OOF™ Origin Open Foundation™

Independent Methodological Authority

Architecture Ecosystem: Structured Reality Standards™
Architecture Family: SIMULOS® — Simulation Governance Architecture
Parent Standard: Simulation Evidence & Reliance Boundary Standard (SERBS)
Module: SRBM — Simulation Reliance Boundary Module
Operational Layer: Simulation Reliance Boundary Layer
Category: Governance & Enforcement
Subcategory: Simulation Governance
Type: Core Module
Governed Space: Simulation Reliance Boundary
Origin ID: SIMULOS-SERBS-SRBM-011.3
Version: 1.0
Status: Canonical · Open Standard
Effective Date: 20 August 2026
Compatibility: OOF® Methodology OS™ · GOA™ · ORA™ · VALIDOS® · INTEGROS® · ADIT® · AGA™ ·
AIG® · ASGA™ · RIS™
AI-Readable: Yes
Authority: OOF®
Protection: MIP® — Methodology Intellectual Property Protection
Canonical Language: English

Canonical Definition

Simulation Reliance Boundary Module (SRBM) is the third Core Module of the
Simulation Evidence & Reliance Boundary Standard (SERBS) within SIMULOS® —
Simulation Governance Architecture.

SRBM governs the maximum legitimate simulation-specific reliance that may be
placed upon qualified and weighted Simulation Evidence by defining the
objects, purposes, configurations, conditions, scenarios, parameter ranges,
environments, temporal contexts, propositions, decisions, and forms of use
within which reliance remains supported by the governed simulation basis.

The Module establishes the methodological boundary between:

what simulation evidence legitimately supports

and

what would constitute reliance beyond that support.

SRBM does not determine whether the total evidence basis is sufficient for a
broader Validation Determination, nor does it authorize deployment,
operational use, or organizational decisions.

Its task is narrower:

to determine how far reliance upon simulation-derived evidence may
legitimately extend before that evidence is being used beyond the governed
basis that gives it meaning.

Core Question

How far may reliance upon simulation-derived evidence legitimately extend
before the evidence is being used beyond its governed basis?

Architectural Position

SRBM is the third module within SERBS.

It follows:

SEQM — Simulation Evidence Qualification
Module

→ determines what legitimately qualifies as Simulation Evidence

and:

SEWM — Simulation Evidence Weight Module

→ determines how much simulation-specific evidential significance that
evidence may carry.

SRBM then establishes:

where legitimate reliance upon that evidence stops.

It precedes:

SUM — Simulation Use Limitation Module

which governs explicit restrictions, exclusions, caveats, unsupported uses,
and prohibited interpretations associated with that reliance boundary.

The sequence is therefore:

Qualification → Weight → Reliance Boundary → Use Limitation.

Internal Flow Position

Qualified Simulation Evidence Simulation Evidence Weight → Intended Reliance
Identification → Reliance Purpose Definition → Evidence-to-Reliance Alignment
→ Reliance Condition Identification → Boundary Constraint Assessment →
Reliance Expansion Assessment → Unsupported Reliance Detection → Reliance
Boundary Determination → Simulation Reliance Boundary State → Governed
Simulation Reliance Boundary → SUM — Simulation Use Limitation Module

Operational Space

SRBM governs the space between:

evidential significance

and

permitted simulation-specific reliance.

This operational space includes: intended reliance; reliance purpose; reliance
object; reliance proposition; reliance context; reliance conditions;
object-specific reliance; configuration-specific reliance; scenario-specific
reliance; parameter-specific reliance; environment-specific reliance; temporal
reliance; conditional reliance; comparative reliance; predictive reliance;
extrapolative reliance; reliance expansion; unsupported reliance; reliance
boundary crossing; reliance degradation; reliance suspension; reliance
reassessment.

Operational Scope

SRBM applies whenever simulation-derived evidence is expected to influence or
support: engineering judgment; design decisions; scientific conclusions;
safety arguments; mission planning; mission decisions; system qualification;
comparative evaluation; performance assessment; scenario selection;
infrastructure planning; operational preparation; risk analysis; AI
evaluation; autonomous-system evaluation; deployment preparation; validation
processes; regulatory evidence packages; investment or resource decisions;
other material forms of reliance.

The Module applies regardless of whether the evidence originates from: one
simulation; repeated simulations; Monte Carlo studies; scenario portfolios;
large simulation campaigns; digital twins; engineering simulations; mission
simulations; safety simulations; scientific simulations; physical simulations;
hybrid simulations; AI simulations; autonomous-system simulations; future
simulation technologies.

SRBM remains technology-neutral.

Its concern is not:

How advanced is the simulation?

Its concern is:

How far may the evidence produced through that simulation legitimately be
relied upon? Evidence Weight ≠ Reliance Boundary

SRBM enforces the distinction:

High Evidence Weight ≠ Broad Reliance

Evidence may carry substantial evidential weight for a narrowly defined
proposition while providing little or no legitimate basis for broader
generalization.

For example:

A simulation campaign may provide substantial evidence that:

Configuration A remains stable under Scenario Family S within Parameter Range
P.

That does not automatically support:

Configuration A will remain stable under all operational conditions.

SEWM determines evidential strength.

SRBM determines the extent of legitimate reliance.

Reliance Must Be Explicit

Reliance must not remain implicit.

SRBM requires the intended form of reliance to be identified before its
legitimacy can be assessed.

The intended reliance should establish: what decision, proposition,
comparison, judgment, or action is being informed; which Simulation Evidence
objects are being relied upon; what evidence weight those objects carry; which
Simulation Object is concerned; which object version and configuration apply;
which represented conditions apply; which scenario space applies; which
uncertainty remains; what temporal context applies; what extension beyond
directly simulated conditions is proposed.

Without an explicit intended reliance, a reliance boundary cannot be
meaningfully governed.

Reliance Object Principle

Simulation evidence may be relied upon only in relation to a sufficiently
defined Reliance Object.

The Reliance Object may be: a system; a component; a configuration; a design;
a process; a mission phase; an operational concept; a simulated behavior; a
comparative alternative; a parameter range; another explicitly bounded
subject.

The Reliance Object must remain aligned with the Simulation Object and
evidential basis.

Evidence concerning one object must not silently migrate to another.

Reliance Purpose Principle

The legitimacy of reliance depends upon why the evidence is being used.

The same evidence may legitimately support:

exploratory engineering

while not supporting:

safety-critical deployment.

It may support:

comparison between two simulated configurations

while not supporting:

absolute prediction of real-world performance.

It may support:

mission contingency analysis

while not independently supporting:

mission readiness determination.

SRBM therefore requires reliance to remain purpose-specific.

Reliance Context

Every governed reliance boundary should identify the context within which
reliance remains supported.

Context may include: Simulation Object; object version; object configuration;
simulation purpose; simulation scope; represented reality; abstraction level;
fidelity; assumptions; model version; environment configuration; input basis;
scenario family; parameter range; execution basis; output class; inference
basis; correlation basis; uncertainty; temporal applicability; evidence
weight.

The boundary is therefore multidimensional.

It is not merely a statement that evidence is:

usable

or

not usable.

Object Boundary

Simulation evidence must remain bounded to the object for which its evidential
meaning was established.

Evidence derived from:

Object Version V3

must not automatically be relied upon for:

Object Version V4

where the change may materially affect the evidence.

Similarly:

Component Evidence ≠ System Evidence

unless a governed basis supports that extension.

Configuration Boundary

Evidence may apply only to a specific configuration.

Configuration differences may include: hardware; software; model parameters;
architecture; sensor configuration; actuator configuration; material
properties; mission configuration; operating mode; system integration state.

A materially changed configuration may require reliance reassessment.

Scenario Boundary

Evidence produced within a defined scenario space must not automatically be
generalized outside that scenario space.

SRBM requires distinction between:

Tested Scenario Space

and

Untested Scenario Space.

Scenario coverage may be broad without being universal.

Therefore:

Scenario Coverage ≠ Universal Coverage.

Parameter Boundary

Simulation evidence may be valid only within defined parameter ranges.

Examples include: velocity; temperature; pressure; load; mass; latency; sensor
range; environmental condition; resource availability; probability
distribution; behavioral parameter.

Reliance beyond tested or governed parameter ranges constitutes extrapolation
and requires explicit justification.

Environment Boundary

Evidence may be dependent upon the environment represented by the simulation.

Environmental boundaries may include: terrain; weather; atmospheric
conditions; lighting; traffic; infrastructure; physical interaction; human
behavior; electromagnetic conditions; gravity; thermal conditions;
communication availability.

Evidence derived from one represented environment must not automatically be
generalized to materially different environments.

Temporal Boundary

Simulation evidence may have a legitimate reliance period.

Reliance may degrade where: the Simulation Object changes; operational reality
changes; input distributions change; assumptions become obsolete; models are
updated; new failures emerge; new evidence contradicts earlier results;
simulation-to-reality correlation changes; relevant scenarios evolve.

SRBM therefore recognizes:

Evidence can remain historically correct while becoming operationally stale.

Correlation Boundary

Where reliance concerns real-world behavior, SRBM must consider the governed
simulation-to-reality correlation basis established through SRCS.

Strong correlation under:

Conditions A, B, and C

does not automatically establish equivalent correlation under:

Conditions D, E, and F.

Therefore:

Correlation within a tested domain ≠ correlation outside that domain.

Uncertainty Boundary

Reliance must reflect material uncertainty.

Uncertainty may constrain: the confidence of a conclusion; the parameter
range; the scenario range; the temporal applicability; the permitted decision
class; the degree of extrapolation; the strength of predictive claims.

SRBM does not require uncertainty to eliminate reliance.

It requires uncertainty to constrain reliance where materially relevant.

Direct Reliance and Extended Reliance

SRBM distinguishes between: Direct
Reliance

Reliance that remains within the object, conditions, scenarios, parameters,
purposes, and propositions directly supported by the governed evidence.

Extended Reliance

Reliance that moves beyond one or more dimensions directly supported by the
evidence.

Extended reliance is not automatically prohibited.

But it requires an explicit governed justification.

Reliance Expansion

Reliance Expansion occurs when evidence is used beyond its established
boundary.

Expansion may involve: another object; another configuration; another
scenario; another environment; another parameter range; another time period;
another decision purpose; another operational condition; another population;
another mission phase; a broader proposition.

SRBM requires expansion to be visible.

Reliance must not expand silently.

Reliance Expansion Test

Before reliance is expanded, SRBM should determine:

1. What boundary dimension is being crossed? 2. How materially different is
the new context? 3. Which simulation assumptions remain applicable? 4. Which
representation conditions remain applicable? 5. Does the model remain
applicable? 6. Do the inputs remain representative? 7. Does scenario coverage
support the extension? 8. Does the correlation basis transfer? 9. What new
uncertainty is introduced? 10. Is additional simulation, evidence,
correlation, or validation required?

Extrapolation Principle

Extrapolation is a particularly important form of reliance expansion.

Simulation evidence may be extrapolated beyond directly tested conditions only
where the extrapolation basis is explicitly governed.

The extrapolation should identify: originating evidence; originating range;
target range; methodological basis; assumptions; expected uncertainty; model
applicability; correlation relevance; known limitations.

Extrapolation must be treated as extrapolation, not silently presented as
direct evidence.

Comparative Reliance

Simulation evidence may provide strong support for comparative propositions
even where it cannot support absolute real-world claims.

For example:

Configuration A performs better than Configuration B under governed Scenario
Set S

may be strongly supported.

That does not necessarily establish:

Configuration A will achieve Performance Level X in operational reality.

SRBM therefore distinguishes:

Comparative Reliance

from

Absolute Reliance.

Predictive Reliance

Where simulation evidence is used predictively, SRBM requires the predictive
reliance boundary to remain explicit.

Predictive reliance should consider: future condition uncertainty;
representation limits; assumption stability; model applicability; input
distribution shift; scenario completeness; correlation basis; temporal
horizon.

A simulation may legitimately inform a prediction without guaranteeing the
predicted outcome.

Reliance Boundary States

SRBM may assign a governed reliance-boundary state.

A minimum state model may include: 1.
Undefined Reliance

Evidence exists, but no explicit legitimate reliance boundary has been
established. 2. Narrow Reliance

Evidence supports reliance only within tightly defined conditions. 3.
Conditional Reliance

Reliance is legitimate only while explicitly defined conditions remain
satisfied. 4. Bounded Reliance

Evidence supports a clearly established and documented reliance domain. 5.
Extended Reliance — Justified

Reliance extends beyond directly simulated conditions, but the extension has
an explicit governed basis. 6. Reliance Suspended

Previously supported reliance requires reassessment because of material
change, contradiction, uncertainty, or loss of applicability. 7. Unsupported
Reliance

The intended use exceeds the legitimate simulation-specific evidence basis.

These states are governance classifications rather than universal measures of
scientific certainty.

Unsupported Reliance

Unsupported Reliance exists where simulation evidence is used beyond the
boundary its governed basis can legitimately support.

Examples include reliance: outside simulation scope; for an excluded
condition; on a materially changed object; on a materially changed
configuration; outside tested parameter ranges; outside represented
environments; beyond scenario coverage; beyond established correlation; after
evidence becomes stale; contrary to material uncertainty; for a materially
different purpose; beyond the proposition actually supported; as proof of
operational performance where only simulated performance was established.

Unsupported reliance must remain identifiable even where the organization has
historically relied upon the evidence in that manner.

Repeated unsupported reliance does not create legitimate reliance.

Boundary Crossing Detection

SRBM should enable organizations to detect when downstream use crosses a
governed reliance boundary.

Boundary crossing may be triggered by: object change; configuration change;
scenario change; environmental change; parameter expansion; purpose change;
temporal change; decision-class change; new evidence; new uncertainty;
correlation deterioration; contradiction; material reality change.

A detected boundary crossing should trigger:

Reliance Review

and where necessary:

Use Limitation → Additional Simulation → Additional Correlation → Validation
Review → Resimulation.

Reliance Degradation

A reliance boundary may degrade over time.

Degradation may occur when: the evidence weight decreases; reality changes;
the model becomes obsolete; assumptions become less defensible; scenario
relevance declines; new operational observations appear; correlation weakens;
contradictory evidence emerges.

SRBM therefore requires reliance boundaries to remain reviewable. Reliance
Boundary ≠ Decision Authority

SRBM determines whether simulation-derived evidence supports a particular
reliance domain.

It does not determine: who may make the decision; who accepts the risk; who
authorizes deployment; who owns accountability; whether the organization
should act.

Those questions belong to the relevant authority, accountability, operational,
risk, or validation governance structures.

Therefore:

Supported Reliance ≠ Authorized Decision.

SRBM Boundary with SEWM

SEWM determines:

how much evidential weight qualified Simulation Evidence carries.

SRBM determines:

how far reliance upon that evidence may extend.

Evidence weight is an input into reliance governance.

It is not the reliance boundary itself.

SRBM Boundary with SUM

SRBM establishes the legitimate reliance domain.

SUM translates that boundary into explicit: restrictions; exclusions; caveats;
prohibited uses; unsupported interpretations; required conditions.

Therefore:

SRBM defines where reliance stops.

SUM defines what must not happen beyond or within that boundary.

SRBM Boundary with VALIDOS®

SRBM does not determine overall validation sufficiency or authorize
operational reliance based on the total evidence basis.

Its question is:

How far may this simulation-derived evidence legitimately be relied upon as
simulation evidence?

VALIDOS® asks:

Does the total validation basis sufficiently support the Validation
Determination and intended reliance?

Therefore:

Simulation Reliance Boundary ≠ Validation Reliance Determination.

SRBM Boundary with SRCS

SRCS governs the simulation-to-reality correlation relationship.

SRBM uses that governed relationship when determining how far reality-directed
reliance may extend.

It does not establish or recalculate correlation.

SRBM Boundary with ORA™

ORA™ governs actual Operational Reality.

SRBM may determine whether simulation-derived evidence legitimately supports
propositions concerning a bounded part of that reality.

It does not determine operational reality itself.

SRBM Boundary with AGA™

AGA™ governs authority, responsibility, accountability, and attribution.

SRBM governs the methodological boundary of reliance upon simulation-derived
evidence.

It does not assign accountability for reliance decisions. SRBM Boundary with
AIG® / ASGA™

Where simulation evidence concerns AI or autonomous systems, SRBM may govern
how far that simulation evidence can legitimately support propositions about
the simulated system.

It does not govern the actual behavior, authority, autonomy, permissions,
constraints, or operation of the deployed system.

SRBM Boundary with INTEGROS®

SRBM does not determine general integrity.

Evidence or records may possess high integrity while still having a narrow
reliance boundary.

Therefore:

Integrity ≠ Breadth of Reliance.

SRBM Boundary with ADIT®

ADIT® may audit whether the evidence basis and reliance records are
observable, preserved, traceable, or verifiable.

SRBM establishes the simulation-specific methodological boundary itself.

Auditability ≠ Legitimate Reliance.

Minimum Implementation Framework

A minimum SRBM implementation should
establish: 1. Evidence Input

Receive qualified and weighted Simulation Evidence from SEQM and SEWM. 2.
Intended Reliance

Identify the precise proposition, decision, judgment, comparison, or use for
which reliance is proposed. 3. Reliance Object

Identify the object, version, configuration, or subject to which reliance
applies. 4. Reliance Context

Define the relevant scenario, environment, parameter, purpose, temporal,
correlation, and uncertainty conditions. 5. Evidence-to-Reliance Alignment

Determine whether the evidence directly supports the intended reliance. 6.
Boundary Constraint Identification

Identify all material conditions constraining legitimate reliance. 7. Reliance
Expansion Assessment

Identify whether the proposed use extends beyond directly supported
conditions. 8. Unsupported Reliance Detection

Determine whether any proposed use exceeds the legitimate evidence basis. 9.
Reliance Boundary State

Assign an explicit governed reliance-boundary state. 10. Reliance Boundary
Record

Document the supported domain, boundary conditions, expansion basis,
uncertainty, and conditions requiring reassessment.

Governance Outputs

SRBM may produce: Simulation Intended Reliance Statement Simulation Reliance
Object Record Simulation Reliance Purpose Record Simulation Reliance Context
Record Evidence-to-Reliance Alignment Assessment Simulation Reliance
Constraint Record Simulation Reliance Expansion Assessment Simulation
Extrapolation Record Simulation Reliance Boundary State Unsupported Reliance
Record Reliance Boundary Crossing Record Simulation Reliance Degradation
Record Simulation Reliance Boundary Statement Governed Simulation Reliance
Boundary

These outputs provide the governed basis for:

SUM — Simulation Use Limitation Module.

Enterprise Application

SRBM enables organizations to answer one of the most consequential questions
in simulation governance:

Where exactly does legitimate reliance on the simulation stop?

An organization may possess: millions of successful simulation runs;
high-fidelity models; substantial evidence weight; strong correlation within
tested conditions; extensive scenario coverage.

Yet none of those facts independently establish unlimited reliance.

For a spacecraft, evidence concerning a governed landing envelope may not
support an untested environmental regime.

For an autonomous vehicle, millions of simulated kilometers may strongly
support performance within represented traffic, sensor, weather, and
behavioral conditions while leaving materially different conditions outside
the legitimate reliance boundary.

For a robot, evidence generated for one hardware configuration may not
transfer automatically after sensors, actuators, software, payload, or
operating environment change.

For an engineering system, evidence within a tested load or temperature range
may not justify performance claims outside that range.

SRBM makes those boundaries explicit before narrow simulation evidence becomes
broad organizational belief.

It allows organizations to distinguish:

what was simulated

from

what was evidenced

from

what may legitimately be relied upon.

Foundational Principles

Evidence weight is not breadth of reliance.

High evidence weight does not create unlimited reliance.

Reliance must remain purpose-specific.

Reliance must remain object-specific where object differences are material.

Scenario coverage does not create universal coverage.

Correlation within one domain does not establish correlation outside that
domain.

Extrapolation must remain identifiable as extrapolation.

Comparative evidence does not automatically establish absolute performance.

Evidence can remain historically correct while becoming operationally stale.

Reliance expansion requires a governed basis.

Repeated unsupported reliance does not create legitimate reliance.

Supported simulation reliance does not itself constitute deployment
authorization or Validation Determination.

Simulation-derived evidence must not be relied upon beyond the object,
purpose, configuration, represented conditions, assumptions, parameters,
scenarios, environments, correlations, uncertainties, and temporal context
that establish its legitimate meaning.

Canonical Closing Statement

Simulation Reliance Boundary Module establishes the reliance-control layer
within the Simulation Evidence & Reliance Boundary Standard by determining how
far qualified and weighted Simulation Evidence may legitimately support a
proposition, judgment, comparison, decision context, or other defined form of
simulation-specific reliance. Through governance of reliance objects,
purposes, contexts, configurations, scenarios, parameters, environments,
temporal applicability, correlation domains, uncertainty, direct and extended
reliance, extrapolation, reliance expansion, unsupported reliance, boundary
crossing, degradation, suspension, and reliance-boundary states, SRBM prevents
simulation evidence from silently acquiring broader applicability than the
governed conditions from which its evidential meaning originates. By
separating evidential weight from breadth of reliance, simulation-specific
reliance from validation sufficiency, and supported reliance from decision
authority, SRBM preserves the methodological boundaries of SIMULOS®, VALIDOS®,
ORA™, INTEGROS®, ADIT®, AGA™, AIG®, and ASGA™ while creating the governed
reliance domain required for explicit downstream use limitations. Simulation
evidence may legitimately inform consequential decisions, but it must never
travel beyond its governed evidential basis without an explicit and justified
expansion of reliance.