Resimulation Trigger Module (SRGM)
OOF™ Origin Open Foundation™
Independent Methodological Authority
Architecture Ecosystem: Structured Reality Standards™
Architecture Family: SIMULOS® — Simulation Governance Architecture
Parent Standard: Simulation Lifecycle & Resimulation Standard (SLRS)
Module: SRGM — Resimulation Trigger Module
Operational Layer: Resimulation Trigger Governance Layer
Category: Governance & Enforcement
Subcategory: Simulation Governance
Type: Core Module
Governed Space: Resimulation Trigger Governance
Origin ID: SIMULOS-SLRS-SRGM-012.3
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
Resimulation Trigger Module (SRGM) is the third Core Module of the SimulationLifecycle & Resimulation Standard (SLRS) within SIMULOS® — Simulation
Governance Architecture.
SRGM governs the determination of when recognized Simulation Drift, material
change, new evidence, changed simulation conditions, changed reality
relationships, or other simulation-relevant lifecycle developments require a
simulation to be executed again, updated before execution, partially repeated,
comprehensively repeated, reconsidered, or escalated toward replacement or
retirement assessment.
The Module transforms recognized lifecycle divergence into an explicit
Resimulation Trigger State.
SRGM does not determine the detailed scope of the required resimulation. That
responsibility belongs to SRSM — Resimulation Scope Module.
Its task is narrower and foundational:
to determine whether the existing governed simulation basis remains sufficient
for continued simulation-specific use or whether a new simulation cycle must
be initiated.
Architectural Position
SRGM is the third module within SLRS.It follows:
SDRM — Simulation Drift Recognition Module
and precedes:SRSM — Resimulation Scope Module.
The sequence is:
Lifecycle Monitoring → Drift Recognition → Resimulation Trigger → Resimulation
Scope.
SLMM identifies materially relevant lifecycle changes.
SDRM determines whether those changes constitute Simulation Drift.
SRGM determines whether the resulting condition requires a new simulation
cycle.
SRSM then determines what must actually be resimulated.
Internal Flow Position
Governed Simulation Drift Record Material Change Evidence Current SimulationUse Context → Trigger Candidate Identification → Trigger Relevance Assessment
→ Materiality Assessment → Existing Simulation Sufficiency Assessment →
Continued-Use Consequence Assessment → Trigger Threshold Evaluation →
Resimulation Trigger State → Governed Resimulation Trigger Record → SRSM —
Resimulation Scope Module
Operational Space
SRGM governs the space between:recognized simulation-relevant change or drift
and
the formal initiation of a new simulation cycle.
This operational space includes: trigger candidate identification; trigger
source classification; drift-trigger relationships; material-change triggers;
threshold-based triggers; event-based triggers; cumulative triggers; temporal
triggers; evidence-based triggers; uncertainty-driven triggers; scenario
emergence triggers; object-change triggers; model-change triggers;
input-change triggers; correlation-change triggers; reliance-change triggers;
trigger materiality; trigger urgency; trigger state; trigger escalation;
trigger deferral conditions; trigger documentation.
Operational Scope
SRGM applies wherever previously governed simulations continue to bereferenced, reused, compared, interpreted, relied upon, or incorporated into
subsequent simulation, evidential, validation, engineering, scientific,
mission, safety, or operational processes.
It may govern resimulation triggers for: individual simulation runs; repeated
simulation programs; scenario portfolios; simulation campaigns; digital twins;
engineering simulations; scientific simulations; mission simulations; safety
simulations; infrastructure simulations; economic simulations; AI simulations;
autonomous-system simulations; continuously updated simulations; long-lived
simulation programs; future simulation technologies.
The Module remains technology-neutral.
Its concern is not how expensive or computationally difficult resimulation may
be.
Its concern is whether continued use of the existing simulation basis remains
methodologically supportable without a new simulation cycle. Drift Recognition
≠ Automatic Resimulation
SRGM establishes the fundamental distinction:
Recognized Simulation Drift ≠ Automatic
Resimulation
Not every recognized divergence requires another simulation.A drift condition may be: immaterial to the current use; outside the
applicable scope; confined to an unused configuration; limited to an
irrelevant scenario family; already bounded by an existing limitation;
insufficiently developed to justify immediate resimulation; appropriate for
continued monitoring.
Conversely, relatively small drift may require immediate resimulation where it
affects a highly sensitive or consequential simulation condition.
The trigger must therefore be determined from the relationship between the
change and the continuing use of the simulation.
Trigger Candidate Principle
Any lifecycle development capable of materially affecting the legitimatecontinuing use of a simulation may become a Resimulation Trigger Candidate .
Trigger Candidates may originate from: Simulation Object change; configuration
change; reality change; representation change; assumption change; model
change; simulation environment change; input or data change; scenario change;
execution anomaly; output anomaly; correlation change; evidence degradation;
changed reliance context; temporal expiration; newly discovered uncertainty;
newly discovered failure mode; new operational observations; cumulative minor
changes; compound Simulation Drift.
A Trigger Candidate is not yet a Resimulation Trigger.
It must first be assessed.
Trigger Source Classification
SRGM requires the source of a potential trigger to remain explicit.A trigger may be classified as:
Object Trigger A material change to the Simulation Object.
Reality Trigger A material change in the reality represented by the
simulation.
Representation Trigger A material deficiency or change in how reality is
represented.
Assumption Trigger A material assumption has changed, weakened, failed, or
become uncertain.
Model Trigger The simulation model has materially changed or become
insufficient for continued use.
Environment Trigger The simulation environment or relevant simulation
dependencies have materially changed.
Input Trigger The input basis or relevant data distribution has materially
changed.
Scenario Trigger A new materially relevant scenario, edge case, stress
condition, or scenario class has emerged.
Execution Trigger Execution behavior reveals anomalies, instability, drift, or
conditions requiring renewed simulation.
Output Trigger Outputs reveal unexpected or materially unresolved behavior.
Correlation Trigger Simulation-to-reality correlation materially changes or
deteriorates.
Evidence Trigger Simulation-derived evidence loses qualification, weight,
applicability, or relevance.
Temporal Trigger A defined review period or simulation applicability period
has expired.
Multiple trigger sources may coexist.
Material Change Trigger
A material change may require resimulation where it alters one or moreconditions upon which the existing simulation results materially depend.
Examples include: new hardware configuration; software revision; changed
physical component; changed environmental range; altered operating conditions;
changed mission profile; changed behavioral logic; changed sensor
characteristics; changed parameter range; changed infrastructure dependency.
The relevant question is not:
Did the object change?
It is:
Does the change materially affect the simulation basis upon which continued
use depends?
Scenario Emergence Trigger
A new real-world or anticipated scenario may create a Resimulation Triggereven where the Simulation Object itself has not changed.
Examples include: newly observed failure combinations; new environmental
extremes; new interaction patterns; new adversarial conditions; newly relevant
edge cases; expanded operational domains; new mission phases; new human-system
interactions.
Where the new scenario lies outside previously governed scenario coverage and
materially affects the intended use of the simulation evidence, resimulation
may be required.
Correlation Trigger
A previously acceptable simulation may require resimulation where new realityobservations materially alter the established simulation-to-reality
relationship.
Examples include: systematic real-world deviation; unexpected operational
behavior; repeated prediction mismatch; degraded physical correspondence;
changed environmental relationship; new empirical measurements.
SRCS governs the correlation relationship.
SRGM determines whether a material change in that relationship activates a new
simulation cycle.
Evidence Degradation Trigger
Simulation evidence may become weaker even where the original simulationremains technically reproducible.
SERBS or lifecycle monitoring may identify: degraded evidential weight;
reduced applicability; expired temporal relevance; new contradictory evidence;
changed reliance conditions; weakened correlation; invalidated assumptions.
SRGM may treat such developments as Trigger Candidates.
Reproducible Simulation ≠ Permanently Sufficient Evidence.
Cumulative Trigger Principle
A series of individually non-triggering changes may collectively requireresimulation.
Therefore:
No Single Trigger ≠ No Resimulation
Requirement
SRGM must permit cumulative trigger assessment.For example:
Minor Object Revision Small Input Distribution Shift New Edge Cases Moderate
Correlation Deterioration
may collectively cross a resimulation threshold even though none independently
would do so.
Compound Trigger Principle
Trigger conditions may interact non-linearly.A changed assumption may become material only after a model update.
A new scenario may become critical only after an operational-domain expansion.
A modest correlation decline may become significant after reliance expands.
SRGM therefore evaluates both:
individual Trigger Candidates
and
combined Trigger Conditions.
Trigger Threshold
Organizations may define explicit Resimulation Trigger Thresholds.Thresholds may be: qualitative; quantitative; probabilistic; event-based;
consequence-based; sensitivity-based; time-based; configuration-based;
evidence-based; hybrid.
SIMULOS® does not prescribe one universal numerical threshold.
The threshold must instead remain: explicit; relevant to the simulation
purpose; connected to materiality; sensitive to the consequence of continued
use; reviewable; traceable to its governance basis.
Trigger Sensitivity
Different simulation contexts may legitimately require different triggersensitivity.
A minor change may justify resimulation where: simulation evidence supports
safety-critical decisions; the model is highly sensitive to the changed
variable; the simulation governs narrow tolerance conditions; correlation is
already uncertain; consequences of unsupported reliance are severe.
The same change may not justify immediate resimulation for: exploratory
analysis; historical comparison; broad conceptual modeling; an unaffected
scenario family.
Therefore:
Trigger Sensitivity Must Follow Simulation Relevance, Not Change Magnitude
Alone.
Trigger Urgency
SRGM distinguishes whether resimulation is:Non-Urgent Resimulation is required but continued bounded use remains
temporarily acceptable.
Scheduled Resimulation must occur within a defined lifecycle or review window.
Priority Resimulation should occur before specified further reliance or
decision activity.
Immediate Existing simulation reliance should not continue for the affected
use until resimulation or another governed response occurs.
Urgency does not determine scope.
SRSM determines the required resimulation scope.
Resimulation Trigger States
SRGM may assign a governed Resimulation
Trigger State. 1. No Trigger
Available change or drift does not require a new simulation cycle for thedefined use. 2. Monitor
A Trigger Candidate exists, but current evidence does not justify
resimulation.
The condition remains under lifecycle
monitoring. 3. Conditional Trigger
Resimulation becomes required if a defined condition, threshold, event, useexpansion, or additional change occurs. 4. Triggered
A governed basis exists for initiating
resimulation. 5. Priority Trigger
Resimulation is required before specified further reliance, use, or lifecycleprogression. 6. Immediate Trigger
The affected simulation basis should not continue to support the relevant use
without immediate resimulation or another governed lifecycle response. 7.
Indeterminate
Available information is insufficient to determine whether resimulation is
required.
An Indeterminate state must not silently become No Trigger.
Trigger Deferral
A valid trigger may sometimes be deferred.Deferral may occur where: required data are temporarily unavailable; a
replacement model is being prepared; the affected simulation use has been
suspended; the relevant operational condition will not occur before
resimulation; another controlled mitigation temporarily bounds reliance.
Deferral must identify: reason; affected simulation; affected use; temporary
limitations; expiration condition; review point.
Deferred Trigger ≠ Cancelled Trigger.
Trigger Closure
A Trigger Candidate or Trigger State must eventually reach a governeddisposition.
Possible dispositions include: no resimulation required; continue monitoring;
conditional trigger retained; resimulation initiated; trigger superseded;
simulation replaced; simulation retired.
Unresolved Trigger Candidates must not disappear merely because time passes.
Resimulation Trigger ≠ Resimulation Scope
SRGM determines whether a new simulation cycle is required.
It does not determine whether the response requires: one repeated run; one
scenario; one parameter region; one subsystem; one configuration; a partial
campaign; a complete campaign; model reconstruction; simulation replacement.
That determination belongs to:
SRSM — Resimulation Scope Module.
Therefore:
Trigger ≠ Scope. Resimulation Trigger ≠
Validation Trigger
A Simulation Resimulation Trigger concerns the need to re-enter the simulationlifecycle.
A Validation Trigger concerns broader validation governance.
A change may trigger: resimulation only; revalidation only; both; neither.
VALIDOS® remains responsible for broader validation lifecycle governance.
Negative Results as Trigger Inputs
Failed or anomalous simulations may themselves generate Trigger Candidates.Examples include: unexpected instability; unexplained divergence; inconsistent
repetitions; previously unseen failure; unexplained sensitivity;
execution-specific anomalies; output patterns inconsistent with prior
campaigns.
A failed execution does not automatically require resimulation.
But failure must remain available to trigger governance rather than being
discarded as computational noise without assessment.
Traceability of Trigger Decisions
Every material trigger determination should remain traceable through:Change Signal → Simulation Drift Record → Trigger Candidate → Affected
Simulation Basis → Current Use Context → Materiality → Threshold → Trigger
State → Urgency → Disposition → Resimulation Scope Assessment
This enables organizations to reconstruct not merely that resimulation
occurred, but why it became necessary.
SRGM Boundary with SLMM
SLMM identifies lifecycle change.SRGM does not independently replace lifecycle monitoring.
It receives relevant lifecycle information as trigger inputs.
Monitoring Signal ≠ Resimulation Trigger.
SRGM Boundary with SDRM
SDRM determines whether lifecycle change constitutes Simulation Drift.SRGM determines whether that recognized drift requires a new simulation cycle.
Therefore:
Simulation Drift ≠ Automatic Resimulation.
SRGM Boundary with SRSM
SRGM determines whether resimulation is required.SRSM determines what portion of the simulation lifecycle, scenario space,
configuration space, or simulation campaign must be repeated or reconstructed.
Therefore:
Trigger Decision ≠ Scope Decision.
SRGM Boundary with SERBS
SERBS may identify degraded evidence, changed applicability, reducedevidential weight, or changed reliance boundaries.
SRGM may consume these conditions as Trigger Candidates.
It does not independently redefine simulation evidence qualification, weight,
or reliance.
SRGM Boundary with SRCS
SRCS governs simulation-to-reality correlation.SRGM may consume material correlation change as a trigger input.
It does not determine correlation itself.
SRGM Boundary with VALIDOS®
SRGM does not determine whether broader revalidation is required.Its decision is simulation-specific:
Must a new simulation cycle be initiated?
VALIDOS® governs whether a Validation Object requires revalidation and what
validation lifecycle response is necessary.
SRGM Boundary with ORA™
ORA™ governs Operational Reality.Changes in Operational Reality may create Trigger Candidates where they affect
the simulation basis.
SRGM does not determine or govern Operational Reality itself.
SRGM Boundary with INTEGROS®
INTEGROS® governs integrity properties.An integrity issue may become a Trigger Candidate where it materially affects
simulation relevance, but SRGM does not replace integrity governance.
SRGM Boundary with ADIT®
ADIT® may audit whether trigger evidence, decisions, thresholds, records, andlifecycle actions are preserved and verifiable.
SRGM governs the simulation-specific trigger determination itself.
Minimum Implementation Framework
A minimum SRGM implementation should
establish: 1. Trigger Candidate Intake
Receive recognized Simulation Drift, material changes, new evidence,anomalies, correlation changes, and other simulation-relevant lifecycle
signals. 2. Affected Simulation Identification
Identify the simulation, campaign, configuration, scenario family, evidence
basis, or other simulation asset potentially affected. 3. Current Use Context
Determine how the existing simulation is currently being used, interpreted, or
relied upon. 4. Trigger Relevance Assessment
Determine whether the Trigger Candidate can materially affect that continuing
use. 5. Materiality Assessment
Assess the significance of the change relative to the simulation basis and
intended reliance. 6. Cumulative and Compound Assessment
Evaluate whether multiple changes collectively create a trigger condition. 7.
Trigger Threshold Evaluation
Compare the condition against the applicable qualitative, quantitative,
event-based, temporal, or hybrid trigger criteria. 8. Trigger State Assignment
Assign an explicit Resimulation Trigger State. 9. Urgency and Deferral Control
Determine urgency and document any controlled trigger deferral. 10. Trigger
Record Creation
Create a traceable record linking the trigger determination to its originating
lifecycle conditions and downstream scope assessment. Use Case 1 — Space
Mission Simulation: Mission Configuration Changes After Qualification Campaign
A spacecraft mission completes an extensive simulation campaign covering
guidance, navigation, propulsion, thermal behavior, landing sequences,
communication loss, contingency procedures, and mission-critical failure
conditions.
The simulation evidence supports a defined mission configuration.
Months later, before launch, several changes occur: a flight-software update
modifies guidance behavior; spacecraft mass distribution changes; a component
is replaced; new environmental observations alter part of the
landing-condition model; mission planners modify one phase of the descent
profile.
None of these changes automatically proves that the previous simulation
campaign is unusable.
Equally, the organization cannot safely assume that millions of previously
successful simulation executions still represent the modified mission
configuration.
SRGM receives the recognized drift conditions and determines whether they
cross a governed Resimulation Trigger.
The Module asks:
Which changes materially affect the basis upon which the existing mission
simulations continue to be relied upon?
A guidance-software modification affecting descent control may create a
Priority Trigger.
A component change outside the simulated behavioral pathway may create No
Trigger.
Updated environmental observations may create a Conditional Trigger pending
assessment of whether the new conditions fall outside previous scenario
coverage.
The result is not automatic repetition of the entire mission campaign.
It is a governed determination that establishes whether resimulation is
required before deciding what must be resimulated.
This prevents two costly failures:
continuing to rely on stale mission simulations
and
repeating enormous simulation campaigns after changes that do not materially
affect their basis. Use Case 2 — Autonomous Vehicle or Robot: New Real-World
Failure Pattern After Deployment
An autonomous vehicle or mobile robot has completed millions of simulated
scenarios before deployment.
After limited real-world operation, a previously rare interaction pattern
begins appearing:
a combination of unusual lighting, partial sensor obstruction, human movement,
and environmental geometry causes behavior that was not adequately represented
in the original scenario portfolio.
The individual real-world events are uncommon.
However, they reveal: a new scenario class; changed understanding of sensor
behavior; possible representation limitations; weakened simulation-to-reality
correlation in the affected conditions; reduced evidential applicability of
the original simulation campaign.
SRGM does not automatically order a complete rerun of millions of simulations.
Instead, it evaluates whether the new evidence creates a Resimulation Trigger.
If the condition affects a safety-relevant operational domain and lies outside
previously governed scenario coverage, SRGM may assign an Immediate Trigger or
Priority Trigger for the affected simulation basis.
The decision then passes to SRSM, which may determine that only:
the affected sensor conditions + scenario family + environmental range +
related autonomous behaviors
require targeted resimulation.
The governance advantage is substantial.
Without a trigger framework, an organization may either dismiss rare
real-world failures because the system passed millions of simulations or
repeatedly rerun huge campaigns without knowing which part actually requires
renewed testing.
SRGM creates the decision layer between those extremes:
new real-world evidence does not automatically invalidate all previous
simulation, but material evidence must be capable of forcing simulation back
into the lifecycle when the existing basis is no longer sufficient.
Governance Outputs
SRGM may produce: Resimulation Trigger Candidate Record Trigger SourceClassification Affected Simulation Basis Record Current Simulation Use Context
Record Trigger Relevance Assessment Trigger Materiality Assessment Cumulative
Trigger Assessment Compound Trigger Assessment Trigger Threshold Record
Resimulation Trigger State Trigger Urgency Classification Trigger Deferral
Record Trigger Disposition Record Governed Resimulation Trigger Record
Resimulation Scope Assessment Input
These outputs provide the governed basis for:
SRSM — Resimulation Scope Module.
Enterprise Application
SRGM gives organizations a systematic method for deciding when simulation mustbe performed again.
This becomes increasingly important as simulation programs grow larger, more
expensive, more continuous, and more deeply connected to operational
decisions.
Without explicit trigger governance, organizations risk two opposite failures:
under-resimulation — continuing to rely upon simulation after material
conditions have changed;
and
over-resimulation — repeatedly executing expensive simulation campaigns after
changes that do not materially affect the relevant simulation basis.
SRGM enables organizations to establish trigger logic around: product
revisions; software updates; hardware changes; environmental changes; newly
discovered edge cases; changed data distributions; model updates; new
operational observations; degraded simulation-to-reality correlation; evidence
degradation; changed reliance contexts; accumulated lifecycle drift.
For very large simulation campaigns, this can materially reduce unnecessary
computational effort while ensuring that genuinely consequential change forces
the simulation lifecycle to reopen.
SRGM therefore transforms resimulation from an ad hoc organizational judgment
into a traceable governance decision.
Foundational Principles
Simulation Drift does not automatically require resimulation.Absence of one decisive change does not mean absence of a cumulative trigger.
A Resimulation Trigger must be connected to the continuing use of the
simulation.
Trigger sensitivity should reflect simulation relevance and consequence, not
change magnitude alone.
New scenarios can trigger resimulation even when the Simulation Object has not
changed.
New reality evidence can trigger resimulation even when the simulation remains
technically reproducible.
Deferred resimulation is not cancelled resimulation.
An indeterminate trigger must not silently become No Trigger.
Trigger determination and resimulation scope are separate governance
decisions.
The purpose of trigger governance is neither to maximize nor minimize
resimulation, but to ensure that resimulation occurs when the existing
simulation basis can no longer legitimately support continued use.