#Agentic Tool‑Use & Call‑Planning (C.Agent‑Tools‑CAL)

C.24 · Cluster C.IV - Composite & Macro-Scale · Stable · Calculus (C) · Normative · Part C - Kernel Extension Specifications

#About this pattern

This is a generated FPF pattern page projected from the published FPF source. It is canonical FPF content for this ID; it is not a fpf-memory product feature page.

#How to use this pattern

Read the ID, status, type, and normativity first. Use the content for exact wording, the relations for adjacent concepts, and citations to keep active work grounded without pasting the whole specification.

Type: Calculus (C) Status: Stable Normativity: Normative

Plain-name. Agentic tool-use and call planning.

Intent. Govern admissible tool-call planning and replanning under explicit budget, assurance, and policy while keeping upstream choice, pool policy, planning, and execution distinct.

Instantiates / Refines Pillars. E.2 P-3 Scalable Formality, P-7 Pragmatic Utility, P-10 Open-Ended Evolution, P-11 SoTA Alignment, and the Bitter-Lesson Preference: prefer scalable, general methods that benefit from more data or compute over fragile hand-tuned heuristics when assurance and cost stay comparable.

Depends on. A-kernel (A.1–A.15) for holonic basics and Role-Method-Work separation; B.3 Trust & Assurance (F–G–R with CL penalties); E.3/E.5 (precedence and Guard-Rails); C.5 Resrc-CAL; C.18 NQD-CAL (candidate generation and declared set surfaces); C.19 E/E-LOG (explore-exploit policies); optional Compose-CAL and KD-CAL where available.

Coordinates with. U.WorkPlan and U.PromiseContent bindings (acceptance gates), Working-Model publication discipline per B.3, and Evidence/Provenance (G.6).

• one concrete choice posture already exists and the next task is now how to plan, gate, sequence, and replan tool calls lawfully
• the next lawful artifact should be one enactment-facing CallPlan or one CheckpointReturn, not one more local choice result or pool-policy result
• budget, assurance, and stop conditions must be visible before calls are burned

#Keywords

• agential tool use
• CallRouteDescription
• CallPlan
• CallGraph
• CheckpointReturn
• enactment budget
• tool-call budget
• stop/replan condition
• budget and harm gates
• BLP tolerances
• route-vs-plan-vs-work distinction.

#Relations

#Content

#Use this when

• one concrete choice posture already exists and the next task is now how to plan, gate, sequence, and replan tool calls lawfully
• the next lawful artifact should be one enactment-facing CallPlan or one CheckpointReturn, not one more local choice result or pool-policy result
• budget, assurance, and stop conditions must be visible before calls are burned

#What goes wrong if missed

• calls get scheduled by ad-hoc heuristics, so the plan cannot say which budget is being burned or what event should stop or replan execution
• planning quietly collapses into execution, or execution quietly inherits unresolved upstream choice and pool-policy questions
• a successful probe is mistaken for committed rollout even though the commit trigger was never made explicit

#What this buys

• one tool-agnostic planning surface for admissible calls, budgets, stop conditions, and replan triggers
• one explicit enactment surface with objective, budget, stop conditions, and next move
• one replayable call graph and assurance surface instead of one opaque chain of tool invocations

#First-minute questions

• Has one choice posture already been fixed strongly enough that planning may begin now?
• Which budget is being burned now: enactment budget, tool-call budget, or still one upstream probe budget?
• What event stops or replans the route?
• Is the next lawful artifact one CallPlan, one CheckpointReturn, or one reroute?

#First output

The first useful output is either one enactment-facing CallPlan with the current objective, cited route descriptions, the planned budget envelope, the stop or replan condition, and the next move stated explicitly in one place, or one bounded CheckpointReturn with the current objective or task family, the burned and residual actual budget, the commit trigger, and the recommended next action stated explicitly in one place.

If that first output still cannot be written honestly, the current planning result is not finished C.24 planning yet.

#Problem frame

Modern systems in agential roles increasingly rely on tool-call planning: selecting admissible tool-service routes, arranging intended call work, and replanning under uncertainty. Without a calculus:

• calls are scheduled by ad-hoc heuristics,
• budgets (compute, cost, wall-time) are implicit,
• assurance and policy provenance are lost, and
• systems in agential roles either over-constrain themselves with brittle scripts or wander without guard-rails.

This CAL provides the conceptual API for thought that lets any implementation (LLM-based, search-based, code-based, robotic) plan calls lawfully, auditably, and scalably. (Role-Method-Work alignment; didactic primacy.)

Immediate failure signs for this pattern:

• the current planning result cannot say whether one choice posture already exists,
• the current text cannot distinguish route description, call plan, and executed call work,
• the budget being burned is still only probing-before-choice budget rather than enactment or tool-call budget, or
• the next lawful artifact is still undefined as one enactment-facing plan, one CheckpointReturn, or one reroute.

If the live question is still which fixed option should survive now, reroute to C.11. If it is still pool policy over several still-live candidate lines, reroute to C.19. If it is already public selected-set publication, reroute to G.5.

#Problem

We need a tool-agnostic way to (i) identify admissible route descriptions, (ii) compose one call work plan that cites them, (iii) allocate an explore/exploit share, (iv) enforce budget & harm gates, and (v) replan on signals—without baking domain-specific heuristics into the core and without collapsing U.MethodDescription, U.WorkPlan, and U.Work into one object.

#Forces

#Solution — Signature & Realization

Types (aliases). ATC.CallRouteDescription ≡ U.MethodDescription with accessSpec for one tool service or callable route; ATC.CallPlan ≡ U.WorkPlan specialised for intended tool-call work; it cites one or more ATC.CallRouteDescription editions plus planned order, budget ceilings, stop or replan triggers, and next move; ATC.CallGraph ≡ Evidence/Provenance graph over a U.Work ledger; ATC.Policy references U.EmitterPolicyRef (E/E-LOG) and local call gates including BLP tolerances (alpha, delta).

Roles. A System in AgentialRole prepares or revises one CallPlan that cites one or more CallRouteDescription editions. Upon enactment, a Performer executes Work (calls), and Observers record Observations with acceptance checks. Route descriptions stay design-time; the call plan stays schedule-of-intent; actual call work stays run-time. (A.15 strict distinction.)

Operators (Gamma_agential; CAL, conceptual):

1. Gamma_agential.eligible(tool, TaskSignature, K_ctx) -> {true|false, notes} Eligibility gate based on capability fit, policy allow-list or deny-list, and context K (including safety constraints).

2. Gamma_agential.enumerate(TaskSignature, K_ctx) -> CandidateSet<ATC.CallRouteDescription> Returns admissible callable route descriptions. It MAY delegate to NQD-CAL for heterogeneous route families and MUST apply the current E/E-LOG lens (objectives & telemetry) to tag candidates.

3. Gamma_agential.plan(Objective, CandidateSet, Budget, ATC.Policy) -> ATC.CallPlan Produces one call plan that cites the selected route descriptions, declares one planned budget envelope (compute, cost, time, risk), one intended call order, and one stop or replan policy. Internal route logic remains in the cited method descriptions; the plan is a U.WorkPlan that cites method descriptions, not a method description and not yet work.

4. Gamma_agential.execute(ATC.CallPlan) -> {ATC.CallGraph, Observations} Executes with hard gates (budget, risk, constraint-fit) and logs provenance suitable for B.3 assurance reporting (design/run separated).

5. Gamma_agential.replan(Signals, ATC.CallPlan, BudgetPrime) -> ATC.CallPlanPrime Triggered by sentinel breaches, assurance drops, or policy events; preserves editioned policy, cited route descriptions, and context.

6. Gamma_agential.score(Route or PlanAlternative) -> <ValueProxies, Cost, Risk, FGR_floor> Computes selection signals without illegal scalarisation across mixed scales; uses Pareto comparison under the C.19 E/E-LOG lens and defers final dominance to declared policies.

#Bounded scout/probe cycle for unfamiliar task families

When the choice posture is already fixed enough that enactment planning is lawful, but the route across heterogeneous or unfamiliar callable approaches is still uncertain, the system may spend a bounded scout/probe budget before committed rollout and return one checkpoint package that compares the tested routes.

If additional probing could still change which option survives the current OptionSet, the budget is still C.11-side epistemic budget and the question reroutes upstream. If choice posture is already fixed and the uncertainty is only about route or rollout shape, the budget is now enactment budget and the checkpoint belongs in C.24.

That CheckpointReturn should state the declared utility target and current TaskFamily, the route descriptions or candidate approaches tested, the evidence on each route, the burned and residual actual budget, the recommended next action, and the exact commit trigger that would justify leaving probe state.

A successful probe does not by itself support a larger burn or a committed rollout. C.24 carries the CheckpointReturn record and call-plan semantics for this probe loop; A.15 carries the design/run split and E.16 carries the budget partition plus guard and ledger enforcement. Low-human-overlap approaches remain sound only while they stay tied to the declared utility target, budget boundaries, and evidence basis explicitly.

Bridge to neighboring patterns. ProbeBudget belongs to C.11 while it means epistemic budget for further probing before choice. C.24 carries budgets once they are enactment, tool-call, or rollout budgets. If the question is still which option survives now, reroute to C.11; if it is now pool policy over several still-live candidate lines, reroute to C.19; if it is selector-facing publication of the selected result, reroute to G.5.

Explicit enactment result. A conformant C.24 pass should therefore leave either one enactment-facing CallPlan that states the current objective, the cited route descriptions or planned call order, the planned budget envelope, the stop or replan condition, and the next move, or one CheckpointReturn that states the current objective or task family, the burned and residual actual budget, the evidence basis, the commit trigger, and the recommended next action.

Unfinished-state rule. A C.24 result remains unfinished when it cannot say whether execution should continue now, pause at one checkpoint, or reroute, when it confuses route description with plan or plan with executed work, or when it does not state which budget is planned versus already burned and what event would stop or replan the current route.

Normative Laws (ATC-Laws).

• ATC-1 (Model-the-Call, not the App). A tool call is one Work instance that enacts a referenced MethodDescription promised by a Service; plans schedule intended calls and cite route descriptions but are neither the route descriptions themselves nor the calls. (A.15.)
• ATC-2 (Bitter-Lesson Preference). When two admissible choices are within delta (assurance) and alpha (budget), prefer the more general, scale-benefiting method whose slope vector Pareto-dominates under the declared E/E-LOG objectives; any override MUST record a BLP-waiver with expiry. (E.2; precedence governed by E.3.)
• ATC-3 (Budget & Harm Gates). Plans SHALL declare ceilings on compute, cost, wall-time, and risk; execution MUST abort or replan on breach. Actual burned or residual budget belongs in CheckpointReturn, CallGraph, or other work-side reporting, not inside the plan surface.
• ATC-4 (Explore-Share Discipline). Plans MUST declare explore_share; defaults inherit from E/E-LOG profiles. Informative defaults: 0 for safety-critical or deterministic tasks; approx 0.2-0.4 for ambiguous tasks with heterogeneous tool families. Promotion of illumination telemetry into dominance requires explicit policy.
• ATC-5 (Provenance & Replay). Every call MUST emit a CallGraph with: Service id, cited MethodDescription edition, inputs/outputs (redacted per privacy), CallPlan ref, EmitterPolicyRef, and budget deltas. (NQD/E/E provenance fields apply when used.)
• ATC-6 (Assurance-First Decisions). Selection MUST respect B.3: WLNK minima on F/R (weakest-link floors), CL penalties on integration, and no chimera scores across design/run. Publish <F,G,R> for the typed claim this plan is admissible under K,S.
• ATC-7 (Notation/Vendor Independence). Core pattern text MUST NOT encode vendor-specific tokens; bindings occur in Context via Bridges/Profiles. (Lexical guard-rails.)

#Planning under budget must consume the same declared doctrine

#Causal action-use spec for call plans

When a tool-call plan selects observation, intervention, counterfactual-rung evidence collection, counterfactual policy conditioning, or off-policy causal evaluation work, the CallPlan carries an optional causal action-use spec and cites C.28 for the causal-use authority.

Optional CallPlan.causalActionUseSpec?:

CallPlan.causalActionUseSpec? {
  causalUseQuestionRef?: U.CausalUseQuestion
  targetCausalityLadderRung: CausalityLadderRung
  causalUseClaimKind: CausalUseClaimKind
  naturalBehaviorPolicyRef?: NaturalBehaviorPolicyRef
  evaluationPolicyRef?: EvaluationPolicyRef
  causalEvidenceSupportBasis?: CausalEvidenceSupportBasis
  causalInterventionSpecRef?
  counterfactualConditioningRef?
  counterfactualSamplingRealizabilityProfileRef?
  causalUseEvidenceDesignRef?
  offPolicyCausalEvaluationProfileRef?
  causalUseSupportRecordRef?: CausalUseSupportRecordRef
  causalUseSupportVerdict?: CausalUseSupportVerdict
  supportedUse: CausalUseSupportStatement
  unsupportedUse: CausalUseUnsupportedStatement
}

The causal action-use tail may be omitted only when the call plan does not reach CausalUseActivation: it is not using the call sequence as causal support, not choosing between observation/intervention/counterfactual-policy regimes, and not publishing the result as causal evidence. If the plan says the call will prove, estimate, improve, prevent, or counterfactually establish an outcome, the support tail is present or the wording is downgraded.

What changes in practice: a call plan that probes, intervenes, samples, simulates, or evaluates a policy for a causal purpose must state CausalUseClaimKind and the causal regime of the planned action before execution evidence is treated as support for a causal-use claim.

What this does not authorize: C.24 does not estimate effects, prove identification, certify fairness, or turn simulation output into realized counterfactual-rung evidence; it governs admissible call planning and redirects causal-use support to C.28.

• Planning should reuse the declared source surface, decision lens, probe budget, and stopping posture rather than creating one planning-only choice semantics.
• Budgeted sequencing may mix exploitation and exploration, but the declared source surface and the declared reason for the next probe must stay recoverable.
• Use planning language such as probe next, hold as archive, reroute to G.5 for shortlist publication, or stop for now only when the relevant lens-side reason is stated directly.
• explore_share, backstop_confidence, probe budgets, and replan triggers are planning harmonization terms for that same declared choice doctrine.
• They may regulate sequence and stopping; they do not redefine Front, Archive, Shortlist, or SelectionSlot.
• If the next planned move is one public Shortlist or RankedShortlist, C.24 should name that as a reroute target to G.5, not emit the selector artifact itself.

#Policy profile and BLP precedence

ATC-Policy fields (conceptual). { backstop_confidence, explore_share, risk_bound, cost_ceiling, time_ceiling, tie_breakers, novelty_quota?, wild_bet_quota?, stop_conditions, BLP_delta_alpha, BLP_delta_delta } - realised by referencing an E/E-LOG EmitterPolicy and adding Bitter-Lesson-Preference clauses. Defaults inherit from C.19; any deviation is editioned.

BLP precedence. In conflicts with tactics that hard-code narrow scripts, the Bitter-Lesson Preference applies subject to E.3/E.5 precedence. Where scripts encode safety-critical gating or regulatory compliance, scripts prevail unless the governing context publishes the override rationale, expiry, measured hazard avoided, and planned re-evaluation window.

#Didactic quick card

Agentic Call Plan (public surface). Objective - Context(K) - RouteRefsInOrder[edition-pinned] - BudgetEnvelope{time/compute/cost/risk} - PolicyRef - Explore-share - Stop/Replan conditions - BLP tolerances - BLP waiver (if any) - Assurance<F,G,R|K,S> - Provenance ids

#Explicit enactment outputs and closure rule

A finished C.24 pass should publish one enactment result rather than one vague statement that the system now has a plan.

Two output shapes are lawful here:

• one enactment-facing CallPlan; or
• one bounded CheckpointReturn when probing is still the lawful next move inside enactment planning.

A CallPlan should state at least these fields:

• current objective;
• cited route descriptions or planned call order;
• active policy or planning posture;
• planned budget envelope or reserved budget;
• stop or replan condition;
• next move if the current plan is accepted now.

A CheckpointReturn should state at least these fields:

• current task family or objective;
• candidate routes tested so far;
• evidence on those routes;
• burned and residual actual budget;
• recommended next action;
• explicit commit trigger.

A compact result may therefore look like:

CallPlan(
  objective = answer_question_Q,
  policyRef = ee_policy_v1,
  routeRefsInOrder = [search_route_v3, retrieve_route_v1, synthesize_route_v2, code_check_route_v1],
  plannedBudgetEnvelope = {time<=60_minutes, compute<=x1, cost<=y1, risk<=r1},
  stopOrReplan = low_R_or_cost_ceiling,
  nextMove = enact_now
)

or:

CheckpointReturn(
  taskFamily = unfamiliar_lab_protocol,
  testedRoutes = [route_A, route_B],
  burnedBudget = 2_runs,
  residualBudget = 1_run,
  recommendedNextAction = probe_route_B_once_more,
  commitTrigger = route_B_clears_assurance_floor_L1
)

Close as one enactment-facing CallPlan when the choice posture is already fixed enough that execution order, gating, and replanning are now the governed question. Close as one CheckpointReturn when bounded scout/probe work is still lawful inside enactment planning. Reroute when the result has actually fallen back into local choice, pool policy, or selector-facing publication.

If the result still does not state what should execute now, what budget is planned or already burned, and what event stops or replans the route, it is still unfinished C.24 work.

#Worked closure slice

Two short contrasts keep the closure law practical.

Known route, execution should begin now. When the objective and route are already fixed enough, C.24 should close as one enactment-facing call plan:

CallPlan(
  objective = produce_patch_and_verify,
  routeRefsInOrder = [inspect_repo_route, edit_candidate_route, run_targeted_tests_route],
  plannedBudgetEnvelope = {time<=45_minutes, compute<=x2, cost<=y2, risk<=r2},
  stopOrReplan = targeted_tests_fail_twice,
  nextMove = enact_now
)

Unfamiliar route, one bounded scout pass still lawful. When the route is still uncertain inside enactment planning, C.24 should close as one CheckpointReturn:

CheckpointReturn(
  taskFamily = unfamiliar_ci_failure,
  testedRoutes = [log_trace_route, minimal_repro_route],
  burnedBudget = 1_probe_cycle,
  residualBudget = 2_probe_cycles,
  recommendedNextAction = run_minimal_repro_once_more,
  commitTrigger = repro_is_stable_and_assurance_floor_L1_holds
)

The practical distinction is simple: if route order and budgeted execution are already the governed question, emit one CallPlan; if bounded scout work is still the governed question inside planning, emit one CheckpointReturn.

1. Research-assistance system in agential role. Task: answer a novel technical question. Candidate tools: retrieval, structured web search, code runner, table or plot generator. Plan: cite route descriptions for search, retrieve, synthesize, and code_check; declare explore_share approx 0.4; replan on sentinel low_R. The lawful structure here is one declared budget envelope, one explicit route order, and one visible replan trigger.

2. Program-repair system in agential role. Task: propose a patch against a failing test suite. Candidate tools: repo introspection, static analyzer, unit runner. Plan: keep repo-introspection, patch-application, and targeted-test route descriptions distinct; use scout quota across patch families before committed rollout.

3. Lab-automation system in agential role. Task: adjust a wet-lab protocol under drift. Candidate tools: planner, pipetting controller, spectrometer, Bayesian optimizer. Plan: a bounded probe or pilot can inform the route, but committed rollout waits for the declared commit trigger and assurance floor.

#Bias-Annotation

Lexical firewall and notation independence apply; no vendor tokens; mixed-scale characteristics are never averaged; route descriptions remain distinct from U.WorkPlan, and both remain distinct from executed U.Work; a successful probe remains distinct from committed rollout until the commit trigger is satisfied.

#Conformance Checklist

1. CC-ATC-1 - Declared separation. ATC.CallRouteDescription is a MethodDescription; ATC.CallPlan is a U.WorkPlan that cites route descriptions; execution is Work; acceptance is via U.PromiseContent. No method-side route logic or actual burn is smuggled into the U.WorkPlan surface.
2. CC-ATC-2 - Budgets on record. time/compute/cost/risk ceilings exist ex ante; stop conditions listed.
3. CC-ATC-3 - E/E policy. EmitterPolicyRef (or equivalent) and explore_share are editioned and logged.
4. CC-ATC-4 - Assurance tuple. Publish the typed claim Plan admissible under K,S with <F,G,R> and CL penalties traceable in the CallGraph SCR. Design/run never merged.
5. CC-ATC-5 - BLP waiver discipline. Any heuristic override against a general method includes expiry and re-evaluation date.
6. CC-ATC-6 - Provenance minimum. Record {PromiseContentRef, CallPlanRef, MethodDesc.edition, EmitterPolicyRef, DescriptorMapRef? (if NQD), DistanceDefRef? (if NQD), TimeWindow, Seeds?, Dedup?}.
7. CC-ATC-7 - Notation independence. No vendor tokens in conceptual text; bindings via Bridges or Profiles only.
8. CC-ATC-8 - BLP tolerances declared. alpha/delta tolerances are present in ATC.Policy or referenced via the active E/E-LOG profile.
9. CC-ATC-9 - CheckpointReturn for bounded specialization. When one route still uses scout/probe discipline on a new task family, it SHALL publish one CheckpointReturn with candidate routes, evidence, burned/residual actual budget, next action, and commit trigger; a successful probe alone never counts as committed rollout.
10. CC-ATC-10 - Recoverable enactment closure. When C.24 returns one enactment-facing call plan or one CheckpointReturn, the CallPlan SHALL state current objective, route refs in order, planned budget envelope, stop or replan condition, and next move, while CheckpointReturn SHALL state burned/residual actual budget plus next action and commit trigger.
11. CC-ATC-11 - Neighboring-pattern reroutes. If the live question is still fixed-option choice, pool policy over several live lines, or selector-facing publication, C.24 SHALL reroute to C.11, C.19, or G.5 rather than restating those patterns.
12. CC-ATC-12 - Role discipline. User-facing prose and emitted artifacts SHALL speak about systems in agential roles or equivalent typed performers, not one generic agent head, when that generic head would blur the holder kind.
13. CC-ATC-13 - Causal action-use spec. If one CallPlan selects observation, intervention, counterfactual-rung evidence collection, counterfactual policy conditioning, or off-policy causal evaluation for a causal purpose, it SHALL carry CallPlan.causalActionUseSpec? with targetCausalityLadderRung, causalUseClaimKind: CausalUseClaimKind, supported use, unsupported use, and a C.28 causal-use support reference rather than letting call-planning vocabulary certify the causal claim.

#Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

• Treating route description as plan. Avoid by keeping callable logic in ATC.CallRouteDescription and keeping ATC.CallPlan as one U.WorkPlan that cites it.
• Treating planning as execution. Avoid by publishing actual burn only through CheckpointReturn, Work, and CallGraph, not inside the plan surface.
• Burning enactment budget while the live question is still upstream choice or pool policy. Avoid by rerouting unresolved fixed-option choice to C.11 and unresolved live-pool governance to C.19 before building one call plan.
• Counting a successful probe as committed rollout. Avoid by publishing one CheckpointReturn with a visible commit trigger instead of smuggling rollout through a positive scout result.
• Hiding stop conditions or replan triggers. Avoid by making them part of the public plan surface rather than one private implementer intuition.

#Consequences

• tool use under systems in agential roles becomes inspectable as one lawful plan, not one opaque sequence of calls
• downstream work receives one explicit enactment surface with objective, route refs, budget envelope, stop conditions, and next move
• the cost is stronger discipline around route-description versus plan versus work separation, explicit budgets, and visible policy posture before execution begins

#Rationale

C.24 exists because tool-use systems fail in a distinctive way: they can look adaptive while actually hiding route choice, budget burn, stop conditions, and replan logic inside one opaque execution chain. A separate planning calculus is therefore necessary so that tool use remains auditable, replayable, and governable before the first irreversible call is made.

• Contemporary tool-use systems in agential roles work best when planning, feedback, and replanning stay explicit rather than collapsing into one brittle script. The practical implication is to publish one U.WorkPlan that cites route descriptions and carries stop or replan triggers before execution.
• Post-2015 search, optimization, and agentic systems also show that bounded probing is useful but dangerous when it silently becomes commitment. The safeguard here is the explicit CheckpointReturn plus visible commit trigger and one explicit split between planned budget envelope and burned actual budget.
• Scaling-first practice favors general, learnable methods over fragile hand-tuned tactics when assurance and cost remain comparable. The practical implication is not blind optimism but disciplined BLP: when a narrow heuristic wins, record the waiver, expiry, and re-evaluation window.

#Relations

C.27 temporal-claim relation.

• C.27 may flag: a tool-use plan claiming that tool use changes debugging, learning, search, repair, rollout, narrowing, uncertainty reduction, stabilization, or stop/replan rate.

• This pattern keeps: call planning, tool-use sequence, budget, stop/replan, and work trace.

• Unsupported use: tool-call count, more context, or faster narrowing is effort/input evidence at most; it is not task-success, reasoning-quality, evidence-quality, repair-success, cost, or validity-window evidence by itself.

• Exit: a speed-up claim names task outcome, evaluation harness, repair-success basis when claimed, cost/budget posture, validity window, stop/replan condition, and unsupported stronger benchmark use; C.24 remains the tool-use pattern.

Builds on: A.15 Role-Method-Work alignment (planning vs execution vs service), B.3 Trust & Assurance (F-G-R/CL), C.5 Resrc-CAL, C.18 NQD-CAL (candidate generation and declared set surfaces), and C.19 E/E-LOG (policies). Coordinates with C.28 when a call plan is used to observe, intervene, collect counterfactual-rung evidence, condition a counterfactual policy, or evaluate a policy for causal-use support. Constrains: any U.PromiseContent used as a tool MUST expose acceptance conditions and observation hooks sufficient for B.3 reporting. Enables: human-facing Working-Model surfaces with policy and assurance disclosures while keeping design/run separated.

#C.24:End