ᚲ.com

Comparison matrix

Scheduler simulation vs Scheduler runtime

One-sentence distinction

Scheduler simulation and Scheduler runtime answer different evidentiary, governance, release, or operational questions and must remain separate.

Stable record
K01-COMP-094
Claim status
PROJECT DOCTRINE
Last reviewed
Research cutoff
Source type
COMPARISON
Currentness
Current for release 2.1.0; external sources require periodic revalidation.
Correction state
No unresolved public correction recorded for this release.
Machine record
Static JSON record

Side-by-side matrix

Scheduler simulation and Scheduler runtime are related but not interchangeable
DimensionScheduler simulationScheduler runtime
Primary questionWhat evidence establishes the first property for a named purpose?What separate evidence or authority establishes the second property?
EvidencePurpose-specific technical, factual, or institutional records.Independent records appropriate to the second category.
AuthorityMay be descriptive or technical and may not require legal authority.May require a competent legal, constitutional, organizational, or operational decision-maker.
CurrentnessCan be current, stale, disputed, unknown, or unavailable.Must be assessed separately; the first status does not transfer.
Failure conditionEvidence may be authentic but incomplete or unsuitable.Authority may exist but rely on wrong or stale facts.

Why the distinction matters

Scheduler simulation and Scheduler runtime answer different evidentiary, governance, release, or operational questions and must remain separate. Systems and institutions fail when one side is used as a shortcut for the other. The distinction determines what evidence is collected, who may decide, what can be appealed, and which failure modes must be controlled.

Common failure caused by conflation

Conflation can manufacture readiness, erase uncertainty, bypass accountable review, or expose protected information.

This error can create false confidence, unauthorized status, misattributed liability, silent loss of correction rights, or an operational claim based only on descriptive material.

Implementation consequences

  • Use different fields, identifiers, and claim-status records for each side.
  • Require separate evidence and currentness checks.
  • Do not let a user-interface label silently merge the categories.
  • Preserve correction and supersession history for both.
  • Route decisions to the ecosystem authority that owns the relevant function.

Legal admissibility and weight depend on jurisdiction, procedure, foundation and purpose; technical validity is not a universal admissibility rule.

Technical evidence can inform a legal decision but cannot replace jurisdiction, legal basis, procedural authority, due process, or remedy. Conversely, a lawful decision does not make the underlying technical record accurate if the evidence is stale or defective.

Examples

  1. A valid signature demonstrates control over a key and payload integrity; it does not establish the truth of every signed statement.
  2. A registry can record a citizenship decision; the registry operator does not thereby acquire constitutional power to create citizenship.
  3. A static release can show that software exists; it does not prove the service is currently operating.

Sources

  • PROV-O: The PROV Ontology — W3C; W3C Recommendation 30 April 2013; W3C Recommendation. Exact claim-support entries: 2. Revalidated 2026-08-14T22:04:09Z.
  • RFC 3161: Time-Stamp Protocol — IETF; RFC 3161 with RFC 5816 update; Proposed Standard. Exact claim-support entries: 2. Revalidated 2026-08-14T22:04:09Z.
  • C2PA Technical Specification v2.4 — Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity; C2PA Technical Specification 2.4; Published technical specification. Exact claim-support entries: 2. Revalidated 2026-08-14T22:04:09Z.
  • in-toto Attestation Framework — in-toto project; Current project framework; Open standard; CNCF graduated project. Exact claim-support entries: 1. Revalidated 2026-08-14T22:04:09Z.

Comparison claim record

Each proposition has a stable ID, status, scope, owning route, evidence relationship, currentness qualification, correction state, and synchronized JSON record. Record completeness does not make the proposition true.

Scheduler simulation versus Scheduler runtime

Scheduler simulation and Scheduler runtime answer different evidentiary, governance, release, or operational questions and must remain separate.

Claim ID
CLM-K07-CMP-049
Status
PROJECT DOCTRINE
Scope
K07 canonical distinction between Scheduler simulation and Scheduler runtime.
Machine record
JSON

Qualification: The distinction prevents inventory, signature, simulation, pattern, or procurement structure from becoming an unsupported authority, readiness, certification, deployment, or operation claim.

Support relationship