed against the current governed Harm
condition.
HRCM-F determines what must be materially true before a Harm Resolution
State can legitimately support Resolution, which criteria are mandatory or
conditional for the governed Harm, whether those criteria have been
sufficiently satisfied, what unresolved conditions remain, how uncertainty
affects the determination, and whether the established Resolution basis is
sufficiently complete to support Harm lifecycle Closure.
It establishes the transition:
Governed Harm Resolution State → Resolution Criteria Formation → Criteria
Applicability → Criteria Evaluation → Criteria Satisfaction → Resolution
Determination → Governed Harm Resolution Criteria State
Its central question is:
What must be sufficiently true for the governed Harm to be legitimately
resolved?
- Operational Role
HRSM-F establishes:
the current Resolution State of the Harm.
HRCM-F establishes:
the conditions that must be satisfied for that Harm to legitimately
qualify as resolved.
Its operational role is:
to convert Resolution from a general status into a criteria-based
governance determination grounded in the actual Harm lifecycle.
The foundational principle is:
Resolution is criteria-based, not disappearance-based.
- Position Within HRFS
The HRFS governance flow is:
Resolution State → Resolution Criteria → Closure → Reopening → Finality
HRCM-F governs the second stage:
Resolution Criteria
It receives principally:Governed Harm Resolution State
together with materially relevant lifecycle information.It produces:
Governed Harm Resolution Criteria State
for:HCLM — Harm Closure Module
- Governed Object
The primary governed object is:
Criteria for Legitimate Harm Resolution
HRCM-F does not ask merely:Has Harm disappeared?
It asks:
What conditions must be satisfied for this governed Harm lifecycle to
legitimately enter Resolution?
This allows Resolution to remain applicable across very different Harm
conditions without imposing a universal requirement of complete
restoration or zero Residual Harm.
- Foundational Criteria Principle
Resolution Criteria must correspond to the Harm being governed.
Therefore:
One Universal Resolution Threshold ≠ Legitimate Resolution Governance
Different Harm may require different combinations of:
Harm stability
Mitigation
Recovery
Residual Harm governance
dependency controlmonitoring
uncertainty bounds
or:
other materially relevant conditions
while preserving the same methodological structure.
- Criteria Formation
Resolution Criteria must be formed from the requirements of the governed
Harm lifecycle rather than from convenience or external process
completion.
Criteria formation should consider:
Governed Harm
Harm Boundary
Current Harm State
Mitigation State
Recovery Condition
Residual Harm State
continuing Harm pathwaysmaterial dependencies
material uncertainty
and:
conditions necessary for legitimate Resolution
- Criteria Applicability
Not every possible criterion applies to every Harm.
HRCM-F must determine:
Applicable
Conditionally Applicable
or:Not Applicable
where necessary.Canonical principle:
A criterion should govern Resolution because the Harm requires it—not
because the criterion exists.
- Mandatory Resolution Criteria
Some criteria may be mandatory for a particular governed Harm.
Failure of a mandatory criterion prevents legitimate Resolution.
Therefore:
Mandatory Criterion Unsatisfied → Resolution Not Established
Mandatory criteria must be explicitly identifiable.
- Conditional Resolution Criteria
Some criteria apply only where a specified condition exists.
For example:
if Residual Harm remains → Residual Harm governance criterion applies
or:
if Resolution depends on external support → dependency criterion applies
Therefore:
Conditional Criterion ≠ Universal Criterion
- Resolution Criteria Scope
Every criterion must have an explicit scope.
A criterion may apply to:
the entire Harm
a specific Harm component
an affected subject
a defined group
a location
a domain
a system
or:
a materially relevant consequence
Therefore:
Criterion Satisfied in One Scope ≠ Criterion Satisfied Across the Entire
Harm
- Current Harm Condition Criterion
Resolution requires sufficient understanding of the current Harm
condition.
The criterion may examine whether Harm remains:
active
stable
decreasing
residual
latent
intermittent
uncertain
or:
no longer materially present
The relevant Harm condition must be compatible with the proposed
Resolution State.
- Active Harm Progression Criterion
Where Harm remains actively:
emerging
accumulating
compounding
propagating
or:
cascading
Resolution ordinarily lacks sufficient basis unless the governed
Resolution model explicitly and legitimately accounts for that condition.
Canonical principle:
Active Harm progression cannot be hidden inside a Resolution declaration.
- Containment Criterion
Where continuing expansion or propagation was materially relevant,
Resolution Criteria may require sufficient Containment.
However:
Containment Achieved ≠ Resolution Achieved
Containment may be one condition supporting Resolution.
It does not replace the Resolution determination.
- Mitigation Criterion
Where existing Harm required material reduction, the Resolution basis may
require a sufficient Mitigation condition.
But:
Mitigation Verified ≠ Resolution Established
HRCM-F evaluates whether the Mitigation condition is sufficient for
Resolution in combination with the other applicable criteria.
- Recovery Criterion
Recovery may be a materially relevant Resolution Criterion.
The criterion must correspond to the legitimate Recovery condition
required for the Harm.
It must not automatically require:
return to the pre-Harm state
or:
complete restoration
Therefore:
Recovery Criterion Satisfied ≠ Pre-Harm State Restored
- Partial Recovery and Resolution Criteria
Partial Recovery may satisfy the applicable Recovery Criterion where the
legitimate Resolution model does not require greater Recovery.
Therefore:
Partial Recovery ≠ Resolution Criterion Failure by Default
The criterion must be determined by the Harm governance requirement rather
than by an assumption that Recovery must always be complete.
- Residual Harm Criterion
Where Residual Harm exists, HRCM-F determines what must be true about that
Harm before Resolution can be legitimate.
The criterion may require that Residual Harm be sufficiently:
identified
bounded
represented
stable or otherwise understood
monitored where necessary
and:
compatible with Resolution
Therefore:
Residual Harm Exists ≠ Resolution Criterion Failed
- Residual Harm Absence Is Not Universal
HRCM-F explicitly rejects:
Residual Harm = 0
as a universal Resolution requirement.
Some Harm may legitimately resolve while Residual Harm remains.
Therefore:
No Residual Harm ≠ Universal Resolution Criterion
- Continuing Harm Criterion
Where Harm continues materially, the Resolution basis must determine
whether that continuing Harm is:
compatible with Resolution
incompatible with Resolution
or:
insufficiently understood
A Resolution claim cannot simply ignore continuing Harm.
- Stability Criterion
Resolution may require sufficient stability of the post-Harm condition.
The applicable stability period or basis must be proportionate to the
Harm.
Therefore:
Momentary Stability ≠ Sufficient Stability by Default
and:
Long Stability ≠ Resolution by Itself
- Dependency Criterion
Where Resolution depends materially on external conditions, those
dependencies must be governed.
The criterion may require that a dependency be:
identified
available
sufficient
maintainable
monitored
or:
subject to defined failure response
Therefore:
Hidden Dependency ≠ Legitimate Unconditional Resolution
- Conditional Resolution Criteria
Where Resolution depends on continuing conditions, HRCM-F may establish
criteria for:
Conditional Resolution
These conditions must be explicit.Conceptually:
Resolution Valid IF Condition A + Condition B + Condition C remain
satisfied
Canonical principle:
A conditional Resolution must expose the conditions on which its
legitimacy depends.
- Monitoring Criterion
Some Harm may require continued observation after Resolution.
Monitoring may be appropriate where:
Residual Harm remains
latent Harm remains materially relevantdependencies continue
Recovery stability remains important
or:reopening conditions require observation
Monitoring does not mean Resolution is invalid.
Therefore:
Monitoring Continues ≠ Harm Unresolved
- Uncertainty Criterion
Perfect certainty is not required for Resolution.
But materially relevant uncertainty must be sufficiently bounded.
HRCM-F must distinguish:
acceptable bounded uncertainty
from:
uncertainty that prevents legitimate Resolution
Canonical principle:
Resolution requires sufficient governance, not impossible certainty.
- Evidence Sufficiency
Resolution Criteria may require sufficient supporting evidence.
But HRCM-F does not itself become an evidence architecture.
ADIT® governs evidence.
HRCM-F determines whether the available governed basis is sufficient for
Resolution Criteria evaluation.
Therefore:
Evidence Available ≠ Criterion Satisfied
- Validation Sufficiency
Where relevant, validated information may support Resolution Criteria.
VALIDOS™ governs validation.
HRCM-F governs whether the resulting validated basis satisfies the
applicable Harm Resolution Criterion.
Therefore:
Validated Basis ≠ Resolution Criterion Satisfaction by Default
- Operational Reality Sufficiency
Resolution Criteria must correspond to actual post-Harm reality.
ORA™ may provide relevant Operational Reality.
HRCM-F determines whether that reality supports Resolution.
Therefore:
Declared Condition ≠ Operational Condition
and:
Declared Resolution Basis ≠ Actual Resolution Basis
- Criteria Satisfaction
A criterion is satisfied only where its applicable requirement is
sufficiently established.
HRCM-F may represent:
Satisfied
Partially Satisfied
Conditionally Satisfied
Unsatisfied
Not Applicable
or:Uncertain
This prevents binary simplification where the Harm condition is morecomplex.
- Partial Criteria Satisfaction
Partial satisfaction must remain visible.
Therefore:
Partially Satisfied ≠ Satisfied
unless the criterion itself explicitly permits a defined partial
threshold.
Criteria must not silently become weaker during evaluation.
- Criteria Interaction
Resolution Criteria may interact.
For example:
Recovery condition
may depend on:Mitigation stability
while:Conditional Resolution
may depend on:Residual Harm monitoring + dependency continuity
HRCM-F must preserve materially relevant relationships among criteria.
- Criteria Conflict
Different criteria may produce conflicting Resolution signals.
For example:
Recovery Criterion → Satisfied
while:
Residual Harm Stability Criterion → Unsatisfied
The favorable criterion must not erase the unfavorable one.
Canonical principle:
Resolution strength cannot exceed the materially constraining unsatisfied
criterion.
- Criteria Hierarchy
Where necessary, criteria may have different governance significance.
A criterion may be:
Mandatory
Conditional
Supporting
or:Informational
Supporting or informational conditions must not substitute for unsatisfiedmandatory requirements.
- Composite Harm Criteria
Composite Harm may require criteria at both:
component level
and:
composite level
For example:
Component A Criteria → Satisfied
Component B Criteria → Satisfied
Composite Interaction Criterion → Unsatisfied
Therefore:
Component Criteria Satisfied ≠ Composite Resolution Criteria Satisfied
- Collective Harm Criteria
Collective Harm may require criteria concerning:
group-level Recovery
distribution
materially affected subgroups
or:
collective Residual Harm
Therefore:
Majority Criteria Satisfaction ≠ Collective Criteria Satisfaction by
Default
- Distributed Harm Criteria
Distributed Harm may require Resolution Criteria across multiple:
locations
nodes
systems
organizations
or:
environments
Resolution Criteria must correspond to the actual governed Harm Boundary.
Therefore:
Local Criteria Satisfaction ≠ Distributed Criteria Satisfaction
- Cross-Domain Criteria
Where Harm spans multiple domains, Resolution Criteria may differ across
those domains.
For example:
Physical Criterion → Satisfied
Operational Criterion → Satisfied
Financial Harm Criterion → Pending
Environmental Criterion → Unsatisfied
The complete determination must preserve materially relevant domain
differences.
- Criteria Satisfaction Aggregation
Where a complete Resolution Criteria State is required, HRCM-F must
integrate individual criterion outcomes without hiding constraining
failures.
Conceptually:
Criterion₁ + Criterion₂ + Criterion₃ + ... → Resolution Criteria State
Aggregation must preserve:
mandatory failures
conditional requirements
uncertainty
and:
scope differences
- Resolution Determination
Once applicable criteria have been evaluated, HRCM-F determines whether
the Resolution basis is:
Insufficient
Partially Sufficient
Conditionally Sufficient
Sufficient
or:Uncertain
This determination represents whether the Harm can legitimately supportResolution.
- Resolution Criteria State
HRCM-F may establish states such as:
Criteria Not Ready
Criteria Evaluation Pending
Criteria Partially Satisfied
Criteria Conditionally Satisfied
Criteria Satisfied
Criteria Unsatisfied
or:Criteria Satisfaction Uncertain
The state must remain traceable to individual criteria.- Criteria Persistence
Resolution Criteria satisfaction may change over time.
For example:
Dependency Criterion → Satisfied at t₁
but:
Dependency Criterion → Unsatisfied at t₂
Therefore:
Criterion Satisfied Once ≠ Criterion Permanently Satisfied
Before Finality, materially relevant criteria may require reassessment.
- Criteria Reassessment
Reassessment may be required where:
Harm State changes
Recovery regresses
Residual Harm changes
dependencies changemonitoring reveals deterioration
new information emerges
the Harm Boundary changes
a conditional requirement fails
or:
the previous criteria basis becomes materially unreliable
- Criteria Version and History
Where Resolution Criteria materially change, the governance record should
preserve:
which criteria applied
when they applied
why they changed
and:
which Resolution determination relied on them
Canonical principle:
Changing the Resolution Criteria must not rewrite the history of the
Resolution decision.
- Criteria Manipulation Prevention
Resolution Criteria must not be weakened after evaluation merely to obtain
a desired Resolution outcome.
Therefore:
Desired Resolution Outcome ≠ Basis for Lowering Resolution Criteria
Where criteria legitimately change because Harm reality or methodology
changes, the change must remain traceable.
- External Criteria Boundary
Legal, contractual, insurance, organizational, or administrative systems
may establish their own closure or settlement criteria.
Those criteria may be relevant.
But they do not automatically become HAGA™ Harm Resolution Criteria.
Therefore:
External Closure Criterion ≠ Harm Resolution Criterion by Default
- Accountability Boundary
Resolution Criteria must not require accountability determination unless
that condition is genuinely necessary to the Harm Resolution object.
Ordinarily:
Accountability ≠ Harm Resolution
Therefore:
Accountability Criterion Satisfied ≠ Harm Resolution Criterion Satisfied
- Liability Boundary
Liability determination is not a universal Harm Resolution Criterion.
Therefore:
Liability Determined ≠ Harm Resolved
and:
Liability Unresolved ≠ Harm Unresolved by Default
- Compensation Boundary
Compensation may be materially relevant to some Harm consequences but does
not universally establish Harm Resolution.
Therefore:
Compensation Paid ≠ Resolution Criterion Satisfied by Default
- Value Boundary
Value restoration is governed separately from Harm Resolution.
Therefore:
Value Restored ≠ Harm Resolved
and:
Value Not Restored ≠ Harm Unresolved by Default
VFM® governs the Value lifecycle.
- Closure Readiness
When applicable Resolution Criteria are sufficiently satisfied, HRCM-F
determines whether the Harm is ready to move toward lifecycle Closure.
This creates:
Governed Harm Resolution Criteria State → Closure Readiness
But:
Resolution Criteria Satisfied ≠ Closure Completed
Closure remains a separate governance stage.
- Minimum Implementation Framework
A minimum HRCM-F implementation requires exactly eight capabilities.
- Resolution Criteria Formation
Define Harm-specific Resolution Criteria grounded in the governed Harm
lifecycle rather than external administrative convenience.
- Criteria Applicability & Classification
Determine which criteria are mandatory, conditional, supporting,
informational, or not applicable.
- Criteria Scope & Harm-Lifecycle Alignment
Bind criteria to the appropriate Harm, subjects, components, boundaries,
locations, domains, and lifecycle conditions.
- Criteria Evaluation & Satisfaction Determination
Represent each applicable criterion as satisfied, partially satisfied,
conditionally satisfied, unsatisfied, or uncertain on a sufficient
governed basis.
- Composite, Collective, Distributed & Cross-Domain Criteria
Governance
Preserve materially different criteria and satisfaction conditions across
complex Harm structures.
- Dependency, Monitoring & Uncertainty Governance
Govern materially relevant dependencies, continuing monitoring
requirements, conditional Resolution conditions, and bounded uncertainty.
- Criteria Reassessment, Integrity & History
Trigger reassessment when Harm reality changes, prevent outcome-driven
weakening of criteria, and preserve material criteria history.
- Governed Output & Closure Readiness
Produce a traceable Governed Harm Resolution Criteria State and determine
readiness for Harm lifecycle Closure governance. 51. Use Case 1 —
Resolution With Stable Residual Harm
A system substantially recovers from governed Harm but retains a stable
Residual Harm condition that cannot currently be eliminated.
The applicable Resolution Criteria require:
Residual Harm Identified
Residual Harm Boundary Established
No Active Harm Propagation
Recovery Condition Stable
Residual Harm Monitoring Active
and:Reopening Conditions Defined
All mandatory criteria are sufficiently satisfied.HRCM-F may establish:
Resolution Criteria Satisfied
even though:Residual Harm ≠ Zero
The governing principle is:
Resolution is determined by satisfaction of legitimate Harm criteria—not
by mandatory disappearance of every remaining Harm condition.
- Use Case 2 — Strong Recovery but Critical Criterion Fails
A distributed infrastructure system achieves substantial Recovery across
most components.
Most Resolution Criteria are satisfied.
However, one materially critical component continues producing Harm that
can propagate into recovered infrastructure.
HRCM-F does not average the successful criteria into Resolution.
The active Harm progression criterion remains unsatisfied.
The governing result remains:
Resolution Criteria Unsatisfied
The governing principle is:Resolution strength cannot exceed the materially constraining unsatisfied
criterion.
- Governance Requirements
HRCM-F requires that:
- Resolution be criteria-based rather than disappearance-based
- criteria correspond to the governed Harm
- universal thresholds not replace Harm-specific Resolution
requirements - criteria formation remain grounded in Harm lifecycle reality
- applicable, conditional, and non-applicable criteria remain
distinguishable; - mandatory criteria remain explicit; - criteria scope
remain defined; - current Harm condition remain represented; - active Harm
progression not be hidden by favorable criteria; - Containment and
Mitigation remain supporting conditions rather than automatic Resolution;
- Recovery criteria not universally require pre-Harm restoration; -
Partial Recovery not automatically constitute criterion failure; -
Residual Harm not automatically prevent Resolution; - Residual Harm
absence not become a universal criterion; - continuing Harm remain
explicitly evaluated; - stability requirements remain proportionate; -
dependencies remain visible; - conditional Resolution expose its
conditions; - monitoring remain compatible with legitimate Resolution; -
uncertainty be bounded rather than artificially eliminated; - evidence and
validation remain distinct from criterion satisfaction; - Operational
Reality remain distinguishable from declared condition; - partial and
conditional satisfaction remain visible; - materially interacting criteria
remain linked; - constraining unsatisfied criteria not be hidden by
favorable criteria; - criterion hierarchy remain explicit where necessary;
- composite, collective, distributed, and cross-domain Harm remain
appropriately governed; - criteria aggregation preserve failures,
uncertainty, and scope; - Resolution sufficiency remain explicitly
determined; - criteria satisfaction remain reassessable; - criteria
history remain preserved; - criteria not be weakened merely to obtain
Resolution; - external closure criteria remain distinct from Harm
Resolution Criteria; - accountability, liability, compensation, and value
outcomes remain architecturally distinct; - Closure Readiness remain
distinct from Closure.
- Governance Logic
HRCM-F applies the following logic:
Is the Governed Harm Resolution State ready for Resolution Criteria
evaluation?
If no:
→ Criteria Not Ready
If yes:
→ identify:
What must be true for this Harm to be legitimately resolved?
Then classify each criterion:
Mandatory?
Conditional?
Supporting?
Informational?
Not Applicable?
For each applicable criterion ask:
What is its scope?
What governed Harm condition does it test?
What basis supports the evaluation?
Is it satisfied?
Partially satisfied?
Conditionally satisfied?
Unsatisfied?
Uncertain?
Then determine:
Does active Harm progression remain?
Is relevant Mitigation sufficient?
Is Recovery sufficient?
Is Residual Harm sufficiently governed?
Are material dependencies controlled?
Is required monitoring available?
Is uncertainty sufficiently bounded?
Do composite, collective, distributed, or cross-domain conditions create
constraining failures?
Then integrate the results:
Individual Criteria States → Governed Harm Resolution Criteria State
If a mandatory materially constraining criterion remains unsatisfied:
→ Resolution Criteria remain insufficient.
If criteria are conditionally sufficient:
→ preserve the conditions explicitly.
If all applicable requirements are sufficiently satisfied:
→ establish:
Resolution Criteria Satisfied
Then determine:Closure Readiness
for:HCLM — Harm Closure Module
Throughout:Criteria ≠ Desired Outcome
Satisfied Criterion ≠ Resolved Harm by Itself
Majority Criteria Satisfied ≠ Complete Criteria Satisfaction
Residual Harm ≠ Automatic Criterion Failure
Recovery ≠ Resolution
Resolution Criteria Satisfied ≠ Closure Completed
- Governance Outputs
HRCM-F may produce:
Governed Harm Resolution Criteria State
Resolution Criteria Set
Criteria Applicability State
Mandatory Criteria Set
Conditional Criteria Set
Supporting Criteria Set
Criteria Scope
Current Harm Condition Criterion
Active Harm Progression Criterion
Containment Criterion
Mitigation Criterion
Recovery Criterion
Residual Harm Criterion
Stability Criterion
Dependency Criterion
Monitoring Criterion
Uncertainty Criterion
Individual Criteria Satisfaction States
Composite Criteria State
Collective Criteria State
Distributed Criteria State
Cross-Domain Criteria State
Resolution Sufficiency Determination
Criteria Reassessment Trigger
Criteria History
and:Harm Closure Readiness State
The principal output is:Governed Harm Resolution Criteria State
- Critical Distinctions
Resolution Criteria ≠ Harm Disappearance Requirement
One Universal Threshold ≠ Legitimate Resolution Governance
Mandatory Criterion ≠ Conditional Criterion
Criterion Satisfied in One Scope ≠ Criterion Satisfied Across Entire Harm
Active Harm Progression ≠ Resolved Harm
Containment Achieved ≠ Resolution Achieved
Mitigation Verified ≠ Resolution Established
Recovery Criterion Satisfied ≠ Pre-Harm State Restored
Partial Recovery ≠ Resolution Criterion Failure by Default
Residual Harm Exists ≠ Resolution Criterion Failed
No Residual Harm ≠ Universal Resolution Criterion
Momentary Stability ≠ Sufficient Stability
Long Stability ≠ Resolution by Itself
Hidden Dependency ≠ Legitimate Unconditional Resolution
Monitoring Continues ≠ Harm Unresolved
Evidence Available ≠ Criterion Satisfied
Validated Basis ≠ Resolution Criterion Satisfaction
Declared Resolution Basis ≠ Actual Resolution Basis
Partially Satisfied ≠ Satisfied
Component Criteria Satisfied ≠ Composite Criteria Satisfied
Majority Criteria Satisfaction ≠ Collective Criteria Satisfaction
Local Criteria Satisfaction ≠ Distributed Criteria Satisfaction
Criterion Satisfied Once ≠ Criterion Permanently Satisfied
Desired Resolution Outcome ≠ Basis for Lowering Resolution Criteria
External Closure Criterion ≠ Harm Resolution Criterion
Liability Determined ≠ Harm Resolved
Compensation Paid ≠ Resolution Criterion Satisfied
Value Restored ≠ Harm Resolved
Resolution Criteria Satisfied ≠ Closure Completed
- Canonical Boundary
The HRCM-F — Harm Resolution Criteria Module governs how Harm-specific
Resolution Criteria are formed, classified, scoped, applied, evaluated,
satisfied, integrated, maintained, and reassessed to determine whether a
governed Harm has sufficient basis for legitimate Resolution and
subsequent Closure governance. It governs mandatory and conditional
criteria, Harm condition criteria, Mitigation, Recovery and Residual Harm
criteria, stability, dependencies, monitoring, uncertainty, composite and
distributed criteria, satisfaction states, Resolution sufficiency, and
Closure Readiness. HRCM-F does not itself perform Harm Closure, Reopening
or Finality; independently govern Containment, Mitigation, Recovery or
Residual Harm; determine general causation, accountability,
responsibility, liability, claims, compensation or value consequences; or
substitute legal, administrative, contractual, insurance, audit,
validation, or external closure criteria for governed Harm Resolution
Criteria.
- Canonical Closing Statement
Resolution becomes legitimate only when the conditions required by the
Harm itself are sufficiently satisfied.
Those conditions cannot be replaced by elapsed time, process completion,
administrative closure, favorable averages, compensation, or the simple
absence of an immediately observable harmful effect.
HRCM-F makes the basis of Resolution explicit, scoped, testable, and
reassessable before the Harm lifecycle is allowed to close.
Harm Resolution is not declared because nothing more is being done. It is
established because the conditions required for Resolution are
sufficiently true.