RCDM — Resource Criticality Determination Module
Architecture: RSGA™ — Resource Sustainability Governance Architecture
Parent Standard: Resource Dependency & Criticality Standard (RDCS)
Category: Governance & Enforcement
Subcategory: Resource Governance
Type: Core Module
Governed Space: Resource Criticality Determination Governance
Module ID: RSGA-RDCS-RCDM-05
Origin ID: OOF-RSGA-RDCS-RCDM
Version: 1.0
Status: Draft Module
Effective Date: 5 October 2026
Compatibility: Methodology OS — Modular Compatibility
GIE-Compatible: Yes
AI-Readable: Yes
Authority: OOF® — OriginOpen® Foundation
Protection: Protected Methodological Work
Canonical Language: English
1. Canonical Definition
RCDM — Resource Criticality Determination Module governs how mapped Resource Dependencies, Criticality assessments, Resource consequences, Dependency Chains, evidence, uncertainty, temporal conditions, and operating context are integrated into a final governed determination of Resource Dependency and Resource Criticality suitable for downstream Resource Access, Prioritization, Allocation, Resilience, Continuity, and Sustainability governance.
RCDM is the final determination mechanism of RDCS.
It establishes whether the available RDCS evidence supports a governed Resource Criticality determination and produces the authoritative RDCS-level Dependency and Criticality outputs.
Criticality Assessment ≠ Final Governed Criticality Determination.
2. Operational Role
RDMM establishes:
what depends upon what.
RCAM assesses:
how significant the Dependency appears under relevant conditions.
RCEM establishes:
what consequences follow when the Resource Dependency cannot be satisfied.
RDCM establishes:
how the Dependency extends through connected Resource Dependency Chains.
RCDM integrates those outputs and determines:
what Dependency state is sufficiently supported; what Criticality state is sufficiently supported; which evidence establishes that state; which uncertainties remain; whether conflicting evidence prevents final determination; whether the determination applies only under defined conditions; when reassessment is required; and whether the resulting state is suitable for downstream governance.
3. Core Question
What Resource Dependency and Resource Criticality state is sufficiently supported by the complete available RDCS evidence, under which conditions does that determination apply, what uncertainty remains, and may the determination be released as governed evidence for downstream Resource governance?
4. Position in RDCS Module Flow
RDMM — Resource Dependency Mapping Module → RCAM — Resource Criticality Assessment Module → RCEM — Resource Consequence Evaluation Module → RDCM — Resource Dependency Chain Module → RCDM — Resource Criticality Determination Module
RCDM completes the RDCS module sequence.
5. Governed Space
RCDM governs:
Resource Criticality Determination Governance
This space concerns the final integration, sufficiency evaluation, determination, release, versioning, and reassessment of Resource Dependency and Criticality states.
6. Governed Object
The primary Governed Object is:
A final governed Resource Dependency and Resource Criticality determination.
The determination is attached to a defined relationship:
**Resource
Dependent Object Function Operating Context Time Horizon Evidence State**
rather than to the Resource name alone.
7. Scope
RCDM governs:
RDCS evidence integration; Dependency determination; Criticality determination; Criticality factor reconciliation; Dependency Chain integration; consequence integration; temporal Criticality; conditional Criticality; location-specific Criticality; operating-state Criticality; evidence sufficiency; evidence conflict; uncertainty propagation; determination confidence where used; determination state; downstream release condition; Resource Dependency Profile finalization; Resource Criticality Profile finalization; determination versioning; reassessment triggers.
RCDM does not determine:
Resource Access authorization; Resource Priority; Resource Allocation; Resource Consumption; Scarcity response; formal Resource Substitution; system-wide Resilience; long-term Resource Sustainability.
8. Determination Inputs
RCDM principally receives:
Resource Dependency Map; Resource Dependency Relationship Profiles; Resource Criticality Assessment Profile; Resource Consequence Profile; Resource Dependency Chain Profile.
It may also consume governed supporting evidence from relevant RSGA™ and cross-architecture mechanisms.
9. Determination Principle
RCDM does not create Criticality by declaration.
It determines which Criticality state is justified by the governed evidence.
Desired Criticality ≠ Governed Criticality.
10. Assessment vs Determination
RCAM performs Criticality assessment.
RCDM performs final RDCS determination.
The distinction is important.
An assessment may identify a likely Criticality state while:
evidence remains incomplete; material consequence remains unresolved; a Dependency Chain remains conflicted; the relevant operating condition remains uncertain.
RCDM decides whether those conditions permit a final governed determination.
11. Dependency Determination
Before final Criticality is released, the underlying Resource Dependency must be sufficiently established.
RCDM confirms:
Resource identity; dependent object; function; Dependency relationship; Dependency boundary; relevant Dependency path; operating conditions.
12. Dependency Sufficiency
A Dependency is sufficiently determined where the evidence adequately establishes the relevant Resource relationship for the intended governance use.
Maximum possible knowledge is not required.
Material sufficiency is required.
13. Dependency Decision States
At minimum:
Dependency Established
Conditionally Established
Partially Established
Dependency Evidence-Limited
Dependency Conflicted
Dependency Unknown
Dependency Unresolved
14. Dependency Established
The Resource Dependency is sufficiently supported under the defined governed conditions.
15. Conditionally Established
The Resource Dependency is established only under explicit operating, temporal, spatial, or other conditions.
16. Partially Established
A material portion of the Dependency is established while some relevant relationship remains unresolved.
17. Dependency Evidence-Limited
Available evidence does not support stronger Dependency determination.
18. Dependency Conflicted
Credible evidence supports materially incompatible Dependency representations.
19. Dependency Unknown
The relevant Resource Dependency cannot currently be determined.
20. Dependency Unresolved
Relevant evidence exists, but final Dependency determination cannot yet be completed.
21. Criticality Determination
Once the Dependency is sufficiently established, RCDM integrates the evidence relevant to Resource Criticality.
This may include:
Dependency Strength; Functional Sensitivity; Resource Thresholds; Interruption Tolerance; Time-to-Impact; Time-to-Failure; Buffering; Redundancy; Substitutability; Consequence; Consequence Timing; Recovery; Dependency Chain structure; Propagation; Dependency Concentration; operating state; time horizon; location; uncertainty.
22. Criticality Determination Object
A valid determination should answer:
Critical for what?
Critical to whom or what?
Under which Resource conditions?
At what location?
During which operating state?
Across what time horizon?
On what evidence?
23. Criticality State
The final Criticality State represents the governance significance of the defined Resource Dependency under the defined conditions.
24. Minimum Criticality States
At minimum:
Low Criticality
Moderate Criticality
High Criticality
Critical
Criticality Evidence-Limited
Criticality Conflicted
Criticality Unknown
Criticality Unresolved
25. Low Criticality
Available evidence establishes limited material consequence within the governed conditions and time horizon.
26. Moderate Criticality
Material consequences exist but remain substantially manageable through tolerance, buffering, alternatives, recovery, or other evidenced conditions.
27. High Criticality
The Resource Dependency carries substantial operational significance due to limited tolerance, significant consequence, constrained alternatives, difficult recovery, propagation, or other materially relevant factors.
28. Critical
The Resource Dependency can create severe or unacceptable functional or operational consequence within the governed context when relevant Resource conditions cannot be maintained.
29. Criticality Evidence-Limited
Evidence is insufficient to support a stronger Criticality determination.
30. Criticality Conflicted
Credible evidence supports materially different Criticality states.
31. Criticality Unknown
Available evidence does not establish Criticality.
32. Criticality Unresolved
Relevant evidence exists but the final Criticality determination cannot yet be established.
33. Criticality Is Contextual
A Resource does not carry one universal Criticality state.
The same Resource may be:
Low Criticality for Function A
and:
Critical for Function B.
34. Criticality Is Relational
Canonical relationship:
**Resource
Dependency Source Function Context Consequence → Resource Criticality**
35. Criticality Is Temporal
Criticality may change with time.
Example:
0–5 minutes — Low Criticality
5–60 minutes — Moderate Criticality
1–4 hours — High Criticality
>4 hours — Critical
where supported by evidence.
36. Time-Horizon Integrity
A Criticality state should not be generalized across time horizons where the underlying consequence changes materially.
37. Operating-State Criticality
Criticality may differ during:
normal operation; Peak operation; startup; shutdown; maintenance; emergency; recovery.
38. Conditional Criticality
A Resource may become Critical only under defined conditions.
Those conditions must remain attached to the determination.
39. Location-Specific Criticality
Criticality may differ between locations because:
Resource alternatives differ; infrastructure differs; buffers differ; recovery capability differs; Dependency concentration differs.
40. Resource Source Context
Dependency upon a particular Resource Source may affect Criticality without making Source Dependency equivalent to Resource Dependency.
41. Dependency Strength Integration
RCDM incorporates the RCAM Dependency Strength assessment.
It does not assume:
Strong Dependency = Critical
or:
Weak Dependency = Low Criticality.
Consequence and context remain necessary.
42. Consequence Integration
RCDM incorporates RCEM consequence evidence.
Relevant factors may include:
functional degradation; functional loss; operational disruption; consequence timing; consequence duration; propagation; persistence; recovery.
43. Consequence Boundary
Severe Consequence ≠ Criticality automatically.
The complete Dependency context must remain considered.
44. Dependency Chain Integration
RCDM incorporates RDCM Resource Dependency Chain evidence.
A direct Dependency may carry upstream dependencies that materially affect its Criticality.
45. Hidden Upstream Criticality
An apparently well-protected Resource Dependency may contain an upstream single point of Dependency.
RCDM must not ignore that condition where it materially changes the determination.
46. Chain Complexity Boundary
Complex Dependency Chain ≠ High Criticality by definition.
Chain complexity is evidence context.
It is not a Criticality classification.
47. Shared Dependency Integration
Shared Resource dependencies may increase the significance of one Resource interruption.
RCDM considers this where supported by evidence.
48. Common-Mode Integration
Apparent redundancy should not reduce Criticality where multiple alternatives share a material common upstream Dependency.
49. Alternative Path Integration
An alternative Dependency path may reduce Criticality only where it is sufficiently:
available; independent;
capable; timely; appropriate for the required function.
50. Theoretical Alternative Boundary
Theoretical Alternative ≠ Effective Criticality Reduction.
51. Buffer Integration
Buffers may reduce immediate Criticality.
Their effect must reflect:
capacity; duration; availability; reliability; activation; supporting dependencies.
52. Buffer Boundary
Temporary Buffering ≠ Dependency Elimination.
53. Redundancy Integration
Redundancy may reduce Criticality where independent and operationally effective.
54. Redundancy Boundary
Nominal Redundancy ≠ Effective Redundancy.
55. Substitutability Integration
RCDM may use substitutability evidence to determine Criticality.
Formal Resource Substitution remains governed by RSFS.
56. Substitution Time
A substitute available after six hours may provide little reduction to a Dependency with a five-minute failure threshold.
Therefore substitutability must be evaluated temporally.
57. Recovery Integration
Criticality must consider recovery after Resource restoration where recovery materially affects the consequence.
58. Recovery Boundary
Resource Restored ≠ Function Fully Recovered.
59. Criticality and Demand
Demand remains relevant context but does not determine Criticality.
High Demand ≠ High Criticality.
Low Demand ≠ Low Criticality.
60. Criticality and Availability
A Resource may be Critical while fully available.
Criticality does not require current Resource shortage.
61. Criticality and Scarcity
Resource Scarcity ≠ Resource Criticality.
Scarcity describes Resource constraint.
Criticality describes the significance of Resource Dependency.
62. Criticality and Price
Resource Price ≠ Resource Criticality.
63. Criticality and Value
VEGA™ retains Value Governance.
Value ≠ Resource Criticality.
64. Criticality and Harm
HAGA™ retains Harm Governance.
Harm evidence may influence Resource Criticality where relevant.
Harm ≠ Resource Criticality.
65. Criticality and Liability
LIGA™ retains Liability Governance.
Liability ≠ Resource Criticality.
66. Criticality and Access
A Critical Resource Dependency does not establish Resource Access authorization.
Criticality ≠ Access Right.
67. Criticality and Priority
Criticality may become important evidence for downstream Resource prioritization.
It does not itself determine Priority.
Resource Criticality ≠ Resource Priority.
68. Criticality and Allocation
A Critical Resource Dependency may compete with other Critical Resource Dependencies for insufficient Resource capacity.
RDCS does not resolve that competition.
Critical Resource ≠ Automatically Allocated Resource.
69. Criticality and Resilience
Criticality concerns the significance of a defined Resource Dependency.
RIRS governs broader Resource Interdependency & Resilience.
70. Criticality and Sustainability
A Critical Resource may still be used unsustainably.
Resource Criticality ≠ Resource Sustainability.
71. Evidence Integration
RCDM integrates evidence without destroying its provenance.
Evidence from different RDCS modules must remain attributable to its source.
72. Evidence Hierarchy
No universal evidence hierarchy is imposed where domain conditions differ.
Evidence quality should reflect:
relevance; directness; reliability; freshness; methodological validity; operational representativeness.
73. Observed Evidence
Observed operational evidence may strongly support determination where it represents the relevant governed conditions.
74. Technical Evidence
Engineering and technical evidence may establish relationships not directly observable under normal operation.
75. Experimental Evidence
Controlled testing may establish thresholds, tolerances, or consequences.
76. Simulation Evidence
Validated Simulation may support Criticality determination.
Simulated State ≠ Observed State.
SIMULOS® retains Simulation Governance.
77. Prediction Evidence
Predicted future Resource conditions may support future Criticality analysis.
Predicted Criticality ≠ Current Criticality.
PGA™ retains Prediction Governance.
78. Historical Evidence
Historical incidents may provide strong evidence.
However:
Historical Outcome ≠ Guaranteed Future Outcome.
79. Evidence Freshness
A previously valid Criticality determination may become outdated after material system change.
80. Evidence Sufficiency
Evidence is sufficient when it supports the determination required for the intended governance purpose with material uncertainty appropriately bounded.
81. Sufficiency Is Purpose-Relative
The evidence required for internal operational planning may differ from evidence required for high-consequence Allocation decisions.
The determination must preserve the intended governance use where material.
82. Evidence Gap
A material Evidence Gap exists where missing evidence could change the Criticality determination.
83. Non-Material Evidence Gap
Not every missing datum prevents determination.
The question is whether the missing evidence could materially alter the governed state.
84. Evidence Conflict
Credible evidence may support different Criticality conclusions.
RCDM must preserve material conflict until resolved or legitimately bounded.
85. Conflict Resolution
Canonical logic:
Conflicting Evidence → Identity Check → Context Check → Time Check → Operating-State Check → Method Check → Evidence Quality Check → Reconciliation or Preserved Conflict
86. Uncertainty Integration
RCDM integrates uncertainty from:
RDMM; RCAM; RCEM; RDCM; supporting external evidence.
87. Uncertainty Propagation
Material upstream uncertainty must propagate into the final Criticality determination until resolved or legitimately bounded.
88. Uncertainty Boundary
RCDM must not manufacture certainty merely because downstream governance requires a decision.
89. Determination Confidence
Where a confidence measure is used, it should describe confidence in the evidence supporting the determination.
It should not replace the Criticality State.
90. Confidence vs Criticality
High Confidence ≠ High Criticality.
A Low Criticality determination may have very high confidence.
A Critical determination may have low confidence.
These are separate dimensions.
91. Criticality Score
Implementations may use a Criticality score where justified.
92. Score Boundary
Criticality Score ≠ Criticality Determination by itself.
The score must remain interpretable through its evidence and methodology.
93. Universal Formula Boundary
RCDM does not impose one universal numerical formula for all Resource types.
Electricity, water, compute, critical materials, network capacity, land, cooling, and biological Resources may require different technical evidence.
The governance logic remains common.
94. Native Evidence Preservation
Resource-specific measurements should remain preserved in their native form before normalization or aggregation.
95. Cross-Resource Comparison
RCDM may support comparable governance states across different Resource types.
It does not require physical equivalence between those Resources.
96. Determination Traceability
Every final Criticality determination should remain traceable through:
Criticality State → Determination Evidence → Consequence Evidence → Criticality Assessment → Dependency Chain → Dependency Relationship → Resource Demand → Resource Identity.
97. Determination Explainability
A governed Criticality determination should be explainable in terms of the material factors that produced it.
98. Determination Independence
Criticality must be determined before downstream Resource Priority or Allocation outcomes are known wherever possible.
99. Outcome Independence
Criticality should follow evidence rather than the desired downstream Resource decision.
100. Resource Dependency Profile
RCDM finalizes the RDCS:
Resource Dependency Profile
This represents the governed state of the Resource Dependency.
101. Minimum Resource Dependency Profile Fields
At minimum:
Dependency ID
Resource ID
Demand Profile Reference
Dependency Source
Dependent Function
Dependency Type
Dependency Boundary
Dependency Strength
Resource Threshold
Degradation Threshold
Failure Threshold where relevant
Interruption Tolerance
Dependency Chain Reference
Substitution Context
Recovery Context
Evidence Basis
Dependency Uncertainty
Dependency State
Version:
102. Resource Criticality Profile
RCDM also finalizes the:
Resource Criticality Profile
This is the principal final Criticality output of RDCS.
103. Minimum Resource Criticality Profile Fields
At minimum:
Criticality ID
Dependency ID
Resource ID
Dependent Object
Function
Operating State
Location where relevant
Time Horizon
Dependency Strength
Consequence State
Consequence Timing
Tolerance State
Buffer State
Redundancy State
Substitutability State
Recovery State
Dependency Chain Context
Propagation Context
Criticality State
Evidence Basis
Criticality Uncertainty
Evidence Sufficiency State
Determination Status
Version:
104. Conditional Determination
Where Criticality depends upon explicit conditions, those conditions must remain attached to the profile.
Example:
Critical during emergency operation
does not justify:
Critical under all operating conditions.
105. Multi-Horizon Determination
Where Criticality changes over time, RCDM may produce multiple governed states associated with different time horizons.
106. Multi-State Determination
Where Criticality changes by operating state, each materially different state should remain distinguishable.
107. Current Determination
The current Resource Criticality Profile should represent the latest sufficiently governed state.
108. Historical Determination
Previous Criticality determinations should remain traceable for audit, learning, and change analysis.
109. Determination Versioning
A material change to Criticality should create a new version.
110. Material Change
Material changes may include:
Dependency change; Resource threshold change; Demand change affecting Dependency conditions; buffer change; redundancy change; substitute change; consequence change; recovery change; Dependency Chain change; operating-state change; new incident evidence; new validated Simulation; system redesign.
111. Reassessment Trigger
A Criticality determination should be reassessed whenever new information could materially change the governed state.
112. Event-Driven Reassessment
Reassessment may be triggered by:
Resource incident; system failure; Resource Source loss; new alternative Resource;
infrastructure modification; new operational evidence.
113. Scheduled Reassessment
Periodic reassessment may be appropriate for dependencies whose context changes over time even without a discrete triggering event.
114. Reassessment Proportionality
Reassessment frequency should reflect:
Criticality; rate of system change; evidence volatility; Resource volatility; consequence significance.
115. Reassessment Logic
Canonical logic:
Current Resource Criticality Profile → Material Change / New Evidence → Impact Identification → Affected RDCS Evidence Reassessment → Dependency / Consequence / Chain Reconciliation → Criticality Redetermination → Determination Retained or Revised → Version Update → Downstream Notification where required
116. Downstream Release
RCDM determines whether RDCS output is suitable for downstream governance.
117. Release Principle
Downstream release does not require perfect certainty.
It requires sufficient evidence and explicit preservation of material uncertainty.
118. Release States
A minimum implementation may distinguish:
Released
Conditionally Released
Released with Material Uncertainty
Held for Evidence
Held for Conflict Resolution
Not Determinable
119. Released
Evidence sufficiently supports the Resource Dependency and Criticality determination for the intended downstream governance use.
120. Conditionally Released
The determination may be used only under explicitly defined conditions.
121. Released with Material Uncertainty
The determination is sufficiently usable, but downstream governance must preserve identified material uncertainty.
122. Held for Evidence
A material Evidence Gap prevents appropriate release.
123. Held for Conflict Resolution
Material evidence conflict prevents reliable release.
124. Not Determinable
Available evidence does not permit a governed determination.
125. Downstream Use
Released RDCS outputs may become evidence for:
RAGS — Resource Access Governance Standard
RPAS — Resource Prioritization & Allocation Standard
RSCS — Resource Scarcity & Constraint Standard
RSFS — Resource Substitution & Flexibility Standard
RIRS — Resource Interdependency & Resilience Standard
RCSS — Resource Continuity & Sustainability Standard
where relevant.
126. Release Does Not Transfer Authority
The receiving governance mechanism remains responsible for its own decision.
RDCS Evidence ≠ Downstream Decision Authority.
127. Criticality Does Not Create Access
A Critical Resource Dependency does not authorize access to the Resource.
RAGS retains Resource Access Governance.
128. Criticality Does Not Create Priority
A Criticality determination may strongly influence Priority.
RPAS still governs the Priority decision.
129. Criticality Does Not Create Allocation
Even multiple Critical dependencies may compete for insufficient Resource capacity.
Allocation remains downstream.
130. Criticality Does Not Create Scarcity
A Resource may be Critical without being scarce.
131. Criticality Does Not Establish Sustainability
A Critical Resource Dependency may itself be structurally unsustainable.
RCSS retains long-term Resource Continuity & Sustainability governance.
132. Structured Output Principle
RCDM follows:
Evidence → Structured Dependency Objects → Criticality Factors → Consequence States → Dependency Chain Context → Evidence Sufficiency → Governed Criticality State → Downstream Decision Evidence
not:
Resource Name → Importance Claim → Criticality Label → Allocation Decision.
133. Minimum Implementation Framework
A minimum operational RCDM implementation should contain eight governed layers.
Layer 1 — RDCS Input Integration
Receive:
RDMM Dependency outputs RCAM Criticality Assessment RCEM Consequence Profile RDCM Dependency Chain Profile
Layer 2 — Dependency Sufficiency
Determine:
Dependency identity Dependency boundary Dependency state Dependency evidence sufficiency
Layer 3 — Criticality Factor Integration
Integrate:
Dependency Strength Thresholds Tolerance Buffer Redundancy Substitutability
Layer 4 — Consequence & Chain Integration
Integrate:
Consequence Timing Recovery Propagation Dependency Chain context
Layer 5 — Evidence Governance
Assess:
Evidence provenance Freshness Conflict Uncertainty Sufficiency
Layer 6 — Determination
Determine:
Dependency State Criticality State Applicable conditions Time horizon
Layer 7 — Release Governance
Determine:
Release State Downstream restrictions Reassessment requirements
Layer 8 — Governed Output
Produce:
Resource Dependency Profile Resource Criticality Profile Determination Version Reassessment Triggers
Minimum machine-readable logic:
**RDMM Output
RCAM Output RCEM Output RDCM Output → Evidence Reconciliation → Dependency State → Criticality State → Uncertainty State → Sufficiency State → Release State → Resource Dependency Profile Resource Criticality Profile**
134. Minimum Decision States
RCDM must preserve at least two distinct decision dimensions.
Dependency State
Dependency Established Conditionally Established Partially Established Dependency Evidence-Limited Dependency Conflicted Dependency Unknown Dependency Unresolved
Criticality State
Low Criticality Moderate Criticality High Criticality Critical Criticality Evidence-Limited Criticality Conflicted Criticality Unknown Criticality Unresolved
These dimensions must not be collapsed into one label.
135. Minimum Evidence Path
Where final Criticality cannot be determined:
Criticality Unresolved → Material Determination Gap → Identify Responsible RDCS Evidence Layer → Minimum Evidence Requirement → Evidence Acquisition / Testing / Simulation where appropriate → Relevant Module Reassessment → RCDM Redetermination → Updated Resource Criticality Profile
RCDM should request only evidence capable of materially resolving the determination.
136. Minimum Reassessment Framework
At minimum:
Current Resource Criticality Profile → New Evidence / Material Change → Materiality Test → Affected RDCS Module Identification → Targeted Reassessment → Evidence Reintegration → Criticality Redetermination → Release Reassessment → Version Update
This prevents unnecessary reconstruction of the entire RDCS evidence chain where only one governed element has changed.
137. Governance Requirements
A conforming RCDM implementation must:
1. receive the material outputs of preceding RDCS modules; 2. verify Resource and Dependency identity; 3. verify the governed function and context; 4. determine Dependency sufficiency; 5. preserve Dependency decision state; 6. integrate Criticality assessment evidence; 7. integrate Resource consequence evidence; 8. integrate Dependency Chain evidence where relevant; 9. preserve time-horizon context; 10. preserve operating-state context; 11. preserve spatial context where relevant; 12. evaluate material buffer evidence; 13. evaluate redundancy evidence; 14. evaluate substitutability evidence; 15. evaluate recovery evidence; 16. preserve common-mode Dependency evidence; 17. preserve evidence provenance; 18. evaluate evidence freshness; 19. preserve material evidence conflict; 20. propagate material uncertainty; 21. prevent false precision; 22. determine a governed Criticality State; 23. determine evidence sufficiency; 24. determine downstream release status; 25. produce a Resource Dependency Profile; 26. produce a Resource Criticality Profile; 27. support versioning; 28. support targeted reassessment; 29. preserve historical determinations; 30. distinguish current from predicted Criticality; 31. distinguish observed from simulated evidence; 32. prevent Criticality from becoming Access authority; 33. prevent Criticality from becoming Priority automatically; 34. prevent Criticality from becoming Allocation authority.
138. Governance Logic
Canonical RCDM logic:
**Resource Dependency Map
Resource Criticality Assessment Profile Resource Consequence Profile Resource Dependency Chain Profile → Dependency Sufficiency → Criticality Factor Integration → Consequence Integration → Chain Integration → Evidence Reconciliation → Uncertainty Propagation → Criticality Determination → Release Determination → Resource Dependency Profile Resource Criticality Profile**
Where evidence is insufficient:
Determination Gap → Responsible Evidence Layer → Minimum Evidence Requirement → Targeted Evidence Acquisition → Relevant Module Reassessment → RCDM Redetermination
139. Governance Outputs
RCDM may produce:
Resource Dependency Profile
Resource Criticality Profile
Dependency State
Criticality State
Criticality Time Horizon
Operating-State Criticality
Conditional Criticality State
Evidence Sufficiency State
Evidence Conflict State
Uncertainty State
Determination Confidence where used
Release State
Downstream Restriction
Version:
Reassessment Trigger
These outputs constitute the principal governed RDCS handoff to subsequent RSGA™ governance.
140. Failure Conditions
RCDM should not be considered sufficiently completed where:
Criticality assessment is treated automatically as final determination; the underlying Dependency remains materially unresolved; Resource identity is ambiguous; the dependent function is undefined; Criticality is attached to Resource name without context; Demand magnitude determines Criticality; Scarcity determines Criticality; price determines Criticality; Value determines Criticality; buffering is treated as Dependency elimination; nominal redundancy is treated automatically as effective redundancy; theoretical substitution is treated as effective substitution; Dependency Chain evidence is ignored where material; common-mode Dependency is ignored where known; consequence timing is ignored; recovery is ignored where material; simulated evidence is represented as observed evidence; predicted Criticality is represented as current Criticality; historical outcomes are treated as guaranteed future outcomes; material uncertainty is hidden; material evidence conflict is suppressed; a Criticality score replaces underlying evidence; Criticality is manipulated to achieve a preferred downstream Priority; Criticality is treated as Access authorization; Criticality is treated as Allocation authority.
141. Use Case 1 — AI Data Center Criticality Determination
RDMM establishes that an AI service depends upon:
compute capacity; electricity; cooling; network capacity; storage.
RCAM assesses the Criticality of those dependencies.
RCEM establishes consequence pathways.
RDCM reveals upstream and shared dependencies.
For one facility, the evidence may show:
AI training workloads can be suspended; control infrastructure requires continuous electricity; cooling has limited backup duration; compute can reduce load before complete failure; network infrastructure has independent backup; multiple cooling systems share one upstream electricity Source.
RCDM integrates these conditions.
The result may determine:
AI Training Electricity Dependency — Moderate Criticality during normal operation
while:
Cooling Control Electricity Dependency — Critical after defined backup duration
and:
Facility Control Electricity Dependency — Critical with minimal interruption tolerance.
The determination remains attached to the relevant function and time horizon.
It does not simply label:
Electricity = Critical.
142. Use Case 2 — Regional Water Criticality Determination
RDMM maps water dependencies across:
households; agriculture; industry; cooling infrastructure; essential public services.
RCAM assesses their differing dependency conditions.
RCEM establishes consequences and timing.
RDCM identifies shared treatment, pumping, storage, and electricity dependencies.
RCDM integrates the complete evidence.
Agricultural irrigation may have:
very high water Demand
but:
substantial short-term scheduling flexibility.
An essential public service may have:
much lower water Demand
but:
limited interruption tolerance and severe consequence after stored water is depleted.
RCDM may therefore determine the latter Resource Dependency to carry higher Criticality for the relevant time horizon.
That determination becomes evidence for downstream RPAS.
It does not itself allocate the water.
Criticality establishes what is at stake. Allocation determines what receives the constrained Resource.
143. Critical Distinctions
Criticality Assessment ≠ Final Governed Criticality Determination
Desired Criticality ≠ Governed Criticality
Resource Name ≠ Resource Criticality
Strong Dependency ≠ Critical by definition
Severe Consequence ≠ Criticality automatically
Complex Dependency Chain ≠ High Criticality by definition
Theoretical Alternative ≠ Effective Criticality Reduction
Temporary Buffering ≠ Dependency Elimination
Nominal Redundancy ≠ Effective Redundancy
Resource Restored ≠ Function Fully Recovered
High Demand ≠ High Criticality
Low Demand ≠ Low Criticality
Resource Scarcity ≠ Resource Criticality
Resource Price ≠ Resource Criticality
Value ≠ Resource Criticality
High Confidence ≠ High Criticality
Criticality Score ≠ Criticality Determination by itself
Simulated State ≠ Observed State
Predicted Criticality ≠ Current Criticality
Historical Outcome ≠ Guaranteed Future Outcome
Criticality ≠ Access Right
Resource Criticality ≠ Resource Priority
Critical Resource ≠ Automatically Allocated Resource
Resource Criticality ≠ Resource Sustainability
RDCS Evidence ≠ Downstream Decision Authority
144. Cross-Architecture Boundary
RCDM governs final Resource Dependency and Resource Criticality determination within RDCS.
It may consume:
RCHS — Resource characterization.
RACS — Availability & Capacity context.
RDGS — Resource Demand Profiles.
RDMM — Resource Dependency mapping.
RCAM — Criticality assessment.
RCEM — Resource consequence evidence.
RDCM — Dependency Chain evidence.
ORA™ — Operational Reality evidence.
SIMULOS® — governed Simulation evidence.
PGA™ — governed Prediction evidence.
HAGA™ — Harm evidence where relevant.
LIGA™ — Liability evidence where relevant.
VEGA™ — Value context where relevant.
Specialized Resource Architectures — Resource-specific technical evidence.
RCDM does not absorb their governed mechanisms.
145. Cross-Architecture Mechanism Principle
An operational mechanism may produce inputs for multiple governance architectures, but it belongs only to the architecture whose governed domain includes that mechanism itself. Other architectures govern only its domain- specific relevance or consequences.
Harm may influence Resource Criticality.
Value may influence consequence context.
Simulation may establish possible failure behavior.
Prediction may establish future Resource conditions.
Operational evidence may establish actual Resource behavior.
RCDM integrates their relevance to Resource Criticality without taking ownership of those mechanisms.
146. Canonical Boundary
RCDM governs the final integration, evidence sufficiency assessment, determination, release, versioning, and reassessment of Resource Dependency and Resource Criticality within RDCS.
It determines what Resource Dependency exists, how critical that Dependency is under the governed conditions, how strongly the determination is supported, what uncertainty remains, and whether the resulting state is suitable for downstream Resource governance.
It does not authorize Resource Access, determine Resource Priority, allocate Resource capacity, govern Scarcity response, execute Resource Substitution, determine system-wide Resilience, or establish long-term Sustainability.
Its principal governed outputs are the Resource Dependency Profile and Resource Criticality Profile .
147. Canonical Closing Statement
Resource Criticality is not a label attached to an important Resource. It is a governed determination about what depends upon that Resource, under which conditions, with what tolerance, through which Dependency pathways, and with what consequences if the Resource can no longer support the function.
RCDM completes that determination — converting Dependency, consequence, chain, evidence, and uncertainty into a governed Criticality state that downstream Resource governance can use without confusing Criticality with Access, Priority, or Allocation.