RSCM — Resource Substitution Compatibility Module

Architecture:

RSGA™ — Resource Sustainability Governance Architecture

Parent Standard:

RSFS — Resource Substitution & Flexibility Standard

Category:

Governance & Enforcement

Subcategory:

Resource Governance

Type:

Core Module

Governed Space:

Resource Substitution Compatibility & Equivalence Governance

Module ID:

RSGA-RSFS-RSCM-02

Origin ID:

OOF-RSGA-RSFS-RSCM

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

RSCM — Resource Substitution Compatibility Module is the Core Module within RSFS that governs how identified alternative Resources, Resource capacities, Resource configurations, and operational pathways are evaluated against defined original Resource requirements to establish their functional compatibility, technical suitability, conditional equivalence, partial equivalence, incompatibility, and evidence-based compatibility boundaries before operational substitution decisions are made.

RSCM establishes whether an alternative is capable of satisfying the defined characteristics and functions of an original Resource requirement under specified conditions.

It distinguishes the existence of a candidate alternative from its validated compatibility.

It also distinguishes compatibility from actual availability, operational feasibility, authorization, activation, and effectiveness.

Candidate Alternative ≠ Compatible Substitute.

Functional Similarity ≠ Functional Equivalence.

Compatibility: Established ≠ Substitution Authorized.

2. Operational Role

RSCM governs the compatibility validation stage of Resource Substitution & Flexibility Governance.

Its role is to determine whether an alternative Resource or Resource configuration can satisfy the defined functional and technical requirements associated with the original Resource requirement.

The module establishes:

Compatibility: assessment identity. Original Resource requirement references. Candidate alternative identity. Functional compatibility criteria. Technical compatibility criteria. Quality requirements. Performance requirements. Interface requirements. Capacity compatibility conditions. Reliability compatibility conditions. Environmental and operating conditions. Compatibility limitations. Conditional compatibility. Partial equivalence. Incompatibility. Evidence sufficiency. Compatibility uncertainty. Conflicting compatibility evidence. Compatibility decision states. Compatibility reassessment. Handoff to operational transition and substitution governance.

RSCM does not grant operational permission to substitute Resources.

It does not independently determine Resource Access, Allocation, operational readiness, transition execution, or actual substitution effectiveness.

3. Operational Question

Under which defined functional, technical, quality, performance, reliability, capacity, interface, and operating conditions can an identified alternative Resource or configuration satisfy an original Resource requirement, and how should full, conditional, partial, unsupported, or failed compatibility be established without confusing compatibility with operational feasibility, authorization, or effective substitution?

4. Position in Architecture Governance Flow

RSGA™ Governance Flow

Resource Characterization → Availability & Capacity → Demand → Dependency & Criticality → Access → Prioritization & Allocation → Consumption & Utilization → Scarcity & Constraint → Recovery & Circularity → Substitution & Flexibility → Interdependency & Resilience → Continuity & Sustainability

RSFS Core Module Flow

1. RSAM — Resource Substitution Assessment Module 2. RSCM — Resource Substitution Compatibility Module 3. RTSM — Resource Transition & Substitution Module 4. RDFM — Resource Dependency Flexibility Module

5. RSWM — Resource Substitution & Flexibility Monitoring Module

RSCM occupies the second governance position within RSFS.

It receives identified and preliminarily assessed alternatives from RSAM.

It establishes whether those alternatives satisfy the relevant functional and technical requirements.

Its outputs may support subsequent operational feasibility, transition, authorization-reference, and activation governance.

Assessment Eligibility ≠ Compatibility Validation.

5. Governed Space

Resource Substitution Compatibility & Equivalence Governance

This governed space concerns the evaluation and validation of whether a proposed alternative Resource or configuration can satisfy the defined functional and technical requirements of another Resource requirement.

It includes compatibility criteria, technical interfaces, performance conditions, quality thresholds, capacity suitability, reliability requirements, operating limitations, equivalence classifications, and compatibility evidence.

It does not independently govern operational activation, Resource Access, Allocation, or actual substitution execution.

6. Governed Object

The primary Governed Object is:

A Resource Substitution Compatibility Case connecting a defined original Resource requirement with an identified alternative Resource or configuration through explicit compatibility criteria, technical and functional evidence, equivalence conditions, limitations, and a governed compatibility state.

Canonical relationship:

Original Resource Requirement → Candidate Alternative → Compatibility Criteria → Functional Compatibility → Technical Compatibility → Quality & Performance Compatibility → Capacity & Reliability Compatibility → Operating Conditions → Compatibility Evidence → Equivalence Classification → Compatibility Decision → Resource Substitution Compatibility Profile → Operational Transition Handoff

7. Scope

RSCM governs:

Compatibility: case identity. Original requirement references. Candidate alternative references. Functional compatibility criteria. Technical suitability. Interface compatibility. Material and physical compatibility. Quality compatibility. Performance compatibility. Capacity compatibility. Reliability compatibility. Operating-condition compatibility. Conditional equivalence. Partial equivalence. Non-equivalence. Compatibility restrictions. Compatibility evidence. Evidence sufficiency.

Evidence uncertainty. Evidence conflict. Compatibility decisions. Compatibility reassessment. Compatibility handoff.

RSCM does not independently govern candidate discovery, final Resource availability, Access authorization, Allocation, operational transition execution, flexibility activation, or long-term Sustainability.

8. Foundational Governance Principles

8.1 Requirement-Relative Compatibility

Resource Compatibility Must Be Established Against a Defined Requirement.

An alternative may be compatible with one operational requirement and incompatible with another.

8.2 Functional Similarity Separation

Functional Similarity ≠ Functional Equivalence.

8.3 Technical Capability Separation

Technical Capability ≠ Operational Substitution Readiness.

8.4 Conditional Compatibility

Compatibility: may be valid only under defined operating conditions.

8.5 Partial Equivalence

An alternative may satisfy part of a requirement without satisfying the complete requirement.

8.6 Evidence-Based Validation

Claimed Compatibility ≠ Validated Compatibility.

8.7 Authority Separation

Compatibility: Validation ≠ Substitution Authorization.

9. Original Requirement Reference

Every RSCM assessment must preserve the original Resource requirement established through RSAM.

Relevant characteristics include:

Requirement ID

Required Function

Required Resource Type

Required Quantity

Required Quality

Required Capacity

Required Performance

Required Reliability

Required Location

Required Time

Required Duration

Applicable Restrictions

Compatibility: must remain traceable to the requirement version assessed.

10. Requirement Integrity

Compatibility: must not be established by silently weakening the original requirement.

Where a requirement is legitimately modified, the revised requirement must be explicitly identified.

Requirement Modification ≠ Compatibility Validation.

A candidate that cannot satisfy the original requirement must not be declared fully compatible merely because the requirement was retrospectively reduced.

11. Candidate Alternative Reference

RSCM receives the candidate identity and preliminary characteristics established by RSAM.

Minimum references include:

Candidate ID

Candidate Resource Type

Candidate Configuration

Candidate Provenance

Preliminary Resource Characteristics

Known Restrictions

Assessment Boundary

Evidence Basis

12. Candidate Identity Principle

Same Resource Category ≠ Same Compatibility Characteristics.

Resources within the same category may differ materially in quality, performance, reliability, or operating conditions.

13. Compatibility Criteria

Compatibility: criteria must be established before declaring a candidate compatible.

Criteria should reflect the actual Resource requirement.

Relevant dimensions may include:

Functional Capability

Technical Properties

Quality

Performance

Capacity

Reliability

Interface Requirements

Operating Conditions

Duration

Relevant Restrictions

Each criterion should have an identifiable evidence basis.

14. Criteria Integrity

Compatibility: criteria must not be adjusted solely to produce a favorable result.

Where criteria change, the reason, authority reference where applicable, and assessment version must be preserved.

Changing Criteria ≠ Demonstrating Compatibility.

15. Functional Compatibility

Functional compatibility concerns whether an alternative can perform the required function.

Examples include:

Cooling Capability

Electrical Supply Function

Mechanical Load-Bearing Function

Water Supply Function

Computational Processing Function

Transport Function

Storage Function

Other Resource-Specific Functions

Functional compatibility must be evaluated relative to the required operational outcome.

16. Functional Compatibility Principle

Similar Function ≠ Equivalent Functional Performance.

17. Technical Compatibility

Technical compatibility concerns whether the candidate satisfies the applicable technical conditions.

Relevant dimensions may include:

Material Properties

Electrical Characteristics

Thermal Characteristics

Mechanical Characteristics

Chemical Characteristics

Digital or Computational Interfaces

Physical Interfaces

Technical Operating Limits

Other Resource-Specific Conditions

Technical compatibility must remain within the evidence actually established.

18. Technical Compatibility Principle

Technically Similar ≠ Technically Interchangeable.

19. Interface Compatibility

An alternative may satisfy the required function but be incompatible with the receiving system's interfaces.

Examples include:

Electrical Connections

Mechanical Interfaces

Fluid Connections

Data Interfaces

Control Interfaces

Material Processing Interfaces

Infrastructure Interfaces

Interface compatibility must be assessed where relevant.

20. Interface Principle

Functional Capability ≠ Interface Compatibility.

21. Quality Compatibility

Quality compatibility concerns whether the candidate meets the required quality characteristics.

Examples include:

Material Purity

Water Quality

Energy Quality

Mechanical Properties

Thermal Properties

Computational Output Quality

Other Resource-Specific Quality Requirements

Quality compatibility must be established for the intended use.

22. Quality Principle

Equivalent Quantity ≠ Equivalent Quality.

23. Performance Compatibility

Performance compatibility concerns whether the alternative can satisfy the required operational performance.

Relevant measures may include:

Output Rate

Processing Speed

Cooling Performance

Energy Delivery Performance

Material Strength

Transport Throughput

Operational Response

Performance must be evaluated against the defined requirement.

24. Performance Principle

Nominal Performance ≠ Performance Under Required Conditions.

25. Capacity Compatibility

Capacity compatibility concerns whether the candidate has the technical capacity required for the intended function.

RSCM may evaluate:

Required Capacity

Candidate Rated Capacity

Capacity Under Defined Conditions

Capacity Limitations

Partial Capacity Coverage

Capacity-Related Compatibility Conditions

RSCM does not independently establish actual Resource availability or allocable capacity.

26. Capacity Compatibility Principle

Technically Sufficient Capacity ≠ Operationally Available Capacity.

27. Reliability Compatibility

Reliability compatibility concerns whether the alternative satisfies applicable reliability requirements.

Relevant evidence may include:

Expected Operating Stability

Failure Characteristics

Performance Variability

Maintenance-Related Limitations

Operating Duration

Reliability Under Required Conditions

RSCM must preserve material reliability differences.

28. Reliability Principle

Functional Equivalence ≠ Reliability Equivalence.

29. Operating-Condition Compatibility

Compatibility: may depend on operating conditions.

Examples include:

Temperature

Pressure

Humidity

Load

Flow Rate

Operating Environment

Duty Cycle

Required Duration

Other Resource-Specific Conditions

Compatibility: must remain associated with the conditions under which it was established.

30. Operating-Condition Principle

Compatible Under Condition A ≠ Compatible Under Condition B.

31. Temporal Compatibility

An alternative may satisfy a function only for a limited duration.

RSCM should preserve:

Required Duration

Supported Duration

Duration Limitations

Performance Degradation Over Time

Applicable Time-Dependent Conditions

Temporal compatibility does not establish actual availability at the required time.

32. Spatial Compatibility

Certain alternatives may depend on physical or environmental conditions associated with a location.

RSCM should preserve relevant spatial compatibility conditions.

Actual geographic availability and Access remain governed elsewhere.

33. Full Equivalence

Full equivalence exists where the candidate satisfies all defined compatibility criteria within the assessed boundary.

Full equivalence must be limited to the requirement and conditions actually evaluated.

Full Equivalence Within Scope ≠ Universal Resource Equivalence.

34. Conditional Equivalence

Conditional equivalence exists where the candidate satisfies the relevant requirement only under explicitly defined conditions.

Examples include:

Limited Temperature Range

Restricted Load

Specified Treatment Conditions

Required Supporting Equipment

Limited Operating Duration

Other Defined Conditions

Conditions must remain attached to the compatibility state.

35. Partial Equivalence

Partial equivalence exists where the candidate satisfies only part of the original requirement.

Examples include:

Partial Functional Coverage

Reduced Capacity

Limited Quality

Reduced Performance

Restricted Duration

Limited Operating Range

Partial equivalence must not be presented as full compatibility.

36. Non-Equivalence

Non-equivalence exists where reliable evidence establishes that the candidate does not satisfy material compatibility requirements.

Non-equivalence must identify the relevant failed criteria.

A candidate may be non-equivalent for one requirement while remaining suitable for another.

37. Equivalence Boundary

Equivalent for Requirement A ≠ Equivalent for Requirement B.

Compatibility: is requirement-relative, not an inherent universal property of the candidate.

38. Compatibility Limitations

RSCM must preserve material limitations.

Examples include:

Performance Limitations

Capacity Limitations

Quality Restrictions

Reliability Limitations

Interface Restrictions

Operating-Condition Restrictions

Duration Restrictions

Technical Dependencies

Limitations must remain visible in downstream governance.

39. Supporting Technical Dependencies

Compatibility: may depend on additional technical components or conditions.

Examples include:

Adapters

Treatment Processes

Supporting Equipment

Control Systems

Conversion Systems

Additional Infrastructure Interfaces

RSCM records compatibility-related dependencies.

It does not determine their actual availability, allocation, or operational readiness.

40. Dependency Principle

Compatibility: With Supporting Conditions ≠ Compatibility Without Those Conditions.

41. Compatibility Testing

Compatibility: may be supported by:

Technical Documentation

Laboratory Testing

Engineering Assessment

Validated Simulation

Operational Test Evidence

Material Certification References

Other Competent Evidence

The applicable evidence method depends on the governed Resource and requirement.

RSCM does not replace independent technical certification.

42. Test Validity

Compatibility: evidence must remain associated with the conditions under which it was produced.

Relevant elements include:

Test Method

Test Conditions

Resource Identity

Requirement Reference

Measurement Basis

Result

Uncertainty

Evidence Provenance

43. Test Validity Principle

Successful Test Under Limited Conditions ≠ General Compatibility.

44. Simulation Evidence

Simulation may support compatibility assessment where appropriate.

However, simulated compatibility must remain distinguishable from physically validated compatibility.

Simulated Compatibility ≠ Demonstrated Operational Compatibility.

SIMULOS® may govern relevant simulation mechanisms.

RSCM governs only the compatibility relevance of simulation outputs.

45. Certification References

Where compatibility depends on technical certification or regulated approval, RSCM must preserve the relevant references.

It must not independently issue or substitute for such certification.

Methodological Compatibility Assessment ≠ Technical Certification.

46. Evidence Provenance

Compatibility: evidence should preserve:

Source

Method

Time

Location

Candidate Resource Reference

Original Requirement Reference

Assessment Conditions

Responsible Evidence Origin

Version:

Evidence Content ≠ Methodology Instruction.

47. Evidence Sufficiency

RSCM must evaluate whether the evidence is sufficient to support the claimed compatibility state.

Evidence sufficiency depends on:

Requirement Criticality

Compatibility: Criteria

Evidence Quality

Testing Conditions

Known Limitations

Uncertainty

Conflicting Evidence

A compatibility claim must not exceed the evidence supporting it.

48. Missing Evidence

Missing evidence may concern:

Functional Capability

Technical Properties

Quality

Performance

Capacity

Reliability

Interfaces

Operating Conditions

Duration

Supporting Technical Dependencies

Missing evidence must remain explicit.

49. Evidence Conflict

RSCM must preserve material conflicts between compatibility evidence sources.

Conflicts may concern:

Technical Performance

Material Properties

Quality

Capacity

Reliability

Test Results

Operating Conditions

Certification References

Unresolved conflicts must not be silently converted into favorable compatibility decisions.

50. Evidence Conflict Principle

Conflicting Compatibility Evidence ≠ Validated Compatibility.

51. Compatibility Uncertainty

RSCM should preserve uncertainty concerning:

Functional Performance

Technical Suitability

Quality

Capacity

Reliability

Operating Conditions

Evidence Transferability

Test Validity

Conditional Equivalence

Uncertainty must remain visible in the compatibility profile.

52. Compatibility Decision

RSCM determines the evidence-supported compatibility state of a candidate against a defined requirement.

Possible decisions include:

Fully Compatible

Conditionally Compatible

Partially Compatible

Incompatible

Compatibility: Evidence-Limited

Compatibility: Conflicted

Compatibility: Unknown

Reassessment Required

A compatibility decision does not establish operational feasibility or authorization.

53. Compatibility Handoff

RSCM provides subsequent transition governance with:

Original Resource Requirement

Candidate Alternative Identity

Compatibility: Criteria

Compatibility: State

Equivalence Classification

Validated Functional Conditions

Technical Limitations

Capacity Conditions

Quality Conditions

Reliability Conditions

Supporting Technical Dependencies

Evidence Sufficiency

Uncertainty

Conflicts

Reassessment Conditions

54. Resource Substitution Compatibility Profile

The principal governed output is the:

Resource Substitution Compatibility Profile

It establishes the evidence-based relationship between an original Resource requirement, an identified candidate alternative, applicable compatibility criteria, validated conditions, equivalence classification, limitations, and the resulting compatibility state.

55. Minimum Profile Fields

At minimum:

Compatibility: Profile ID

Original Resource Requirement ID

Original Requirement Version

Candidate Alternative ID

Candidate Resource Type

Candidate Configuration

Compatibility: Assessment Boundary

Required Function

Functional Compatibility Criteria

Functional Compatibility State

Technical Compatibility Criteria

Technical Compatibility State

Interface Compatibility

Quality Compatibility

Performance Compatibility

Capacity Compatibility

Reliability Compatibility

Operating-Condition Compatibility

Temporal Compatibility Conditions

Spatial Compatibility Conditions

Equivalence Classification

Conditional Equivalence Requirements

Partial Equivalence Limitations

Non-Equivalence Reasons

Supporting Technical Dependencies

Testing Evidence

Simulation Evidence Where Applicable

Certification References Where Applicable

Evidence Provenance

Evidence Sufficiency

Missing Evidence

Evidence Uncertainty

Evidence Conflict

Compatibility: Decision

Operational Transition Handoff State

Reassessment Trigger

Effective Time

Version:

56. Minimum Implementation Framework

A minimum operational RSCM implementation should contain nine governed layers.

Layer 1 — Requirement & Candidate Identity

Establish the original Resource requirement and candidate alternative identity.

Layer 2 — Compatibility Criteria

Define the functional, technical, quality, performance, capacity, reliability, and operating-condition requirements.

Layer 3 — Functional Assessment

Evaluate whether the candidate can perform the required function.

Layer 4 — Technical & Interface Assessment

Evaluate technical properties, interfaces, and applicable restrictions.

Layer 5 — Quality, Performance & Capacity Assessment

Evaluate whether the candidate satisfies the relevant quality, performance, and technical capacity conditions.

Layer 6 — Reliability & Operating Conditions

Evaluate reliability requirements, operating boundaries, and duration-dependent conditions.

Layer 7 — Evidence Validation

Assess testing evidence, certification references where applicable, provenance, sufficiency, uncertainty, and conflicts.

Layer 8 — Compatibility Classification

Establish full, conditional, partial, incompatible, evidence-limited, conflicted, or unknown compatibility states.

Layer 9 — Governed Output & Handoff

Produce the Resource Substitution Compatibility Profile and the applicable transition governance handoff.

57. Minimum Decision States

At minimum:

Compatibility: Not Assessed

Compatibility: Criteria Pending

Compatibility: Criteria Defined

Functional Assessment Pending

Technical Assessment Pending

Quality Assessment Pending

Performance Assessment Pending

Capacity Assessment Pending

Reliability Assessment Pending

Operating Conditions Pending

Fully Compatible

Conditionally Compatible

Partially Compatible

Incompatible

Compatibility: Evidence-Limited

Compatibility: Conflicted

Compatibility: Unknown

Ready for Operational Feasibility Assessment

Conditionally Ready for Operational Feasibility Assessment

Reassessment Required

58. Minimum Evidence Path

Where compatibility cannot be conclusively established:

Original Resource Requirement → Candidate Alternative → Compatibility Criteria → Functional / Technical / Quality / Performance / Capacity / Reliability Assessment → Evidence-Limited / Conflicted / Unknown State → Missing Evidence Identification → Evidence Acquisition or Testing → Compatibility Reassessment →

Equivalence Classification → Resource Substitution Compatibility Profile → Operational Feasibility Handoff Where Supported

Missing evidence must not be replaced by assumed equivalence.

59. Minimum Reassessment Framework

Current Resource Substitution Compatibility Profile → New Requirement / Candidate / Technical / Quality / Performance / Reliability / Operating-Condition Evidence → Materiality Assessment → Compatibility Criteria Review → Evidence Reassessment → Equivalence Reclassification → Compatibility Decision Update → Profile Update → Version Update

Reassessment may be triggered by:

Changed original Resource requirement. Changed candidate characteristics. New technical evidence. New quality evidence. New performance evidence. Changed operating conditions. Changed interface requirements. Changed capacity requirements. Changed reliability requirements. Failed compatibility testing. Conflicting certification references. Newly identified technical dependencies. Material changes in applicable restrictions.

60. Governance Requirements

A conforming RSCM implementation must satisfy the following requirements.

Requirement & Candidate Integrity

1. Preserve the original Resource requirement. 2. Preserve the requirement version. 3. Preserve candidate alternative identity. 4. Preserve candidate configuration. 5. Preserve the compatibility assessment boundary. 6. Define applicable compatibility criteria. 7. Prevent silent weakening of requirements. 8. Preserve material criteria changes.

Functional & Technical Compatibility

9. Evaluate functional compatibility. 10. Evaluate technical compatibility. 11. Evaluate interface compatibility. 12. Preserve material technical restrictions. 13. Distinguish functional similarity from equivalence. 14. Distinguish technical similarity from interchangeability. 15. Preserve supporting technical dependencies. 16. Prevent conditional compatibility from being represented as unconditional.

Quality, Performance & Capacity

17. Evaluate quality compatibility. 18. Evaluate performance compatibility. 19. Evaluate capacity compatibility. 20. Preserve relevant capacity limitations. 21. Preserve partial functional coverage.

22. Preserve reduced performance. 23. Preserve quality restrictions. 24. Prevent nominal capacity from establishing actual availability.

Reliability & Operating Conditions

25. Evaluate reliability compatibility. 26. Preserve relevant operating conditions. 27. Preserve temporal compatibility limitations. 28. Preserve spatial compatibility conditions. 29. Preserve duration restrictions. 30. Preserve condition-dependent performance. 31. Prevent limited-condition compatibility from being generalized.

Equivalence Governance

32. Support full equivalence. 33. Support conditional equivalence. 34. Support partial equivalence. 35. Support non-equivalence. 36. Preserve equivalence criteria. 37. Preserve equivalence limitations. 38. Preserve failed criteria. 39. Prevent requirement-specific equivalence from becoming universal equivalence.

Evidence Governance

40. Preserve evidence provenance. 41. Preserve test methods. 42. Preserve test conditions. 43. Preserve simulation evidence where applicable. 44. Preserve certification references where applicable. 45. Evaluate evidence sufficiency. 46. Preserve missing evidence. 47. Support Evidence-Limited states. 48. Support Conflicted states. 49. Support Unknown states. 50. Preserve material uncertainty. 51. Prevent unsupported compatibility claims. 52. Preserve compatibility decision evidence.

Lifecycle & Boundaries

53. Support compatibility reassessment. 54. Preserve reassessment triggers. 55. Preserve material version history. 56. Preserve effective time. 57. Preserve compatibility conditions in downstream handoffs. 58. Maintain RSAM candidate assessment boundaries. 59. Maintain RACS availability boundaries. 60. Maintain RAGS Access boundaries. 61. Maintain RPAS Allocation boundaries. 62. Maintain RTSM operational transition boundaries. 63. Prevent compatibility validation from creating authorization. 64. Prevent compatibility validation from establishing actual substitution effectiveness. 65. Produce a Resource Substitution Compatibility Profile.

61. Governance Logic

Canonical RSCM logic:

Original Resource Requirement → Candidate Alternative → Compatibility Criteria → Functional Compatibility → Technical & Interface Compatibility → Quality Compatibility → Performance Compatibility → Capacity

Compatibility: → Reliability & Operating Conditions → Supporting Technical Dependencies → Evidence Validation → Equivalence Classification → Compatibility Decision → Resource Substitution Compatibility Profile → Operational Feasibility & Transition Handoff → Reassessment Where Required

62. Governance Outputs

RSCM may produce:

Resource Substitution Compatibility Profile

Compatibility: Case Record

Original Requirement Reference

Candidate Alternative Reference

Compatibility: Criteria Record

Functional Compatibility State

Technical Compatibility State

Interface Compatibility Record

Quality Compatibility State

Performance Compatibility State

Capacity Compatibility State

Reliability Compatibility State

Operating-Condition Compatibility Record

Full Equivalence Record

Conditional Equivalence Record

Partial Equivalence Record

Non-Equivalence Record

Compatibility: Limitation Record

Supporting Technical Dependency Record

Testing Evidence Record

Simulation Evidence Reference

Certification Reference

Evidence Sufficiency State

Missing Evidence Record

Evidence Uncertainty

Evidence Conflict

Compatibility: Decision

Operational Transition Handoff Record

Reassessment Trigger

Version:

63. Practical Applications

RSCM may support:

Energy Systems

Assessment of whether alternative energy sources or storage configurations satisfy defined technical, power-quality, capacity, reliability, and interface requirements.

Water Systems

Assessment of whether recovered water or alternative water sources satisfy intended-use quality, treatment, pressure, flow, and technical requirements.

AI Data Centers

Assessment of whether alternative cooling systems, computing configurations, or electrical infrastructure satisfy required performance, capacity, reliability, and operating conditions.

Manufacturing

Assessment of whether alternative or recovered materials satisfy defined mechanical, chemical, dimensional, quality, and production requirements.

Infrastructure

Assessment of whether alternative equipment or infrastructure configurations meet defined functional, technical, capacity, and reliability conditions.

64. Use Case 1 — Recovered Water Compatibility for Industrial Cooling

An industrial facility proposes replacing part of its freshwater supply with recovered water.

RSAM has identified recovered water as a candidate alternative.

RSCM evaluates:

Original Requirement: Water suitable for the defined industrial cooling function.

Candidate Alternative: Recovered water from an identified treatment process.

Functional Compatibility: Can the recovered water support the required cooling function?

Technical Compatibility: Are the relevant chemical, physical, and thermal properties suitable?

Quality Compatibility: Does the water meet the applicable quality thresholds?

Interface Compatibility: Is it compatible with the receiving cooling equipment and relevant technical interfaces?

Operating Conditions: Under which treatment, temperature, flow, and equipment conditions is compatibility supported?

Conditional Equivalence: Does suitability depend on additional treatment or restricted operating conditions?

The recovered water may be compatible for one cooling application but unsuitable for another.

RSCM preserves this distinction.

It does not independently authorize use of the recovered water or establish its operational availability.

Recovered Water Suitable for Application A ≠ Recovered Water Suitable for Every Application.

65. Use Case 2 — Alternative Material Compatibility in Manufacturing

A manufacturer proposes using a recovered secondary material instead of a primary material.

RSAM has identified the recovered material as a candidate.

RSCM evaluates:

Original Requirement: Material satisfying defined mechanical, chemical, dimensional, and operating requirements.

Candidate Alternative: Validated recovered secondary material.

Functional Compatibility: Can the material perform the intended function?

Technical Compatibility: Does it satisfy the applicable material properties?

Quality Compatibility: Are purity, composition, and other quality requirements met?

Performance Compatibility: Does it meet required strength, durability, or other relevant performance criteria?

Operating Conditions: Under which production and use conditions is compatibility established?

Partial Equivalence: Is the material suitable only for certain products, loads, or operating conditions?

The material may be fully compatible with one product and only partially compatible with another.

RSCM preserves requirement-specific equivalence.

It does not independently determine whether sufficient material is available for production or whether substitution has been authorized.

Validated Material Properties ≠ Universal Material Interchangeability.

66. Critical Distinctions