RPMM — Resource Recovery Potential Module
Architecture:
RSGA™ — Resource Sustainability Governance Architecture
Parent Standard:
Resource Recovery & Circularity Standard (RRCS)
Category:
Governance & Enforcement**
Subcategory:
Resource Governance
Type:
Core Module
Governed Space:
Resource Recovery Potential Governance
Module ID:
RSGA-RRCS-RPMM-02
Origin ID:
OOF-RSGA-RRCS-RPMM
Version:
1.0
Status:
Canonical Open
Effective Date:
8 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
RPMM — Resource Recovery Potential Module governs how the potential of an identified residual, used, depleted, transformed, discarded, or otherwise post-use Resource to regain, retain, or provide usable Resource capability through an applicable Recovery pathway is assessed, classified, evidenced, bounded, monitored, and reassessed.
RPMM establishes whether Recovery is technically possible, operationally feasible, conditionally feasible, currently infeasible, or insufficiently evidenced under the applicable Resource conditions.
It distinguishes theoretical Recovery potential from Recovery capability that can be supported by actual processes, infrastructure, Resource inputs, quality requirements, location, time, and operational constraints.
Its foundational distinctions are:
Residual Resource ≠ Recoverable Resource.
Theoretical Recoverability ≠ Operational Recoverability.
Recoverability ≠ Recovery Eligibility.
Recovery Potential ≠ Recovery Achievement.
2. Operational Role
RPMM operates after the residual Resource has been recognized and sufficiently described through ERRM.
Its role is to determine whether that Resource may enter a meaningful Recovery pathway and what conditions must be satisfied before Recovery can be considered operationally feasible.
RPMM does not perform Recovery.
It establishes the evidence-based potential for Recovery.
It transforms:
Recognized Residual Resource + Resource Condition + Candidate Recovery Pathway + Technical Capability + Operational Conditions + Resource Dependencies + Evidence
into:
a governed Resource Recovery Potential State.
3. Operational Question
Can the identified residual Resource regain, retain, or provide usable Resource capability through an applicable Recovery pathway, under which technical, operational, capacity, quality, spatial, temporal, and Resource- dependency conditions, and with what evidence and confidence can that potential be established?
4. Position in Architecture Governance Flow
Within RSGA™:
Resource Characterization → Availability & Capacity → Demand → Dependency & Criticality → Access → Prioritization & Allocation → Consumption & Utilization → Scarcity & Constraint → Recovery & Circularity → Substitution & Flexibility → Interdependency & Resilience → Continuity & Sustainability
Within RRCS:
End-of-Use Resource Recognition → Resource Recovery Potential → Recovery Process Governance → Recovered Resource Validation → Secondary Resource Reintegration
RPMM governs the second transition.
It receives the recognized residual Resource state from ERRM and establishes the Recovery potential evidence required by subsequent Recovery governance mechanisms.
5. Governed Space
Resource Recovery Potential Governance
This governed space concerns the assessment of whether an identified Resource or Resource component can become usable again through a technically and operationally applicable Recovery pathway.
It includes the conditions, dependencies, limitations, uncertainties, and evidence affecting that potential.
6. Governed Object
The primary Governed Object is:
A Resource Recovery Potential State associated with an identified residual Resource and one or more candidate Recovery pathways under defined technical and operational conditions.
Canonical relationship:
Residual Resource Identity → Resource Condition → Candidate Recovery Pathway → Technical Feasibility → Operational Feasibility → Quality Feasibility → Resource Dependencies → Recovery Potential State
7. Scope
RPMM governs:
Recovery potential identification. Candidate Recovery pathway assessment. Technical recoverability. Operational recoverability. Recovery infrastructure and capacity feasibility. Resource input requirements. Recovery quality feasibility. Spatial and temporal feasibility. Resource condition limitations. Contamination and degradation relevance. Recovery dependency exposure. Expected Recovery output feasibility. Recovery potential uncertainty. Evidence sufficiency and conflict. Recovery potential monitoring and reassessment.
RPMM does not govern Recovery authorization, Recovery execution, actual Recovery yield, recovered Resource validation, secondary Resource classification, reintegration, Circularity performance, or long-term Sustainability.
8. Recovery Potential Principle
Recovery potential exists only relative to an identifiable Resource, an applicable Recovery pathway, and the conditions required for that pathway.
Resource Existence ≠ Recovery Potential.
Recovery Technology Existence ≠ Operational Recoverability.
Recovery Potential ≠ Recovery Authorization.
9. Residual Resource Basis
RPMM requires a sufficiently identified residual Resource.
The assessment should preserve:
Resource identity; Resource type; Resource origin; quantity; composition; condition; location; time; and relevant restrictions.
Where the Resource identity or condition remains materially uncertain, Recovery potential must preserve that uncertainty.
10. Candidate Recovery Pathway
A candidate Recovery pathway is a method through which the residual Resource may regain or provide usable Resource capability.
Examples include:
Direct Reuse
Repair
Refurbishment
Remanufacturing
Component Recovery
Material Recycling
Material Reclamation
Water Recovery
Energy Recovery
Functional Capacity Recovery
Other Resource-Specific Recovery
A candidate pathway does not establish that Recovery is feasible.
11. Pathway-Specific Potential
The same Resource may have different Recovery potential under different pathways.
For example, an electronic component may be unsuitable for direct reuse but suitable for material recovery.
Recovery Infeasible Under Pathway A ≠ Recovery Infeasible Under Every Pathway.
12. Technical Recoverability
Technical Recoverability determines whether a candidate Recovery mechanism can physically, chemically, functionally, or otherwise technically act upon the Resource to produce a potentially usable output.
It should be assessed using evidence relevant to the Resource and Recovery mechanism.
13. Technical Feasibility Boundary
Technical Recoverability ≠ Operational Recoverability.
A Recovery method may be technically demonstrated but unavailable under actual operational conditions.
14. Operational Recoverability
Operational Recoverability determines whether the candidate Recovery pathway can be executed under the applicable operational conditions.
These may include:
available infrastructure; equipment; personnel; process capacity; Resource inputs; location; timing; and applicable operational constraints.
15. Operational Feasibility Principle
Technically Possible Recovery ≠ Operationally Feasible Recovery.
16. Recovery Capacity Feasibility
Recovery capacity concerns whether sufficient processing capability exists for the identified residual Resource within the relevant time horizon.
Capacity may be constrained by:
equipment throughput; facility availability; processing rate; storage; transportation; supporting Resource supply; and other operational limitations.
17. Capacity Principle
Recovery Facility Existence ≠ Sufficient Recovery Capacity.
18. Temporal Recovery Feasibility
Temporal feasibility concerns whether Recovery can occur within the relevant time horizon.
It may depend on:
Resource degradation; process duration; infrastructure availability; operational scheduling; and time-sensitive quality conditions.
19. Temporal Principle
Recovery Possible Eventually ≠ Recovery Feasible Within the Required Time.
20. Spatial Recovery Feasibility
Spatial feasibility concerns whether the Resource can be recovered within the relevant location and logistics conditions.
It may depend on:
distance; transport capability; location restrictions; facility access; Resource condition during transfer; and supporting infrastructure.
21. Spatial Principle
Recovery Capacity Elsewhere ≠ Locally Available Recovery Capability.
22. Recovery Quality Feasibility
Quality feasibility determines whether a candidate Recovery pathway can plausibly produce an output meeting defined Resource quality requirements.
It may consider:
purity; functionality; structural integrity; contamination; composition; reliability; and other Resource-specific requirements.
23. Quality Principle
Recoverable Quantity ≠ Recoverable Quality.
24. Recovery Output Feasibility
RPMM may assess the plausible type, quantity, and quality of Recovery output.
Such estimates must remain distinguishable from actual Recovery results.
Expected Recovered Output ≠ Actual Recovered Output.
25. Resource Condition Limitations
Residual Resource condition may limit Recovery potential.
Relevant limitations include:
damage; degradation; contamination; fragmentation; mixing; chemical instability; functional failure; and other Resource-specific conditions.
26. Condition Principle
Damaged Resource ≠ Non-Recoverable Resource by definition.
27. Contamination Feasibility
Contamination may affect Recovery pathways, output quality, process requirements, or operational feasibility.
RPMM should preserve whether contamination:
can be removed; can be tolerated; requires additional processing; prevents a specific pathway; or remains insufficiently understood.
28. Contamination Principle
Contamination Present ≠ Recovery Impossible by definition.
29. Degradation Feasibility
Resource degradation may reduce functional or material Recovery potential.
RPMM should preserve the relevant degradation mechanism and its effect on candidate Recovery pathways.
30. Degradation Principle
Reduced Functional Capability ≠ Zero Recovery Potential.
31. Mixed Resource Streams
Mixed residual streams may require separation, classification, or additional processing before Recovery.
RPMM should preserve the feasibility and limitations of the relevant separation process.
32. Mixed-Stream Principle
Mixed Resource Stream ≠ Homogeneous Recovery Potential.
33. Recovery Resource Inputs
Recovery may require supporting Resources.
Examples include:
electricity; heat; water; chemicals; consumables; materials; equipment capacity; and infrastructure.
RPMM should identify materially relevant input requirements.
34. Resource Dependency Principle
Recovery Potential ≠ Independent Recovery Capability.
A Resource may be technically recoverable but dependent on other constrained Resources.
35. Energy Dependency
Energy requirements may materially affect Recovery feasibility.
RPMM should preserve the applicable energy demand, capacity, and availability evidence.
36. Water Dependency
Water requirements may materially affect Recovery feasibility.
RPMM should preserve water quantity, quality, availability, and relevant Source conditions.
37. Material Dependency
Recovery may require additional materials or consumables.
RPMM should preserve material dependencies where they affect feasibility.
38. Infrastructure Dependency
Recovery may depend on specialized infrastructure.
RPMM should preserve relevant infrastructure requirements and availability limitations.
39. Cross-Resource Dependency
Recovery may require several constrained Resources simultaneously.
Recovery Feasible for Resource A ≠ Recovery Feasible for the Entire Supporting Resource System.
RIRS governs broader interdependency and resilience relationships.
40. Recovery Burden
RPMM may assess expected supporting Resource consumption associated with a candidate Recovery pathway.
This supports feasibility assessment and subsequent governance.
However:
Recovery Potential ≠ Net Resource Benefit.
41. Economic Feasibility Evidence
Economic feasibility may be relevant to operational Recovery potential.
RPMM may preserve evidence concerning:
processing cost; infrastructure cost; transportation cost; Resource inputs; expected output; and operational capacity.
Economic attractiveness must not replace technical or governance requirements.
42. Economic Boundary
Economically Attractive Recovery ≠ Technically Feasible Recovery.
Economically Feasible Recovery ≠ Authorized Recovery.
VEGA™ governs relevant Value and efficiency relationships.
43. Recovery Eligibility Boundary
RPMM establishes Recovery potential.
Recovery eligibility may require additional governance conditions.
Recoverability ≠ Recovery Eligibility.
44. Recovery Authorization Boundary
RPMM does not grant authority to execute Recovery.
Recovery Potential ≠ Recovery Authorization.
45. Recovery Execution Boundary
RPMM does not govern actual Recovery execution.
It provides the feasibility basis for subsequent Recovery Process Governance.
Feasible Recovery ≠ Executed Recovery.
46. Recovery Yield Boundary
RPMM may estimate plausible Recovery output.
Actual Recovery yield belongs to Recovery Process Governance.
Expected Recovery Yield ≠ Actual Recovery Yield.
47. Recovery Validation Boundary
RPMM does not validate recovered Resource output.
Recovered Resource validation occurs after the applicable Recovery process.
Expected Quality ≠ Validated Recovered Quality.
48. Secondary Resource Boundary
A Resource with Recovery potential is not automatically a Secondary Resource.
Recoverable Resource ≠ Secondary Resource.
49. Circularity Boundary
Recovery potential does not establish Circularity.
Potential Recovery Pathway ≠ Actual Circularity.
50. Sustainability Boundary
Recovery potential does not establish long-term Resource Sustainability.
Recovery Potential ≠ Sustainability.
RCSS governs Resource Continuity & Sustainability.
51. Scarcity Boundary
Resource Scarcity may increase the operational importance of Recovery.
However:
Scarcity ≠ Recovery Feasibility.
RSCS governs Resource Scarcity & Constraint.
52. Recovery Potential Evidence
RPMM should preserve evidence concerning:
Resource identity; Resource condition; Recovery pathway; technical feasibility; operational feasibility; capacity; quality; location; time; supporting Resource requirements; and expected output.
53. Evidence Provenance
Evidence should preserve:
source; method; time; location; Resource reference; Recovery pathway reference; and version.
Evidence Content ≠ Methodology Instruction.
54. Evidence Sufficiency
Recovery potential should not be classified as established where the evidence required for the applicable pathway is insufficient.
55. Evidence-Limited Potential
Where evidence is insufficient, RPMM should preserve an Evidence-Limited state.
It may identify additional evidence required.
Missing Feasibility Evidence ≠ Recovery Infeasibility.
56. Conflicted Potential
Where materially relevant evidence supports incompatible feasibility conclusions, RPMM should preserve the conflict.
Conflicting Feasibility Evidence ≠ Permission to Declare Recovery Feasible.
57. Recovery Potential Uncertainty
RPMM should preserve uncertainty concerning:
Resource condition; technical feasibility; operational feasibility; process capacity; expected output; quality; dependencies; and timing.
58. Recovery Potential Confidence
Where confidence is represented, it should reflect the strength of evidence supporting the Recovery potential determination.
High Confidence in Recovery Potential ≠ Guaranteed Recovery Success.
59. Minimum Recovery Potential States
At minimum:
Recovery Potential Not Assessed
Potentially Recoverable
Technically Recoverable
Operationally Recoverable
Conditionally Recoverable
Recovery Capacity-Constrained
Recovery Time-Constrained
Recovery Location-Constrained
Recovery Quality-Constrained
Recovery Dependency-Constrained
Recovery Currently Infeasible
Recovery Potential Evidence-Limited
Recovery Potential Conflicted
Recovery Potential Unknown
Recovery Potential Unresolved
Recovery Potential Reassessment Required
60. Resource Recovery Potential Profile
The principal governed output is the:
Resource Recovery Potential Profile
This profile represents the evidence-based assessment of whether and under what conditions an identified residual Resource may become recoverable.
61. Minimum Profile Fields
At minimum:
Recovery Potential ID
Residual Resource ID
Resource Type
Resource Source
Residual Resource Condition
Residual Resource Quantity
Residual Resource Quality Reference
Residual Resource Composition
Residual Resource Location
Applicable Time Horizon
Candidate Recovery Pathway
Technical Recoverability State
Operational Recoverability State
Recovery Capacity Feasibility
Recovery Temporal Feasibility
Recovery Spatial Feasibility
Recovery Quality Feasibility
Expected Recovery Output
Expected Recovery Yield Reference
Resource Condition Limitations
Contamination Constraints
Degradation Constraints
Mixed-Stream Constraints
Supporting Energy Requirements
Supporting Water Requirements
Supporting Material Requirements
Infrastructure Requirements
Cross-Resource Dependencies
Expected Recovery Burden
Economic Feasibility Reference
Recovery Potential State
Recovery Potential Evidence
Evidence Provenance
Evidence Sufficiency
Recovery Potential Uncertainty
Recovery Potential Conflict
Recovery Potential Confidence
Reassessment Trigger
Effective Time
Version:
62. Minimum Implementation Framework
A minimum operational RPMM implementation should contain eight governed layers.
Layer 1 — Residual Resource Basis
Establish the residual Resource identity, condition, quantity, composition, location, and time.
Layer 2 — Candidate Recovery Pathway
Identify the applicable Recovery pathway or pathways.
Layer 3 — Technical Feasibility
Determine whether the Recovery mechanism can technically act upon the Resource.
Layer 4 — Operational Feasibility
Determine whether the pathway can operate under actual capacity, infrastructure, location, and timing conditions.
Layer 5 — Recovery Quality Feasibility
Determine whether the pathway can plausibly produce output meeting defined Resource requirements.
Layer 6 — Resource Dependencies
Identify materially relevant supporting Resource inputs and constraints.
Layer 7 — Evidence Evaluation
Evaluate evidence sufficiency, uncertainty, conflict, and confidence.
Layer 8 — Governed Output
Produce the Resource Recovery Potential Profile .
63. Minimum Decision States
At minimum:
Recovery Potential Not Assessed
Recovery Potential Identified
Technically Recoverable
Operationally Recoverable
Conditionally Recoverable
Recovery Currently Infeasible
Recovery Capacity-Constrained
Recovery Time-Constrained
Recovery Location-Constrained
Recovery Quality-Constrained
Recovery Dependency-Constrained
Recovery Potential Evidence-Limited
Recovery Potential Conflicted
Recovery Potential Unknown
Recovery Potential Reassessment Required
64. Minimum Evidence Path
Where Recovery potential cannot be sufficiently established:
Residual Resource → Candidate Recovery Pathway → Recovery Potential Unknown / Evidence-Limited / Conflicted → Missing Technical / Operational / Capacity / Quality / Location / Time / Dependency Evidence → Evidence Acquisition → Feasibility Reassessment → Recovery Potential Classification → Resource Recovery Potential Profile
65. Minimum Reassessment Framework
At minimum:
Current Recovery Potential Profile → New Resource / Technology / Capacity / Infrastructure / Quality / Location / Time / Dependency Evidence → Materiality Test → Technical Feasibility Reassessment → Operational Feasibility Reassessment → Recovery Quality Reassessment → Recovery Potential State Update → Profile Update → Version Update
Reassessment may be triggered by:
New Recovery technology. Improved Resource identification. Changed residual Resource condition. New contamination evidence. Available Recovery infrastructure. Increased processing capacity. Changed supporting Resource availability. New quality requirements. Changed temporal conditions. New operational restrictions. Improved feasibility evidence.
66. Governance Requirements
A conforming RPMM implementation must:
Residual Resource Basis
1. Identify the residual Resource. 2. Preserve Resource Type. 3. Preserve Resource Source. 4. Preserve residual Resource condition. 5. Preserve residual quantity. 6. Preserve relevant composition. 7. Preserve relevant quality evidence. 8. Preserve Resource location. 9. Preserve applicable time horizon. 10. Preserve material Resource restrictions. 11. Preserve uncertainty inherited from residual Resource recognition.
Recovery Pathway
12. Identify candidate Recovery pathways. 13. Preserve pathway-specific feasibility. 14. Distinguish feasibility under one pathway from feasibility under another. 15. Prevent pathway existence from proving operational recoverability. 16. Preserve Resource-specific Recovery mechanisms. 17. Preserve pathway limitations. 18. Preserve alternative pathways where material.
Technical Feasibility
19. Assess technical recoverability. 20. Preserve technical evidence. 21. Identify technical limitations. 22. Distinguish technical possibility from operational feasibility. 23. Preserve technical uncertainty. 24. Support technical infeasibility where evidenced.
Operational Feasibility
25. Assess operational recoverability. 26. Preserve infrastructure requirements. 27. Preserve processing capacity. 28. Preserve temporal feasibility. 29. Preserve spatial feasibility. 30. Preserve operational restrictions. 31. Distinguish facility existence from sufficient capacity. 32. Distinguish eventual Recovery possibility from time-bounded feasibility. 33. Distinguish remote Recovery capacity from locally available capability.
Resource Quality
34. Assess Recovery quality feasibility. 35. Preserve expected output requirements. 36. Preserve relevant contamination conditions. 37. Preserve degradation limitations. 38. Preserve mixed-stream limitations. 39. Distinguish recoverable quantity from recoverable quality. 40. Distinguish expected quality from validated recovered quality.
Resource Dependencies
41. Identify supporting Resource inputs. 42. Preserve energy requirements. 43. Preserve water requirements. 44. Preserve material requirements. 45. Preserve infrastructure dependencies. 46. Preserve cross-Resource constraints. 47. Distinguish technical Recovery potential from independent Recovery capability. 48. Preserve expected Recovery burden where material. 49. Distinguish Recovery potential from net Resource benefit.
Evidence and Classification
50. Preserve Recovery potential evidence. 51. Preserve evidence provenance. 52. Determine evidence sufficiency. 53. Support Evidence-Limited states. 54. Support Conflicted states. 55. Support Unknown states. 56. Preserve material uncertainty. 57. Preserve confidence where used. 58. Prevent insufficient evidence from producing established recoverability. 59. Prevent conflicting evidence from producing unsupported feasibility. 60. Distinguish missing evidence from Recovery infeasibility.
Governance Boundaries
61. Preserve ERRM residual Resource recognition boundaries. 62. Preserve Recovery Eligibility boundaries. 63. Preserve Recovery Authorization boundaries. 64. Preserve Recovery Process boundaries. 65. Preserve Recovery Yield boundaries. 66. Preserve Recovery Validation boundaries. 67. Preserve Secondary Resource boundaries. 68. Preserve Circularity boundaries. 69. Preserve Scarcity boundaries. 70. Preserve Sustainability boundaries. 71. Preserve Value, Harm, and Liability boundaries.
Lifecycle and Output
72. Support Recovery potential reassessment. 73. Preserve reassessment triggers. 74. Preserve material version history. 75. Preserve effective time. 76. Maintain traceability to the recognized residual Resource. 77. Maintain traceability to candidate Recovery pathways. 78. Preserve unresolved feasibility conditions. 79. Preserve pathway-specific potential determinations. 80. Produce a Resource Recovery Potential Profile.
67. Governance Logic
Canonical RPMM logic:
Recognized Residual Resource → Resource Condition → Candidate Recovery Pathway → Technical Recoverability → Operational Recoverability → Capacity / Time / Location / Quality Feasibility → Supporting Resource Dependencies → Expected Recovery Output → Evidence Sufficiency / Uncertainty / Conflict → Resource Recovery Potential State → Resource Recovery Potential Profile → Monitoring → Reassessment
68. Governance Outputs
RPMM may produce:
Resource Recovery Potential Profile
Candidate Recovery Pathway Record
Technical Recoverability State
Operational Recoverability State
Recovery Capacity Feasibility
Recovery Temporal Feasibility
Recovery Spatial Feasibility
Recovery Quality Feasibility
Expected Recovery Output Reference
Resource Condition Limitation Record
Contamination Feasibility Record
Degradation Feasibility Record
Mixed-Stream Feasibility Record
Supporting Resource Requirement Record
Recovery Dependency Record
Expected Recovery Burden Reference
Economic Feasibility Reference
Recovery Potential Evidence State
Recovery Potential Uncertainty
Recovery Potential Conflict
Recovery Potential Confidence
Reassessment Trigger
Version:
69. Critical Distinctions
Residual Resource ≠ Recoverable Resource
Theoretical Recoverability ≠ Operational Recoverability
Recoverability ≠ Recovery Eligibility
Recovery Potential ≠ Recovery Achievement
Resource Existence ≠ Recovery Potential
Recovery Technology Existence ≠ Operational Recoverability
Recovery Potential ≠ Recovery Authorization
Recovery Infeasible Under Pathway A ≠ Recovery Infeasible Under Every Pathway
Technical Recoverability ≠ Operational Recoverability
Technically Possible Recovery ≠ Operationally Feasible Recovery
Recovery Facility Existence ≠ Sufficient Recovery Capacity
Recovery Possible Eventually ≠ Recovery Feasible Within the Required Time
Recovery Capacity Elsewhere ≠ Locally Available Recovery Capability
Recoverable Quantity ≠ Recoverable Quality
Expected Recovered Output ≠ Actual Recovered Output
Damaged Resource ≠ Non-Recoverable Resource by definition
Contamination Present ≠ Recovery Impossible by definition
Reduced Functional Capability ≠ Zero Recovery Potential
Mixed Resource Stream ≠ Homogeneous Recovery Potential
Recovery Potential ≠ Independent Recovery Capability
Recovery Feasible for Resource A ≠ Recovery Feasible for the Entire Supporting Resource System
Recovery Potential ≠ Net Resource Benefit
Economically Attractive Recovery ≠ Technically Feasible Recovery
Economically Feasible Recovery ≠ Authorized Recovery
Feasible Recovery ≠ Executed Recovery
Expected Recovery Yield ≠ Actual Recovery Yield
Expected Quality ≠ Validated Recovered Quality
Recoverable Resource ≠ Secondary Resource
Potential Recovery Pathway ≠ Actual Circularity
Recovery Potential ≠ Sustainability
Scarcity ≠ Recovery Feasibility
Evidence Content ≠ Methodology Instruction
Missing Feasibility Evidence ≠ Recovery Infeasibility
Conflicting Feasibility Evidence ≠ Permission to Declare Recovery Feasible
High Confidence in Recovery Potential ≠ Guaranteed Recovery Success
70. Use Case 1 — AI Data Center Hardware Recovery Potential
An AI data center retires accelerator servers.
ERRM identifies:
Accelerator Cards
Memory Modules
Power Supply Units
Cooling Components
Electronic Circuit Boards
RPMM evaluates candidate Recovery pathways.
For accelerator cards:
Direct Reuse: Limited by performance requirements and component condition.
Refurbishment: Technically possible for selected units.
Material Recovery: Potentially feasible through specialized processing.
For power supply units:
Repair: Technically feasible where faults are identifiable.
Component Recovery: Conditionally feasible.
For electronic circuit boards:
Material Recycling: Technically feasible but dependent on specialized infrastructure and processing capacity.
RPMM preserves:
technical feasibility; operational feasibility; expected output; Resource inputs; quality limitations; and evidence confidence.
It does not authorize refurbishment or recycling.
It does not declare recovered output.
It establishes which pathways have sufficiently evidenced Recovery potential.
71. Use Case 2 — Industrial Wastewater Recovery Potential
An industrial facility generates a residual wastewater stream.
ERRM establishes the Resource identity, volume, origin, and observed quality.
RPMM evaluates potential Recovery pathways.
Candidate pathways include:
Filtration
Membrane Treatment
Chemical Treatment
Thermal Recovery
Other Applicable Water Recovery Processes
The assessment identifies:
Technical Feasibility: Water quality may be improved through available treatment mechanisms.
Operational Feasibility: Dependent on treatment capacity and infrastructure.
Quality Feasibility: Dependent on the intended future use.
Resource Dependencies: Electricity, chemicals, membranes, maintenance, and treatment capacity.
Temporal Feasibility: Dependent on treatment throughput relative to wastewater generation.
RPMM may determine that water is operationally recoverable for certain industrial uses while remaining unsuitable for higher-quality applications.
It does not authorize water reuse.
It does not establish that treatment has occurred.
It establishes the Recovery potential and the conditions required for subsequent Recovery governance.
72. Cross-Architecture Boundary
RPMM may consume:
ERRM — End-of-Use Resource Recognition Module
Residual Resource identity, condition, quantity, origin, and context.
RCHS — Resource Characterization Standard
Resource identity, Source, and characteristics.
RACS — Resource Availability & Capacity Standard
Recovery infrastructure and supporting Resource capacity evidence.
RDGS — Resource Demand Governance Standard
Requirements relevant to expected recovered output.
RDCS — Resource Dependency & Criticality Standard
Dependency evidence.
RAGS — Resource Access Governance Standard
Relevant Access conditions.
RSCS — Resource Scarcity & Constraint Standard
Constraint evidence relevant to Recovery feasibility.
RPMM provides evidence to subsequent RRCS modules governing:
Recovery Process Governance
Recovered Resource Validation
Secondary Resource Reintegration
It may also interact with:
RIRS — Resource Interdependency & Resilience Standard
RCSS — Resource Continuity & Sustainability Standard
VEGA™ — Value Execution Governance Architecture
ORA™ — Operational Reality Architecture
PGA™ — Prediction Governance Architecture
SIMULOS® — Simulation Governance
HAGA™ — Harm Governance Architecture
LIGA™ — Liability Governance Architecture
RPMM does not absorb the independent mechanisms of these architectures.
73. 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.
RPMM governs the evidence-based determination of Resource Recovery potential.
It does not govern Recovery execution, secondary Resource allocation, substitution authorization, or long-term Sustainability.
74. Canonical Boundary
RPMM governs how the potential of an identified residual, used, depleted, transformed, discarded, or otherwise post-use Resource to regain, retain, or provide usable Resource capability through an applicable Recovery pathway is assessed, classified, evidenced, bounded, monitored, and reassessed.
It does not independently authorize Recovery, execute Recovery processes, determine actual Recovery yield, validate recovered output, establish secondary Resource identity, authorize reintegration, determine Circularity performance, or establish long-term Sustainability.
Its principal governed output is the Resource Recovery Potential Profile .
75. Canonical Closing Statement
A Resource is not recoverable merely because it still exists, because a Recovery technology is known, or because its material has potential Value. Recovery potential must be established against the actual Resource condition, applicable Recovery pathway, available capability, required inputs, quality requirements, location, time, and operational constraints.
RPMM turns the possibility of Recovery into an evidenced governance determination — distinguishing what might be technically recovered from what can realistically be recovered under defined conditions, without confusing potential with authorization, execution, or achieved Resource continuity.