RDCM — Resource Dependency Chain 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 Dependency Chain Governance
Module ID: RSGA-RDCS-RDCM-04
Origin ID: OOF-RSGA-RDCS-RDCM
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
RDCM — Resource Dependency Chain Module governs how materially connected Resource Dependency relationships are assembled, traced, bounded, evidenced, and reassessed across Resources, functions, systems, infrastructure, and operational layers to establish how upstream Resource conditions can affect downstream Resource-dependent functions through direct, indirect, shared, conditional, converging, diverging, and cascading Dependency pathways.
RDCM establishes the governed structure and significance of connected Resource Dependencies without absorbing system-wide Resource Interdependency & Resilience Governance.
Mapped Dependencies ≠ Validated Dependency Chain.
2. Operational Role
RDMM identifies and maps Resource Dependency relationships.
RCAM assesses their Criticality.
RCEM evaluates the consequences of Resource degradation, interruption, insufficiency, or loss.
RDCM determines how these relationships connect across operational layers.
Its operational responsibility is to establish:
Which Dependency relationships belong to the same chain. Where the chain begins and ends. Which upstream Resources support downstream functions. Which intermediate systems transmit Dependency. Where paths converge, diverge, or share a common Resource. Whether alternative or conditional paths exist. How Resource degradation may propagate through the chain. Which evidence establishes each material connection.
RDCM converts individually mapped relationships into a coherent, traceable Dependency Chain.
3. Core Question
Through which connected Resource Dependency relationships does a governed function or system rely upon upstream Resources, and how can changes in those Resources affect the function across the complete relevant Dependency Chain?
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
RDCM consolidates the structural and consequence relationships necessary for final Dependency and Criticality determination.
5. Governed Space
Resource Dependency Chain Governance
This space concerns the structure, direction, operational relevance, evidence, and integrity of connected Resource Dependency relationships.
6. Governed Object
The primary Governed Object is:
A Resource Dependency Chain.
A Resource Dependency Chain consists of materially connected Dependency relationships through which one or more Resources support a downstream function or system.
A chain may contain:
Resource nodes. Functional nodes. System or infrastructure nodes. Directed Dependency relationships. Conditional or alternative pathways. Evidence and uncertainty associated with individual links.
The chain is a governed representation of operational reliance, not an assertion that every connected element has equal Criticality.
7. Scope
RDCM governs Dependency Chain identification, boundary, direction, composition, upstream and downstream relationships, path continuity, conditional activation, shared dependencies, convergence, divergence, common-mode exposure, cascading effects, chain evidence, uncertainty, sufficiency, versioning, and reassessment.
It applies to materially relevant Resource Dependency Chains within the governed Resource System, including cross- resource chains where distinct Resource types remain independently identifiable.
RDCM does not determine Resource Access authorization, Priority, Allocation, formal Substitution, Scarcity response, system-wide Resilience, or long-term Sustainability.
8. Dependency Chain Formation
A Dependency Chain is formed when two or more Dependency relationships are materially connected through an operationally meaningful intermediate object.
Canonical representation:
Downstream Function → Supporting System → Required Resource
A longer chain may be represented as:
Digital Service → Compute Infrastructure → Cooling Infrastructure → Water
Every connection must represent a meaningful dependency rather than mere organizational association.
Structural Connection ≠ Resource Dependency by definition.
9. Chain Identity and Boundary
Each material Dependency Chain should have a stable identity.
Its boundary should establish:
The downstream function or system being governed. The upstream Resource or Resources relevant to that function. The intermediate dependencies included. The operating conditions under which the chain applies. The point beyond which additional tracing is not materially necessary.
The boundary must follow the governed operational reality.
A chain should not be truncated merely because its upstream Resource belongs to another organization, facility, or infrastructure operator.
Equally, RDCM does not require unlimited tracing into relationships that cannot materially affect the governed dependency.
Dependency Chain completeness means material completeness, not infinite upstream expansion.
10. Dependency Nodes and Links
A Dependency Node represents a materially relevant Resource, function, system, or infrastructure component.
A Dependency Link represents an evidenced relationship through which the downstream object relies upon an upstream requirement.
Each link should preserve:
Source node; dependent node; relationship type; direction; operating conditions; evidence; uncertainty.
A link must not be inferred solely from physical proximity, common ownership, or membership in the same technical system.
11. Dependency Direction
RDCM preserves dependency direction consistently.
The preferred representation is:
Dependent Object → Required Object or Resource
Example:
Cooling System → Electricity
This means the cooling system requires electricity.
It does not mean electricity requires the cooling system.
Where two objects genuinely depend upon each other, the two directed relationships must remain distinct.
Dependency A → B ≠ Dependency B → A.
12. Upstream and Downstream Dependencies
An upstream dependency supports an intermediate or final downstream function.
A downstream dependency relies upon one or more upstream Resources or systems.
Example:
AI Service → Compute System → Cooling System → Electricity
Electricity is upstream of the cooling function in this dependency representation.
The AI service is downstream of the cooling function.
These relationships are contextual: the same system may be upstream in one chain and downstream in another.
13. Direct and Indirect Chain Relationships
A direct dependency connects a governed function to a Resource without an intervening dependency node in the selected representation.
An indirect dependency operates through intermediate functions or systems.
Example:
Compute System → Electricity
is a direct Resource Dependency.
Compute System → Cooling System → Electricity
is an indirect Resource Dependency.
Both relationships may exist simultaneously.
RDCM must preserve both pathways where they are materially relevant.
14. Multi-Resource Dependency Chains
A function may depend upon several different Resources through one or more supporting systems.
Example:
AI Service → Compute Capacity → Electricity
and:
AI Service → Cooling → Water
and:
AI Service → Network Infrastructure → Network Capacity
These dependencies form a connected operational structure.
However, electricity, water, compute capacity, and network capacity remain distinct governed Resources.
Connected Resource Dependencies ≠ Physically Equivalent Resources.
No cross-resource physical summation is permitted merely because the Resources appear within the same chain.
15. Converging Dependency Paths
Convergence occurs when multiple upstream dependency paths support the same downstream function or node.
Example:
Grid Electricity → Power Distribution
Backup Generation → Power Distribution
Both paths converge upon the power distribution function.
RDCM records the convergence without automatically assuming the two paths are independent, simultaneously available, or sufficient.
16. Diverging Dependency Paths
Divergence occurs when one Resource or supporting system serves multiple downstream functions.
Example:
Electricity Supply
supports:
Compute; Cooling; Storage; Networking.
The same upstream Resource condition may therefore affect several functions.
RDCM preserves these separate dependency paths and their shared upstream relationship.
17. Shared Dependencies and Concentration
Multiple chains may share:
A Resource. A Resource Source. An infrastructure node. A delivery pathway. A supporting function. A control system.
This creates Dependency Concentration.
Concentration becomes relevant where interruption of the shared element may affect several dependent functions.
However:
Shared Dependency ≠ Proven Common Failure.
RDCM identifies the shared relationship. Its actual consequence must remain supported by RCEM evidence.
18. Common-Mode Dependency
Common-mode Dependency exists where apparently separate pathways rely upon a materially shared upstream requirement.
For example, two backup systems may use different local equipment while depending upon the same fuel delivery infrastructure.
The presence of two pathways does not establish independence.
Multiple Paths ≠ Independent Paths.
RDCM should identify common upstream requirements before those paths are represented as operational alternatives.
19. Conditional and State-Dependent Chains
A Dependency Chain may change according to operating conditions.
Relevant states include:
Normal operation. Peak operation. Startup and shutdown. Maintenance. Emergency operation. Recovery operation.
A backup-power chain may remain inactive during normal operation and become active following grid interruption.
RDCM must distinguish:
Existing Dependency Path
from:
Currently Active Dependency Path.
Conditional chains should retain their activation conditions and relevant evidence.
20. Alternative Dependency Paths
An alternative path may support the same function through another Resource Source, infrastructure route, or technical mechanism.
RDCM determines whether the alternative path exists and how it connects to the governed function.
It does not independently authorize substitution or establish that the alternative can satisfy all operational requirements.
Those conditions require appropriate Availability, Criticality, and Substitution evidence.
Alternative Path Identified ≠ Alternative Path Operationally Sufficient.
21. Dependency Cycles
Some systems contain circular dependency relationships.
Example:
Control System A requires Resource Service B.
Resource Service B requires Control System A for restoration.
Such relationships must not be silently represented as simple linear chains.
RDCM should identify the cycle, preserve its direction, and distinguish normal-operation dependency from startup or recovery dependency.
A dependency cycle is not automatically a failure condition, but it may create a material recovery constraint.
22. Chain Propagation
Resource degradation may propagate through connected dependencies.
Canonical progression:
Upstream Resource Degradation → Supporting Function Degradation → Downstream Dependency Impact → Final Functional Consequence
Propagation must be evaluated through the relevant links.
The existence of a chain does not prove that every upstream disturbance reaches the final function.
23. Propagation Conditions
Propagation may depend upon:
Resource thresholds. Buffer capacity. Operational state. Available alternatives. Timing. Functional sensitivity. Intermediate system behavior.
RDCM preserves these conditions using RCAM and RCEM outputs.
It does not independently invent threshold values or consequence severity.
24. Propagation Timing
An upstream Resource interruption may reach downstream functions at different times.
Example:
Electricity interruption → Cooling system switches to backup → Backup duration expires → Cooling performance declines → Compute temperature rises → Compute workload is reduced.
The sequence must preserve material time relationships.
Upstream Interruption Time ≠ Downstream Consequence Time.
25. Chain-Level Consequence Integrity
A Dependency Chain may contain several consequences that refer to the same final operational loss.
RDCM must identify overlapping paths and shared consequences.
The same consequence should not be counted repeatedly merely because several chains reach it.
Multiple Dependency Paths ≠ Multiple Independent Consequences.
RCEM remains responsible for the governed consequence evaluations used in this determination.
26. Dependency Chain Criticality Context
RDCM provides RCAM and final RDCS determination with additional context about:
Hidden upstream dependencies. Shared Resource concentration. Alternative paths. Common-mode exposure. Propagation routes. Conditional activation. Chain-level evidence limitations.
RDCM does not independently assign final Resource Criticality.
Chain Complexity ≠ Resource Criticality.
A long chain may contain effective isolation and alternatives.
A short chain may contain a single indispensable Resource.
27. Dependency Chain Evidence
Every material chain must remain traceable to its constituent dependency relationships.
Evidence may include:
RDMM Dependency Relationship Profiles. Technical architecture and engineering diagrams. Operational telemetry. Functional tests. Resource delivery records. RCAM Criticality Assessment Profiles. RCEM Resource Consequence Profiles. Validated Simulation evidence.
A diagram alone does not establish operational truth where the underlying relationships remain unverified.
28. Observed, Modeled, and Predicted Chains
RDCM must preserve the evidence status of each material chain or link.
Relevant distinctions include:
Observed Chain
Technically Established Chain
Modeled Chain
Simulated Chain
Predicted Chain
Assumed Chain
These statuses must not be silently merged.
Simulated Dependency Chain ≠ Observed Dependency Chain.
PGA™ retains Prediction Governance.
SIMULOS® retains Simulation Governance.
29. Evidence Conflict and Uncertainty
Uncertainty may concern:
Whether a link exists. Dependency direction. Operating-state activation. Hidden upstream Resources. Common-mode relationships. Alternative-path independence. Propagation conditions. Consequence timing.
Where credible evidence conflicts, RDCM should preserve the disagreement and identify the material unresolved relationship.
Uncertainty must propagate to downstream Criticality determination when it affects the result.
30. Chain Sufficiency
A Dependency Chain is sufficiently governed when:
1. Its downstream function and relevant upstream Resources are identified. 2. Material intermediate links are represented. 3. Dependency direction is established. 4. Conditional and alternative paths are distinguished where relevant. 5. Shared or common-mode dependencies are identified where material. 6. Propagation claims have appropriate evidence. 7. Material uncertainty and conflict remain visible. 8. The chain can support downstream Dependency and Criticality determination.
Sufficiency does not require exhaustive representation of every technical relationship.
31. Minimum Decision States
RDCM supports the following minimum chain governance states:
Chain Established — Material relationships and boundaries are sufficiently evidenced.
Conditionally Established — The chain is valid under defined conditions.
Partially Established — Some material relationships remain unresolved.
Chain Evidence-Limited — Available evidence is insufficient for full determination.
Chain Conflicted — Credible evidence supports incompatible material relationships.
Chain Unknown — The necessary relationship structure cannot currently be established.
Chain Unresolved — A determination remains pending despite available relevant evidence.
A chain state does not automatically establish its Criticality.
32. Resource Dependency Chain Profile
The principal RDCM output is the:
Resource Dependency Chain Profile
Minimum fields:
Chain ID Architecture Reference Parent Standard Reference Downstream Governed Object ID Relevant Function ID Chain Boundary Node IDs Dependency Link IDs Upstream Resource IDs Dependency Direction Direct and Indirect Path References Operating State Activation Conditions Shared Dependency References Common-Mode Dependency References Alternative Path References Propagation Evidence References Criticality Assessment References Consequence Profile References Evidence Basis Uncertainty State Sufficiency State Chain Decision State Version
Extended fields may include location, time horizon, propagation timing, recovery-path references, and reassessment triggers where relevant.
33. Chain Construction Logic
Canonical RDCM logic:
RDMM Dependency Map → Chain Boundary → Node Identification
→ Link Validation → Direction Validation → Upstream / Downstream Trace → Shared / Converging / Diverging Path Analysis → Conditional / Alternative Path Analysis → Common-Mode Dependency Check → RCAM / RCEM Evidence Integration → Propagation Evaluation → Evidence & Uncertainty Assessment → Chain Sufficiency → Resource Dependency Chain Profile
Each link should retain its originating evidence reference.
The resulting chain must be traceable back to its constituent relationships.
34. Minimum Implementation Framework
A minimum RDCM implementation contains six governed stages.
Stage 1 — Dependency Input
Receive RDMM Resource Dependency Maps and Relationship Profiles.
Identify the downstream function and relevant upstream Resources.
Stage 2 — Chain Construction
Construct directed chains from materially connected dependency relationships.
Preserve Resource identity and intermediate functional nodes.
Stage 3 — Structural Integrity
Validate boundaries, directions, shared nodes, convergence, divergence, cycles, and conditional paths.
Stage 4 — Consequence Integration
Associate relevant RCAM and RCEM outputs with the chain.
Preserve time-dependent and conditional propagation.
Stage 5 — Evidence & Sufficiency
Assess provenance, uncertainty, conflict, missing links, and chain sufficiency.
Stage 6 — Governed Output
Produce the Resource Dependency Chain Profile, version, decision state, and downstream reassessment requirements.
Minimum machine-readable structure:
Chain ID → Node[] → Dependency Link[] → Resource[] → Function[] → Path[] → Activation Condition[] → Shared Dependency[] → Criticality Reference[] → Consequence Reference[] → Evidence[]
→ Uncertainty[] → Chain State
35. Minimum Evidence Path
Where a material chain cannot be sufficiently established:
Unresolved Chain → Material Link or Path Gap → Minimum Evidence Requirement → Evidence Acquisition → Relationship Validation → Chain Reconstruction → Sufficiency Reassessment → Updated Chain Profile
A missing material link must not be replaced by an unsupported assumption simply to complete the chain.
36. Minimum Reassessment Framework
Reassessment should follow material changes involving:
Resource identity or condition. Dependency relationship. Functional configuration. Infrastructure. Resource Source. Operating mode. Alternative path. Common upstream dependency. RCAM Criticality Assessment. RCEM Consequence Profile. New evidence or incident.
Canonical logic:
Existing Chain Profile → Material Change → Affected Node / Link Identification → Chain Impact Assessment → Path Reconstruction where required → Evidence Reconciliation → Chain State Retained or Revised → Version Update → Downstream RDCS Reassessment
Historical versions must remain distinguishable from current chain representations.
37. Governance Requirements
A conforming RDCM implementation must:
1. Use governed Resource Dependency relationships as its primary structural input. 2. Establish a defined downstream object and chain boundary. 3. Preserve Resource and function identity. 4. Preserve dependency direction. 5. Validate material intermediate links. 6. Distinguish direct and indirect dependency paths. 7. Identify shared, converging, and diverging dependencies where material. 8. Identify common-mode dependencies where supported by evidence. 9. Preserve conditional activation and alternative paths.
10. Identify material dependency cycles. 11. Integrate relevant Criticality and consequence evidence without replacing their governing modules. 12. Preserve propagation conditions and timing where material. 13. Prevent unsupported consequence aggregation. 14. Preserve observed, modeled, simulated, predicted, and assumed evidence distinctions. 15. Preserve material uncertainty and conflict. 16. Determine chain sufficiency. 17. Produce a structured Resource Dependency Chain Profile. 18. Support versioning and reassessment. 19. Preserve downstream Resource governance boundaries.
38. Governance Outputs
RDCM may produce:
Resource Dependency Chain Profile
Validated Chain Boundary
Directed Dependency Structure
Upstream Resource References
Downstream Function References
Direct / Indirect Path States
Shared Dependency State
Convergence / Divergence State
Common-Mode Dependency State
Conditional Activation State
Alternative Path State
Dependency Cycle State
Propagation Evidence State
Chain Uncertainty State
Chain Sufficiency State
Chain Decision State
Version:
Reassessment Trigger
These outputs provide structured Dependency Chain evidence for final RDCS governance.
39. Failure Conditions
RDCM is not sufficiently governed where:
A chain is inferred solely from organizational association. Dependency direction is reversed or omitted. Material intermediate dependencies are excluded. Different Resources are treated as physically interchangeable. Conditional paths are presented as permanently active. Alternative paths are assumed operationally sufficient without evidence. Shared upstream dependencies are concealed.
Common-mode exposure is ignored where material. Dependency cycles are represented misleadingly as simple linear chains. Propagation is assumed without a valid functional pathway. Shared consequences are double-counted. Simulated chains are represented as observed chains. Evidence gaps are concealed. Chain complexity is treated automatically as Criticality. Chain identification is used to assign Resource Priority or Allocation.
40. Use Case 1 — AI Data Center Resource Dependency Chain
An AI data center operates compute, cooling, storage, networking, and control infrastructure.
RDMM identifies individual Resource dependencies.
RDCM connects them into relevant chains.
AI Service → Compute Infrastructure → Electricity
AI Service → Compute Infrastructure → Cooling System → Electricity
AI Service → Compute Infrastructure → Cooling System → Water
A facility may also depend upon:
Water Treatment → Electricity
and:
Backup Power → Fuel Supply
These chains reveal that apparently separate functions may share upstream Resource dependencies.
RDCM evaluates whether an electricity interruption affects compute directly, cooling indirectly, or both, using the appropriate RCAM and RCEM evidence.
It also distinguishes backup paths from genuinely independent Resource dependencies.
The output is a traceable chain representation that can explain how one Resource condition may affect several operational functions without assuming that every disturbance produces complete service failure.
41. Use Case 2 — Regional Water Supply Dependency Chain
A regional water system may depend upon:
Water Source → Extraction Infrastructure → Treatment Infrastructure → Distribution Infrastructure → End-Use Function
Supporting dependencies include:
Extraction Infrastructure → Electricity
Treatment Infrastructure → Electricity
Treatment Infrastructure → Treatment Materials
Distribution Infrastructure → Pumping Electricity
A downstream hospital, household, industrial process, or cooling facility may therefore depend indirectly upon electricity and treatment materials through the water supply system.
RDCM identifies these upstream Resource relationships and distinguishes them from direct end-use water dependencies.
It also examines whether multiple distribution paths share the same treatment facility, pumping station, or electricity Source.
The resulting Dependency Chain Profile reveals where upstream Resource conditions may affect downstream water- dependent functions without automatically converting that finding into a Priority or Allocation decision.
42. Critical Distinctions
Mapped Dependencies ≠ Validated Dependency Chain
Structural Connection ≠ Resource Dependency by definition
Dependency Chain Completeness ≠ Infinite Upstream Expansion
Dependency A → B ≠ Dependency B → A
Direct Dependency ≠ Indirect Dependency
Connected Resource Dependencies ≠ Physically Equivalent Resources
Shared Dependency ≠ Proven Common Failure
Multiple Paths ≠ Independent Paths
Existing Dependency Path ≠ Currently Active Dependency Path
Alternative Path Identified ≠ Alternative Path Operationally Sufficient
Upstream Interruption Time ≠ Downstream Consequence Time
Multiple Dependency Paths ≠ Multiple Independent Consequences
Chain Complexity ≠ Resource Criticality
Simulated Dependency Chain ≠ Observed Dependency Chain
Dependency Chain Governance ≠ System-Wide Resilience Governance
43. Cross-Architecture Boundary
RDCM governs connected Resource Dependency relationships within RDCS.
It may consume:
RDMM — mapped Resource Dependency relationships.
RCAM — Dependency Criticality assessment evidence.
RCEM — Resource consequence evidence.
RCHS — Resource characterization.
RACS — Resource Availability & Capacity context.
RDGS — Resource Demand Profiles.
ORA™ — operational evidence.
SIMULOS® — simulated dependency pathways.
PGA™ — predicted future dependency states.
RIRS — relevant system-level Resource Interdependency evidence where available.
RDCM does not replace these mechanisms.
The Cross-Architecture Mechanism Principle applies:
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.
44. Canonical Boundary
RDCM governs the formation, structural integrity, traceability, evidence, and reassessment of materially connected Resource Dependency Chains, including their upstream and downstream relationships, shared dependencies, alternative paths, conditional activation, and consequence propagation context.
It does not independently govern final Resource Criticality determination, Access, Priority, Allocation, Scarcity response, formal Substitution, system-wide Resilience, or long-term Sustainability.
Its principal governed output is the Resource Dependency Chain Profile .
45. Canonical Closing Statement
A Resource Dependency rarely ends where it first becomes visible.
RDCM traces the connected relationships behind that Dependency — revealing which upstream Resources support downstream functions, where pathways converge, where apparent independence disappears, and how Resource disruption may propagate — so that Criticality is evaluated against the relevant Dependency Chain rather than an isolated Resource requirement.