AI Safety for Telecommunications Session, Resource, Usage, and Charging State Consistency

Internet-Draft	Telecom Session Operational Consistency	October 2026
Das	Expires 3 May 2027	[Page]

Abstract

Part 04 of 15 describes Group C mechanisms for evidence-qualified reconstruction of subscriber trust, telecommunications session identity, home and visited operator state, programmable quality-of-service operation, resource reservation and installation, user-plane metering, charging, accounting, and deferred settlement. It distinguishes an accepted API request from an installed network resource, a subscriber trust change from session release, a usage report from a financial obligation, and a local release from complete session closure. It includes C-CW-01, six specialist embodiments, formal mathematics, flowcharts, and source-linked technical checkpoints. Part 01 supplies common evidence and consistency semantics, while Parts 02, 03, 07, 11, 12, 14, and 15 cover complementary radio observations, incident repair, asynchronous processing, continuity, commerce, and protected operation boundaries. Positive observation consistency does not itself authorize consequential network actuation.¶

The technical gap arises when individually valid subscriber, roaming, service, metering and charging records cannot be shown to apply to the same operation, generation, time and verified outcome. This document specifies a source-qualified lifecycle graph with typed non-equivalent states, scoped three-valued evidence decisions, late-record correction, separate authority and effect-observation boundaries, practical implementation profiles, and failure/edge cases. Nine source-derived RFCXML diagrams are explained in the body. A standard-library Python reference and 87 synthetic tests illustrate selected in-memory algorithms; measured evaluator timings are not network latency, not peer reviewed and not field validation. Part 01 supplies shared evidence semantics; Parts 02, 03, 05, 07, 11, 12, 14 and 15 address complementary inputs, failures and consequential effects.¶

5. Group C Unabridged Technical Specification: C-CW-01 and Embodiments 1.C through 6.C

The following content follows the source sequence for Group C without merging its six embodiments. Formatting-only normalization converts Markdown into RFCXML paragraphs and subsections; source designations remain visible.¶

5.1. INVENTION GROUP C - PROGRAMMABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SESSION LIFECYCLE AND CROSS-OPERATOR OPERATIONAL-STATE CONSISTENCY

5.2. COMMON WORKFLOW C-CW-01

Technical Title: Systems and Methods for Maintaining Session-Lifecycle Correspondence¶

Across Versioned Subscriber State, Operator Transitions, Programmable Service Conditions, Network Resource Effects, and Accounting Records.¶

Common Workflow Identifier: C-CW-01.¶

Common Algorithm Identifier: C-ALG-01.¶

Invention Group: C - Programmable Telecom Session Lifecycle.¶

Workflow Type: Cross-domain operational-state reconstruction, lifecycle-transition¶

evaluation, and session-outcome reconciliation.¶

5.3. 7.C.1. General Technical Subject

This technical profile describes a telecommunications session-lifecycle processing arrangement in which a logical communication or connectivity session is associated with multiple time-dependent network, subscriber, service, operator, resource, and accounting states.¶

The arrangement determines whether those states correspond to the same applicable session lifecycle and whether a proposed or observed lifecycle transition is supported by the available operational evidence.¶

A telecommunications session may be established under one subscriber profile, access configuration, network operator, service condition, or charging context.¶

During the lifetime of the session, one or more of those governing conditions may change.¶

For example:¶

| x | the device or subscription association may change; | |---|---| | x | a subscriber profile may be updated; | | x | the serving operator may change during roaming; | | x | the applicable service profile may be modified; | | x | an application-facing session may be extended; | | x | a network resource allocation may be reduced or released; | | x | an API quota may be consumed concurrently; |¶

| x | a subscriber may withdraw consent for a particular processing purpose; | |---|---| | x | a charging system may receive delayed usage reports; or | | x | a network operator may become temporarily unreachable. |¶

A conventional logical session identifier may remain unchanged across some of these transitions.¶

However, persistence of the identifier does not necessarily establish that every earlier subscriber, resource, charging, or operator-state assumption remains applicable.¶

The present group addresses the technical correspondence among these changing states.¶

In an illustrative deployment, a session-management function, programmable service component, network resource manager, and charging function may each maintain a representation of one or more aspects of an active session.¶

These representations may have different identifiers, update times, persistence semantics, and operational responsibilities.¶

The disclosed procedure associates them through supported correspondence information and evaluates the effects of relevant changes.¶

The system may determine that a session can continue under an updated service state, requires a supported modification, has entered a restricted or unresolved lifecycle condition, is being transferred between operator contexts, or has terminated with accounting and resource cleanup still outstanding.¶

The procedure does not assume that all related components participate in one global atomic transaction.¶

It does not assume that a session-control acknowledgement proves corresponding user-plane behavior.¶

It does not assume that service termination necessarily coincides with final charging settlement.¶

It does not assume that a state-change notification from one operator automatically establishes the resulting state in another operator.¶

The arrangement may operate in mobile networks, fixed-mobile systems, network-slice services, programmable quality-of-service sessions, IP multimedia services, private telecommunications networks, hybrid satellite-terrestrial networks, or other communication environments in which a session persists across changes in operational conditions.¶

The specific standards and session representations used are non-limiting.¶

5.4. 7.C.2. Relationship to the Other Invention Groups

5.5. 7.C.2.1. Boundary with Group A

Invention Group A addresses distributed radio observations and the consistency of control decisions derived from heterogeneous network measurements.¶

Group C is not directed primarily to radio measurement ordering, beam state, radio-resource assignment, or radio controller failover.¶

A radio-side observation may provide evidence relevant to a session, but the present group concerns whether a telecommunications session's governing state, resource effects, and lifecycle records correspond to one another.¶

For example, a device mobility event may be observed by radio or mobility functions.¶

Group C evaluates the resulting session-lifecycle implications without repeating Group A's measurement reconstruction algorithm.¶

5.6. 7.C.2.2. Boundary with Group B

Invention Group B addresses multiagent network incident identification, diagnosis, intervention, recovery, and verification.¶

Group C does not require that an incident has occurred.¶

A subscriber-profile update, roaming transition, service expiry, or consent change may be part of normal session operation.¶

The system may process those conditions even when the network is functioning correctly.¶

If a change produces a network incident, Group B may separately analyze the fault.¶

5.7. 7.C.2.3. Boundary with Earlier Execution-Finality Disclosures

The cross-domain foundation and companion profiles are relevant only where their identity, trust-boundary, current-state, and observable-effect contracts apply. The Group C evidence qualification by itself neither authorizes a new network effect nor establishes financial settlement.¶

The present group does not claim generic session authorization, a network exposure gateway, application-programming-interface access control, or the mere checking of consent and subscription permissions as newly invented.¶

Its distinct subject is the correspondence of multiple operational representations of an¶

evolving session and the reconstruction of which lifecycle states and effects are actually established.¶

Where authority or permission is required, the system may reference the separately applicable existing mechanisms.¶

A lifecycle result is not itself a newly defined permission to cause network effects.¶

5.8. 7.C.3. Particular Technical Problem Space

7.C.3.1. Logical Session Continuity Does Not Establish Governing-State Continuity¶

An active communication session may retain its logical identifier while the subscriber profile, serving operator, QoS conditions, or available resources change.¶

A session-management record may indicate that the session exists.¶

That record alone does not prove that every associated policy or operational assumption remains current.¶

The processor must associate the session with the relevant versions or effective-state intervals of its governing conditions.¶

5.9. 7.C.3.2. Different Functions May Observe the Same Transition at Different Times

A policy function may receive a subscription update before a session-management component processes it.¶

A user-plane function may continue enforcing its previous forwarding or QoS rules while the control plane prepares a modification.¶

A charging function may receive associated usage information later.¶

The resulting state cannot be represented reliably as one universal instantaneous transition without additional guarantees.¶

5.10. 7.C.3.3. A Requested Modification Is Not an Applied Resource Change

A programmable session may request a new QoS profile.¶

An API response may indicate that the request was accepted.¶

The corresponding network resources may be pending, partially established, unavailable, or operating under an alternative policy.¶

The processor distinguishes the requested service state from the state actually supported by network-resource evidence.¶

7.C.3.4. Subscriber-State Changes May Have Different Effects on Different Services¶

A subscription update may modify one entitlement while leaving another unaffected.¶

A device-association or trust-related event may have a different technical meaning from a service-profile expiry.¶

The system shall not assume that every subscriber-state change requires termination of every session.¶

It determines the applicable service dependencies and transition rules.¶

A SIM or device-association event may be reported by a separate fraud, subscriber, or deviceinformation system.¶

Such an event may describe a subscriber-account association change, a physical or embedded SIM event, or another specifically defined condition.¶

It does not automatically establish that a particular active data session was terminated or transferred.¶

The processor needs supported subscriber-session correspondence and event semantics.¶

5.12. 7.C.3.6. Roaming May Change the Applicable Operational Context

A device may move from one serving network context to another.¶

The home and visited operators may maintain distinct records of session or service state.¶

Certain deployment architectures may preserve a home-routed service path, while others may use local breakout or different session arrangements.¶

The processor must interpret the actual roaming and session architecture.¶

It shall not assume that every roaming event transfers the same session-control responsibilities or creates a new session identifier.¶

5.13. 7.C.3.7. Operator Handoffs May Be Partially Visible

A home operator may know a subscriber's home-side state.¶

A visited operator may observe access and serving-network conditions.¶

An application provider may observe only a programmable API-session reference.¶

The system may need to reconcile these representations without having full internal visibility into every operator.¶

It may retain abstract interoperator relationships when internal detail is unavailable.¶

5.14. 7.C.3.8. Concurrent API Requests May Affect Shared Resource or Usage State

Two API consumers may attempt to extend or modify services affecting the same underlying subscriber, operator, or network allocation.¶

The operations may have independent request identifiers but overlap in their operational effects.¶

The present group considers how the resulting session and usage states are reconstructed.¶

It does not introduce a new generic shared-quota enforcement primitive.¶

5.15. 7.C.3.9. Quota Reservation and Actual Consumption May Differ

An application may reserve a quantity of service capacity or a usage budget.¶

The network may consume a smaller or larger amount under the applicable accounting model.¶

Some reservations may expire or be released.¶

A delayed usage report may arrive after a reservation or session has ended.¶

The processor distinguishes reserved, reported, accounted, and released quantities according to their actual meanings.¶

5.16. 7.C.3.10. Service Effects and Charging Records May Have Different Timing

A session may cease carrying traffic before final charging information becomes available.¶

A charging record may arrive after the network resource has been released.¶

Conversely, an accounting report may cover usage that occurred while a session was active but be transmitted after the session was terminated.¶

The processor must interpret event time and report time separately.¶

5.17. 7.C.3.11. Usage Reports May Be Duplicated or Incomplete

A charging or usage source may retransmit a record following a communication interruption.¶

Another report may contain an aggregate or cumulative value rather than an independent usage increment.¶

Adding every received value may overstate consumption.¶

The processor must evaluate source identity, measurement interval, counter semantics, and accounting-record correspondence.¶

A subscriber or authorized party may change the applicable consent state.¶

The new consent state may concern particular processing purposes or data uses.¶

It does not automatically mean that every connectivity service or all network-layer traffic must terminate.¶

The system determines which session functions depend upon the changed consent condition and which observed effects remain outstanding.¶

Any related enforcement remains subject to applicable law, policy, and separate authority controls.¶

5.19. 7.C.3.13. A Session May Have Multiple Simultaneous Lifecycle Dimensions

A logical session may be:¶

| x | present in a session database; | |---|---| | x | pending network modification; | | x | active in a user-plane function; | | x | limited by a changed service condition; | | x | subject to a pending charging update; and | | x | awaiting final resource release. |¶

A single ACTIVE or CLOSED flag cannot always capture these independent dimensions.¶

The processor represents the relevant components separately.¶

5.20. 7.C.3.14. Session Termination May Not Complete Cleanup

A logical session may be marked terminated while:¶

| x | user-plane rules remain temporarily installed; | |---|---| | x | a programmable QoS resource remains allocated; | | x | usage reports remain outstanding; | | x | an interoperator settlement reference remains open; or | | x | a remote operator's cleanup result is unknown. |¶

The system must distinguish logical termination from completion of each applicable cleanup obligation.¶

5.21. 7.C.3.15. Remote Failure May Conceal Applied Changes

A session-management request may succeed at a remote function before the response is lost.¶

Blindly repeating a non-idempotent modification can create unintended effects.¶

The processor interprets the receiver's native operation and retry semantics.¶

A local timeout does not prove remote nonapplication.¶

5.22. 7.C.3.16. Cross-Operator State Versions May Be Incomparable

An operator may use a monotonically increasing version inside one database.¶

Another operator may use a different revision namespace.¶

A larger numerical version from one operator does not necessarily describe a later state than a smaller version from another.¶

The processor maintains version scope and relies on supported cross-domain transition evidence.¶

5.23. 7.C.3.17. Resource Reallocation May Leave Accounting State Unchanged

A network may modify the user-plane path while preserving the logical session and charging continuity.¶

A system that assumes every resource-instance change creates a new billable session may produce duplicate accounting.¶

The processor distinguishes service continuity from the identities of particular resource allocations.¶

5.24. 7.C.3.18. Session Continuity May Be Preserved Despite a Change in Serving Infrastructure

A session may move to a new function instance or path.¶

The original function may become unavailable.¶

The logical session may nevertheless continue under an applicable continuity mechanism.¶

The system must not automatically equate infrastructure replacement with session termination.¶

5.25. 7.C.3.19. A Session May Terminate During an Interoperator Failure

An operator may release its local session state while the remote operator is unreachable.¶

The remote state may remain unresolved.¶

The processor must not assert that the remote resource was released solely because the local operator completed its own procedure.¶

5.26. 7.C.3.20. Final Accounting May Require More Evidence Than Final Resource Release

A network may establish that resources were released.¶

However, final usage reconciliation may still require a report covering the last usage interval.¶

The lifecycle result may therefore be resource-released/accounting-pending.¶

The system need not keep a network resource allocated solely because accounting is incomplete.¶

5.27. 7.C.3.21. External APIs May Expose a Simplified Session View

A programmable network API may expose one service-session state to an application.¶

Its internal realization may involve multiple network elements.¶

The API-facing state shall be interpreted according to its documented meaning, not as evidence that every internal resource has reached the same state.¶

5.28. 7.C.3.22. Session Lifecycle Decisions Must Be Reconstructible

When a session is modified, continued, limited, or ended, the system should retain the applicable evidence and version relationships needed to explain the observed transition.¶

The required reconstruction record may include subscriber-state, operator, resource, and accounting references.¶

It need not reproduce a protected execution-finality ledger.¶

5.29. 7.C.4. Common Technical Processing Relationship

The common workflow maintains a correspondence among six principal dimensions.¶

First - Logical session identity. The processor determines which session or session¶

instance is under examination, including its applicable namespace and lifecycle generation.¶

Second - Governing subscriber and service state. The processor identifies the relevant¶

versioned conditions upon which the session's service behavior depends.¶

Third - Operator and mobility context. The processor determines which operator and¶

network functions are relevant to the session at the applicable stage of its lifecycle.¶

Fourth - Network-resource state. The processor determines the requested, accepted,¶

configured, and observed effects on the resources supporting the session.¶

Fifth - Usage and accounting state. The processor associates measured usage and¶

charging records with the corresponding session periods and resource effects.¶

Sixth - Lifecycle transition and settlement. The processor determines whether session¶

continuation, modification, transfer, restriction, release, or final settlement is established under the applicable source and operational guarantees.¶

The procedure may produce an unresolved result in one dimension while another dimension is conclusively established.¶

For example, the network resource may be released while a final usage report remains unavailable.¶

The processor does not merge these facts into an unsupported universal complete state.¶

5.30. 7.C.5. Representative System Components

5.31. 7.C.5.1. Session Identity Resolver

The resolver associates logical session references with their applicable service, subscriber, network function, and resource-instance contexts.¶

It distinguishes logical session continuity from the generation of an individual control or user-plane resource.¶

5.32. 7.C.5.2. Subscriber-State Context Interface

This interface obtains the applicable subscriber and service information from supported sources.¶

It may include relevant subscription, device association, service profile, or consent-state references.¶

It does not establish subscriber identity merely from an unverified external claim.¶

5.33. 7.C.5.3. Session State Repository

The repository maintains the session's known lifecycle and state relationships.¶

It may contain versioned snapshots, transition records, or both.¶

The repository records unresolved source information rather than assuming complete global state.¶

5.34. 7.C.5.4. Operator Context Resolver

This component identifies the relevant home, visited, serving, or other applicable operator roles.¶

It records their scope and correspondence without assuming that every operator exposes the same session information.¶

5.35. 7.C.5.5. Service Condition Evaluator

The evaluator determines the technical conditions relevant to the active session.¶

It may identify profile, QoS, service-period, resource, or subscriber-state dependencies.¶

It is separate from any protected authorization check that governs whether a corresponding consequential operation may be performed.¶

5.36. 7.C.5.6. Network Resource Correspondence Interface

The interface obtains network resource state associated with the session.¶

It may include user-plane rules, QoS allocations, virtual resources, service endpoints, or other applicable supporting infrastructure.¶

5.37. 7.C.5.7. Lifecycle Transition Evaluator

The evaluator determines which transition options are compatible with the available state and the supported network procedures.¶

It may identify continued operation, modification, transfer, restriction, release, or unresolved state.¶

5.38. 7.C.5.8. Asynchronous Operation State Tracker

The tracker maintains known transmission, acceptance, application, and unknown outcomes of session-lifecycle operations.¶

It interprets acknowledgements under the relevant receiving-interface contract.¶

5.39. 7.C.5.9. Cross-Operator Correspondence Service

The service relates session and resource information exposed by participating operators.¶

It may operate using complete resource mappings or abstract boundary-level information.¶

5.40. 7.C.5.10. Usage and Accounting Reconciler

The reconciler associates usage reports, charging references, and reserved or released quantities with the relevant session intervals.¶

It distinguishes record delivery from measurement occurrence and final settlement.¶

5.41. 7.C.5.11. Resource Release Reconciler

This component identifies which resources are established as released and which remain active or unresolved.¶

It does not assume that session deletion in one function proves resource deletion in every supporting function.¶

5.42. 7.C.5.12. Session Continuity and Recovery Interface

The interface obtains relevant state when a controller, operator-facing service, or network function fails or is replaced.¶

It distinguishes resumption of an existing logical session from establishment of a new session.¶

5.43. 7.C.5.13. Lifecycle Evidence Repository

The repository maintains source-qualified session events, resource effects, operator context, accounting records, and evaluation revisions.¶

It supports later reconstruction and examination of incomplete transitions.¶

5.44. 7.C.5.14. Optional Existing Protected Enforcement Interface

Where the deployment includes a separate protected effectuation system, the session-lifecycle processor may provide its technical findings to that system.¶

The existing enforcement system independently determines whether consequential changes may occur.¶

5.45. 7.C.6. Necessary Local Definitions

The later compact Master Definitions section remains the primary location for genuinely nonstandard terminology.¶

The following descriptions are provided only to make the present group implementable.¶

5.46. 7.C.6.1. Session-Lifecycle Correspondence

A session-lifecycle correspondence is the technically established relationship between one logical session and the subscriber, operator, resource, service, and accounting states relevant to a particular phase of its operation.¶

It does not require all component states to change simultaneously.¶

5.47. 7.C.6.2. Governing-Condition Revision

A governing-condition revision identifies an applicable change to a subscriber, service, operator, or other condition relevant to the session's technical operation.¶

It includes sufficient source and context information to determine its applicability.¶

5.48. 7.C.6.3. Session-State Reconstruction

Session-state reconstruction determines which lifecycle conditions and effects are supported by available source and operational evidence.¶

Where information is incomplete, the reconstruction may represent several possible states.¶

5.49. 7.C.6.4. Lifecycle Transition Correspondence

Lifecycle transition correspondence evaluates whether the observed or proposed session transition is compatible with the applicable preceding state, governing conditions, and required resulting effects.¶

5.50. 7.C.6.5. Session Resource Correspondence

Session resource correspondence associates a logical session with the network resources and resource generations that implement its service.¶

It does not imply that a session has exactly one physical or logical supporting resource.¶

5.51. 7.C.6.6. Session Accounting Correspondence

Session accounting correspondence associates usage, reservation, charging, and settlement records with the relevant session identity, interval, and measurement semantics.¶

5.52. 7.C.6.7. Settlement Completeness

Settlement completeness describes whether all accounting and resource-state closure conditions required by the selected lifecycle model are established.¶

It does not mean that an external commercial or financial dispute has been conclusively resolved.¶

5.53. 7.C.7. Representative Data Structures

5.54. 7.C.7.1. Logical Session Record

TelecomSession:¶

logical\_session\_id session\_namespace session\_generation subscriber\_reference service\_reference device\_or\_subscription\_context home\_operator\_reference serving\_operator\_reference active\_network\_function\_references applicable\_service\_profile relevant\_subscription\_revision policy\_context\_reference network\_resource\_references usage\_and\_charging\_references current\_lifecycle\_assessment unresolved\_conditions¶

The logical session identifier is not assumed globally unique without its namespace.¶

5.55. 7.C.7.2. Session Governing-Condition Record

SessionGoverningCondition:¶

condition\_id source\_system source\_generation condition\_type affected\_subscriber\_or\_service applicable\_session\_scope source\_revision effective\_time\_or\_state\_context previous\_condition\_reference current\_condition\_reference measurement\_or\_event\_semantics evidence\_reference applicability\_status¶

5.56. 7.C.7.3. Operator Context Record

OperatorSessionContext:¶

operator\_context\_id operator\_role operator\_namespace local\_session\_reference remote\_session\_correspondence serving\_resource\_references routing\_or\_breakout\_model applicable\_state\_interval exposed\_status internal\_visibility\_limitations source\_evidence\_references¶

5.57. 7.C.7.4. Session Resource State

SessionResourceState:¶

resource\_reference resource\_generation associated\_logical\_session resource\_type desired\_or\_requested\_state receiver\_accepted\_state configured\_state observed\_operational\_state usage\_reporting\_state release\_status state\_source applicable\_interval unresolved\_conditions¶

5.58. 7.C.7.5. Session Lifecycle Operation

SessionLifecycleOperation:¶

operation\_reference logical\_session\_reference operation\_type initiating\_source receiving\_function requested\_change applicable\_preconditions original\_request\_parameters receiver\_contract submission\_evidence acceptance\_evidence application\_evidence observed\_resource\_effects retry\_or\_status\_reference outcome\_status¶

5.59. 7.C.7.6. Usage and Accounting Record

SessionAccountingRecord:¶

accounting\_record\_id issuing\_function source\_generation logical\_session\_correspondence local\_accounting\_session\_reference resource\_or\_flow\_reference usage\_measurement\_type measurement\_interval counter\_or\_increment\_semantics measured\_quantity reservation\_reference charging\_reference aggregation\_or\_derivation\_reference report\_delivery\_context settlement\_status uncertainty\_or\_gap\_information¶

5.60. 7.C.7.7. Lifecycle Transition Assessment

LifecycleTransitionAssessment:¶

assessment\_id logical\_session\_reference original\_state\_reference governing\_condition\_change operator\_context relevant\_resources relevant\_accounting\_periods transition\_candidates required\_state\_predicates outstanding\_operations¶

known\_resulting\_effects unknown\_resulting\_effects transition\_verdict assessment\_revision¶

5.61. 7.C.7.8. Session Closure Record

SessionClosure:¶

logical\_session\_reference closure\_initiation\_reference logical\_termination\_status user\_plane\_release\_status service\_resource\_release\_status outstanding\_usage\_reports accounting\_reconciliation\_status interoperator\_status pending\_remote\_operations unresolved\_state\_obligations closure\_assessment closure\_revision¶

The record can represent resource release as complete while final accounting remains pending.¶

5.62. 7.C.8. Common Workflow C-CW-01 - Detailed Operational Procedure

The following 38 steps describe the common process applicable across the six Group C embodiments.¶

Each embodiment introduces its own specific variation and supporting implementation mechanisms.¶

5.63. C-CW-01.01 - Receive or Identify the Session Establishment Context

The processor obtains a session establishment event, existing session reference, or lifecycle reconstruction request.¶

It identifies the relevant service and network context.¶

It does not independently assert that session authorization has been granted merely because an establishment request exists.¶

Output: Candidate session context.¶

5.64. C-CW-01.02 - Resolve Logical Session Identity

The processor determines the applicable session identifier, namespace, and generation.¶

It distinguishes the logical session from particular network resource or control-function instances.¶

Output: Session identity context.¶

5.65. C-CW-01.03 - Associate Subscriber or Service Context

The processor obtains the relevant subscriber and service references from supported sources.¶

It identifies which information is applicable to the session and which is not.¶

Output: Subscriber-service correspondence.¶

5.66. C-CW-01.04 - Establish the Initial Governing-Condition State

The system identifies the relevant subscription, service-profile, operator, and other applicable condition revisions.¶

It records their effective-state semantics.¶

Output: Initial governing-condition context.¶

5.67. C-CW-01.05 - Establish Operator Responsibilities

The processor identifies the applicable home, serving, visited, or other operator roles under the session architecture.¶

It does not assume that every session uses the same roaming or local-breakout arrangement.¶

Output: Operator context.¶

5.68. C-CW-01.06 - Associate Supporting Network Resources

The system associates the session with its available network-resource references.¶

These may include user-plane rules, QoS resources, service instances, or other technical components.¶

Output: Session resource correspondence.¶

5.69. C-CW-01.07 - Identify Accounting and Usage Context

The processor obtains the relevant accounting or usage-session references, where applicable.¶

It records the measurement semantics and accounting interval relationships.¶

Output: Accounting context.¶

5.70. C-CW-01.08 - Construct Initial Session State

The processor assembles the supported logical, subscriber, operator, resource, and accounting dimensions.¶

Unresolved components remain explicitly represented.¶

Output: Initial reconstructed session state.¶

5.71. C-CW-01.09 - Observe a Governing-Condition Change

The system obtains a relevant session, subscriber, operator, service, consent, resource, or accounting event.¶

The source and applicable meaning are retained.¶

Output: Candidate lifecycle event.¶

5.72. C-CW-01.10 - Resolve Event Identity and Source Generation

The processor determines whether the event represents a new occurrence, duplicate delivery, correction, or replay.¶

It applies the source's actual identity and generation semantics.¶

Output: Source-qualified event.¶

5.73. C-CW-01.11 - Determine Event-Time Applicability

The system identifies the event's applicable effective interval or ordering relationship.¶

It distinguishes source event time from collector arrival time.¶

Output: Temporal context.¶

5.74. C-CW-01.12 - Determine the Affected Session Scope

The processor identifies which active or historical sessions may be affected.¶

A subscriber-wide event does not automatically mean every service session has the same transition requirement.¶

Output: Affected session set.¶

5.75. C-CW-01.13 - Evaluate Governing-State Correspondence

The processor determines whether the new condition replaces, supplements, or is otherwise related to the session's previous applicable condition.¶

It uses the source-specific version and state semantics.¶

Output: Condition-revision relationship.¶

5.76. C-CW-01.14 - Identify Current Operator and Resource State

The processor obtains available operator and network-resource information relevant to the change.¶

It records discrepancies between logical and observed states.¶

Output: Current state assessment.¶

5.77. C-CW-01.15 - Identify Outstanding Session Operations

The system identifies known operations that are pending, accepted, partially applied, or unresolved.¶

These may include QoS modifications, resource releases, or session transfers.¶

Output: Outstanding operation context.¶

5.78. C-CW-01.16 - Construct Candidate Lifecycle Transitions

The processor identifies supported transition possibilities, including:¶

| x | continued session operation; | |---|---| | x | session modification; | | x | service restriction; | | x | operator-context update; | | x | resource reassignment; | | x | logical session replacement; | | x | session release; or | | x | unresolved transition. |¶

Output: Candidate transition set.¶

5.79. C-CW-01.17 - Evaluate Session Identity Continuity

The processor determines whether the transition preserves the logical session identity or requires a new session instance under the applicable system semantics.¶

It does not equate change of one user-plane resource with logical session replacement.¶

Output: Session identity-continuity result.¶

5.80. C-CW-01.18 - Evaluate Subscriber and Service-State Applicability

The system checks the technical service conditions affected by the event.¶

It determines which session functions or resources depend upon those conditions.¶

Output: Service-state compatibility.¶

5.81. C-CW-01.19 - Evaluate Operator-Context Correspondence

Where the change involves a serving network or operator role, the processor identifies the required cross-operator references and transition conditions.¶

It preserves unresolved boundary information where necessary.¶

Output: Operator transition correspondence.¶

5.82. C-CW-01.20 - Evaluate Resource Modification Requirements

The system identifies which resources must be changed, preserved, reallocated, or released to satisfy the selected transition.¶

It distinguishes an intended modification from observed applied resource state.¶

Output: Resource-transition requirements.¶

5.83. C-CW-01.21 - Evaluate Usage and Reservation Implications

The processor determines how the transition affects usage records, reservations, accounting intervals, and outstanding measurements.¶

It distinguishes allocation from actual measured consumption.¶

Output: Accounting-transition requirements.¶

5.84. C-CW-01.22 - Evaluate Concurrent Lifecycle Operations

The system identifies overlapping modifications, extensions, releases, or interoperator transitions.¶

It evaluates their technical dependencies and the receiving interfaces' actual guarantees.¶

Output: Concurrent-operation compatibility.¶

5.85. C-CW-01.23 - Determine the Applicable Transition Preconditions

The processor combines the mandatory state and correspondence predicates for each candidate transition.¶

It classifies them as established, violated, or unresolved.¶

Output: Candidate feasibility assessments.¶

5.86. C-CW-01.24 - Select or Retain a Qualified Transition Candidate

Where one or more candidates satisfy the required conditions, the system identifies a technically applicable transition.¶

Where evidence is incomplete, it retains unresolved alternatives.¶

Selection does not independently confer authority to execute the operation.¶

Output: Qualified lifecycle transition.¶

5.87. C-CW-01.25 - Associate the Operation with Existing Effectuation Controls

Where the transition requires consequential network changes, the system supplies the corresponding operation specification to the separately applicable authorization and effectuation mechanisms.¶

The present workflow does not replace those mechanisms.¶

Output: Transition operation specification.¶

5.88. C-CW-01.26 - Observe Operation Submission and Acceptance

The processor obtains the available receiving-interface status.¶

It distinguishes local transmission, accepted processing, and rejected requests.¶

Output: Operation lifecycle evidence.¶

5.89. C-CW-01.27 - Observe Applied Network-Resource Effects

The processor obtains available resource-state information relevant to the requested transition.¶

It does not infer complete network application merely from receiver acceptance.¶

Output: Applied-state correspondence.¶

5.90. C-CW-01.28 - Reconcile Unknown or Partial Transition Outcomes

Where the result of an operation is not established, the processor retains relevant possible states.¶

It may seek status or resource evidence under the available interface contracts.¶

Output: Qualified resulting state.¶

5.91. C-CW-01.29 - Reconcile Operator-Side State

For cross-operator transitions, the processor determines which local and remote states are established.¶

A local acknowledgement is not assumed sufficient to establish a remote user-plane effect unless its documented semantics justify that conclusion.¶

Output: Cross-operator transition assessment.¶

5.92. C-CW-01.30 - Reconcile Usage Reports

The processor associates received usage information with the appropriate session, resource, measurement interval, and source generation.¶

It detects known duplicates and incompatible counter interpretations.¶

Output: Qualified usage state.¶

5.93. C-CW-01.31 - Reconcile Accounting and Reservation State

The system determines the relationships among measured consumption, reserved quantities, releases, and charging records.¶

It does not assume that every record represents a new independent increment.¶

Output: Accounting correspondence.¶

5.94. C-CW-01.32 - Determine Whether Session Continuation Is Established

The processor evaluates whether the logical session and the required operational conditions remain applicable after the transition.¶

The result may identify continued service, modified service, restricted service, or unresolved continuity.¶

Output: Continuation assessment.¶

5.95. C-CW-01.33 - Evaluate Session Termination Conditions

Where release or termination is relevant, the processor identifies the applicable logical and resource-state requirements.¶

It distinguishes termination request, accepted termination, logical termination, and observed resource release.¶

Output: Termination assessment.¶

5.96. C-CW-01.34 - Reconcile Outstanding Resource Cleanup

The processor identifies supporting resources that remain allocated or whose release is uncertain.¶

It does not automatically treat a terminated logical session as proof of complete cleanup.¶

Output: Resource cleanup status.¶

5.97. C-CW-01.35 - Reconcile Final Usage and Settlement Information

The system evaluates whether accounting records satisfy the required coverage and finalization conditions.¶

It may identify resource-released/accounting-pending as a valid intermediate lifecycle outcome.¶

Output: Settlement completeness assessment.¶

5.98. C-CW-01.36 - Reevaluate Following a Material State Change

The processor identifies whether subsequent subscriber, operator, resource, or accounting events invalidate an earlier lifecycle assessment.¶

It selectively reevaluates affected relationships where dependency coverage is adequate.¶

Output: Revised lifecycle assessment.¶

5.99. C-CW-01.37 - Preserve Session-Lifecycle Reconstruction Evidence

The processor records relevant versions, observations, state transitions, usage reports, unresolved conditions, and source dependencies.¶

This record supports later reconstruction and may be retained independently of a protected execution ledger.¶

Output: Reconstructible session history.¶

5.100. C-CW-01.38 - Produce the Final Lifecycle Correspondence Result

The system provides the established logical session state, applicable operator and subscriber context, resource state, accounting status, unresolved transitions, and closure or continuation status.¶

The output is suitable for subsequent monitoring, network-management, service administration, or accounting reconciliation.¶

Output: C-CW-01 lifecycle consistency result.¶

5.101. 7.C.9. Common Workflow State Model

A telecommunications session is represented as a vector of related states rather than one universal status flag.¶

A representative structure is:¶

SessionLifecycleState:¶

logical\_session\_state subscriber\_context\_state¶

service\_condition\_state operator\_context\_state control\_plane\_session\_state user\_plane\_resource\_state programmable\_api\_session\_state usage\_measurement\_state accounting\_state release\_or\_cleanup\_state evidence\_completeness¶

Each state dimension has its own source and semantics.¶

For example:¶

logical\_session\_state user\_plane\_resource\_state = RELEASED programmable\_api\_state usage\_measurement\_state accounting\_state cleanup\_state¶

= TERMINATED¶

= TERMINATED = FINAL\_REPORT\_PENDING = UNRESOLVED = PARTIALLY\_COMPLETE¶

This combination is not internally contradictory merely because the logical session has terminated.¶

It describes a lifecycle in which resource release is established but some accounting or cleanup information remains outstanding.¶

Similarly:¶

logical\_session\_state service\_condition\_state control\_plane\_state user\_plane\_resource\_state = PREVIOUS\_STATE\_OBSERVED accounting\_state¶

= CONTINUING = UPDATED = MODIFICATION\_ACCEPTED¶

= CONTINUING may represent a session modification whose control-plane request has been accepted while the intended user-plane effect has not yet been established.¶

The specific enumeration values are illustrative.¶

An implementation may use the existing states defined by its telecommunications protocols and expose the corresponding source-qualified relationships.¶

5.102. 7.C.10. Common Technical Invariants

C-I01 - Logical session existence does not prove all associated resources are active.¶

C-I02 - A session identifier is interpreted within its namespace and generation.¶

C-I03 - Subscriber-state continuity and session continuity are distinct.¶

5.103. C-I04 - An operator transition does not automatically imply logical session replacement.

5.104. C-I05 - Logical session continuation does not automatically establish unchanged governing conditions.

C-I06 - A requested QoS modification is not proof of applied QoS behavior.¶

C-I07 - Receiver acceptance does not necessarily establish user-plane application.¶

C-I08 - A resource change does not necessarily establish a new billable session.¶

C-I09 - A charging record does not automatically prove the relevant resource remains active.¶

C-I10 - Resource release does not necessarily establish final accounting settlement.¶

C-I11 - Local operator completion does not automatically establish remote operator completion.¶

5.105. C-I12 - Numeric versions are not compared across unrelated version namespaces without justified mapping.

C-I13 - A source event's arrival time does not automatically establish its effective time.¶

5.106. C-I14 - Repeated delivery of one usage report does not automatically represent repeated usage.

C-I15 - Counter differences require compatible counter generations and measurement semantics.¶

C-I16 - Reserved quantities and consumed quantities are distinct.¶

C-I17 - An expired reservation does not itself prove zero prior consumption.¶

C-I18 - A consent-state change is interpreted within its actual scope and effective conditions.¶

5.107. C-I19 - A subscriber-wide change does not automatically affect every session identically.

C-I21 - Roaming state depends upon the actual home/visited operator architecture.¶

C-I22 - A hidden operator-internal state is not invented from an abstract boundary report.¶

C-I23 - A lost response does not establish remote operation failure.¶

C-I24 - A retry identifier does not automatically guarantee idempotency.¶

C-I25 - A local session database cannot universally establish external user-plane state.¶

C-I26 - Complete cleanup may require distinct resource and accounting conditions.¶

C-I27 - Source identity reuse does not automatically preserve event ordering.¶

C-I28 - An unknown mandatory lifecycle condition cannot silently become true.¶

C-I29 - An established contradictory condition is not merely missing information.¶

5.109. C-I30 - A lifecycle transition may preserve some state dimensions while changing others.

C-I31 - A session's historical state may remain correct after later operator or service changes.¶

C-I32 - An authentic record may be stale or incomplete.¶

C-I33 - A source history may be complete for reporting but incomplete for physical fault detection.¶

5.110. C-I34 - Session state reconstruction does not automatically provide operational authorization.

C-I35 - A selected lifecycle operation remains subject to existing applicable authority and effectuation controls.¶

C-I36 - A bounded reconstruction timeout does not prove that no consistent session state exists.¶

C-I37 - The existence of one compatible reconstruction does not necessarily establish uniqueness.¶

C-I38 - Accounting adjustments must be interpreted according to their actual record and settlement semantics.¶

C-I39 - Physical network state, subscriber state, and commercial settlement may reach terminal conditions at different times.¶

5.111. C-I40 - No implementation guarantee extends beyond its actual source, receiver, operator, and accounting contracts.

5.112. 7.C.11. Mathematical Formulation - Common Workflow Overview

The detailed mathematical formulation for Group C shall be maintained as a separate document, with at least six A4 pages and the Group C/C-CW-01 identification on every page.¶

The following equations identify the principal mathematics relevant to the common workflow.¶

They are illustrative and non-limiting.¶

5.113. 7.C.11.1. Session State Vector

Define:¶

[ S(t)= \\left( L(t),G(t),O(t),R(t),U(t),A(t),Q(t) \\right) ]¶

where:¶

| x | (L(t)) is the logical session state; | |---|---| | x | (G(t)) is the applicable governing-condition state; | | x | (O(t)) is the operator context; | | x | (R(t)) is the network-resource state; | | x | (U(t)) is the usage measurement state; | | x | (A(t)) is the accounting state; | | x | (Q(t)) is the available evidence and uncertainty representation. |¶

The components are not assumed to change atomically.¶

5.114. 7.C.11.2. Governing-Condition Applicability

For condition (g) and session (s), define:¶

[ \\operatorname{Applicable}(g,s,t)\\in{T,F,U}. ]¶

The predicate determines whether the condition is established as relevant to the session under the selected model.¶

An unknown result does not become false solely because the source has not delivered a new event.¶

5.115. 7.C.11.3. Transition Compatibility

For candidate lifecycle transition (a), let:¶

\\bigwedge\_{p\\in P\_a}p(S) ]¶

where (P\_a) is the set of mandatory transition preconditions.¶

Each predicate is evaluated using three-valued logic.¶

A mandatory false condition establishes incompatibility.¶

An unresolved mandatory condition prevents an unqualified compatible conclusion unless an independent false condition has already established incompatibility.¶

5.116. 7.C.11.4. State Continuity Under Resource Replacement

Let logical session (s) be associated with resource (r\_1) before a transition and (r\_2) afterward.¶

The correspondence:¶

[ s\\leftrightarrow r\_1 ]¶

followed by:¶

[ s\\leftrightarrow r\_2 ]¶

does not, by itself, prove that (s) was terminated and recreated.¶

The logical session identity and continuity semantics must be independently evaluated.¶

5.117. 7.C.11.5. Usage Interval Correspondence

Let usage report (u\_i) describe measurement interval:¶

[ I\_i=[t\_i^-,t\_i^+]. ]¶

Let session (s) be applicable over interval (I\_s).¶

A usage report can be associated with the session only when the source identity, resource mapping, and temporal conditions are sufficiently established.¶

Overlap alone may not establish that all measured usage belongs to the same session.¶

5.118. 7.C.11.6. Cumulative Counter Difference

Suppose a source provides cumulative counters (c\_1) and (c\_2).¶

An increment estimate may be:¶

[ \\Delta c=c\_2-c\_1 ]¶

only when the counter identity, generation, ordering, rollover behavior, and measurement semantics support the subtraction.¶

A source restart or counter reset may invalidate the simple difference.¶

5.119. 7.C.11.7. Reservation and Consumption

Let:¶

| x | (B) represent a defined usage or resource budget; | |---|---| | x | (R) represent an outstanding reserved quantity; | | x | (C) represent accounted consumption. |¶

Under one illustrative nonoverlapping accounting model, a limit may be represented as:¶

[ R+C\\leq B. ]¶

This formula is not universally valid for every charging or reservation system.¶

The deployment must define whether reservations and consumption overlap, replace one another, or use separate accounting scopes.¶

The present workflow does not introduce a new shared-quota authorization mechanism.¶

5.120. 7.C.11.8. Cross-Operator State Correspondence

Let:¶

[ X(s,o\_1,o\_2,t)\\in{T,F,U} ]¶

represent whether the relevant session relationship between operator contexts (o\_1) and (o\_2) is established under the applicable source information.¶

The predicate may remain unresolved where only an abstract boundary status is visible.¶

5.121. 7.C.11.9. Session Closure

Let:¶

| x | (L_c): logical termination established; | |---|---| | x | (R_c): required resource cleanup established; | | x | (U_c): required usage-report coverage established; | | x | (A_c): required accounting finalization established. |¶

A strict full-closure objective may require:¶

L\_c\\land R\_c\\land U\_c\\land A\_c. ]¶

A narrower resource-closure objective may require only:¶

L\_c\\land R\_c. ]¶

The selected objective must be stated.¶

Failure to establish final accounting does not automatically mean a resource remains allocated.¶

5.122. 7.C.11.10. Lifecycle Evidence Reconciliation

Let (E) be the available evidence set and (M) the applicable session-lifecycle model.¶

Define:¶

{S\\text{ satisfies all established evidence and mandatory model constraints}}. ]¶

The result may contain one state, several possible states, or be inconsistent under the model.¶

An empty state set may indicate conflicting evidence or model assumptions.¶

It is not automatically proof that the physical session cannot exist.¶

5.123. 7.C.12. Detailed Implementable Pseudocode - C-ALG-01

5.124. 7.C.12.1. Core Types

ENUM Verdict:¶

COMPATIBLE INCOMPATIBLE UNRESOLVED¶

ENUM LifecycleDimension:¶

LOGICAL\_SESSION SUBSCRIBER\_CONTEXT SERVICE\_CONDITION¶

OPERATOR\_CONTEXT CONTROL\_PLANE USER\_PLANE USAGE\_MEASUREMENT ACCOUNTING RESOURCE\_CLEANUP¶

TYPE SessionContext:¶

logical\_session\_id namespace generation subscriber\_reference service\_reference operator\_references governing\_conditions resource\_references accounting\_references lifecycle\_evidence unresolved\_conditions¶

TYPE LifecycleEvent:¶

source\_identity source\_generation event\_identity affected\_session\_scope condition\_type condition\_revision effective\_context evidence\_reference¶

TYPE TransitionCandidate:¶

transition\_type required\_preconditions affected\_state\_dimensions intended\_resource\_changes operator\_dependencies accounting\_dependencies expected\_effects unresolved\_conditions¶

5.125. 7.C.12.2. Establish the Initial Session Context

FUNCTION ESTABLISH\_SESSION\_CONTEXT(¶

session\_reference, subscriber\_sources, operator\_sources, resource\_sources, accounting\_sources ):¶

identity = RESOLVE\_SESSION\_NAMESPACE\_AND\_GENERATION(¶

session\_reference )¶

subscriber = LOAD\_APPLICABLE\_SUBSCRIBER\_CONTEXT(¶

identity, subscriber\_sources )¶

operators = RESOLVE\_OPERATOR\_ROLES(¶

identity, operator\_sources )¶

resources = RESOLVE\_SUPPORTING\_RESOURCES(¶

identity, resource\_sources )¶

accounting = RESOLVE\_ACCOUNTING\_REFERENCES(¶

identity, accounting\_sources )¶

RETURN BUILD\_QUALIFIED\_SESSION\_CONTEXT(¶

identity, subscriber, operators, resources, accounting )¶

5.126. 7.C.12.3. Qualify a Governing-Condition Event

FUNCTION QUALIFY\_LIFECYCLE\_EVENT(¶

event, session\_context, source\_registry ):¶

source = RESOLVE\_SOURCE\_GENERATION(¶

event, source\_registry )¶

occurrence = CHECK\_SOURCE\_EVENT\_IDENTITY(¶

event, source )¶

scope = CHECK\_SESSION\_APPLICABILITY(¶

event, session\_context )¶

temporal = RESOLVE\_EFFECTIVE\_CONTEXT(¶

event, source )¶

revision = COMPARE\_SOURCE\_SCOPED\_REVISION(¶

event, session\_context )¶

IF any mandatory condition incompatible:¶

RETURN INCOMPATIBLE¶

IF any mandatory condition unresolved:¶

RETURN UNRESOLVED¶

RETURN COMPATIBLE(¶

occurrence, scope, temporal, revision )¶

5.127. 7.C.12.4. Generate Candidate Lifecycle Transitions

FUNCTION GENERATE\_LIFECYCLE\_TRANSITIONS(¶

session\_context, governing\_event, transition\_rules ):¶

affected\_dimensions =¶

FIND\_AFFECTED\_SESSION\_DIMENSIONS(¶

governing\_event, session\_context )¶

candidates = []¶

FOR EACH applicable\_rule IN transition\_rules:¶

IF applicable\_rule concerns affected\_dimensions:¶

ADD BUILD\_TRANSITION\_CANDIDATE(¶

applicable\_rule,¶

session\_context, governing\_event ) TO candidates¶

RETURN candidates¶

The rules represent the applicable deployment and standards semantics.¶

They are not newly defined generic session-authority rules.¶

5.128. 7.C.12.5. Evaluate a Transition Candidate

FUNCTION EVALUATE\_LIFECYCLE\_TRANSITION(¶

candidate, session\_context, resource\_evidence, operator\_evidence ):¶

governing = CHECK\_GOVERNING\_CONDITIONS(¶

candidate, session\_context )¶

operator = CHECK\_OPERATOR\_CORRESPONDENCE(¶

candidate, operator\_evidence )¶

resource = CHECK\_RESOURCE\_STATE\_REQUIREMENTS(¶

candidate, resource\_evidence )¶

pending = CHECK\_OUTSTANDING\_OPERATIONS(¶

candidate, session\_context )¶

accounting = CHECK\_ACCOUNTING\_DEPENDENCIES(¶

candidate, session\_context )¶

results = [¶

governing, operator, resource, pending, accounting¶

]¶

IF any mandatory result == INCOMPATIBLE:¶

RETURN INCOMPATIBLE¶

IF any mandatory result == UNRESOLVED:¶

RETURN UNRESOLVED¶

RETURN COMPATIBLE¶

5.129. 7.C.12.6. Reconcile Asynchronous Effects

FUNCTION RECONCILE\_SESSION\_OPERATION(¶

operation, receiver\_contract, available\_evidence ):¶

transport = INTERPRET\_TRANSPORT\_STATUS(¶

available\_evidence )¶

acceptance = INTERPRET\_RECEIVER\_ACCEPTANCE(¶

available\_evidence, receiver\_contract )¶

application = INTERPRET\_APPLIED\_RESOURCE\_STATE(¶

available\_evidence )¶

IF application established:¶

RETURN APPLIED\_UNDER\_SUPPORTED\_SCOPE¶

IF rejection conclusively established:¶

RETURN REJECTED\_UNDER\_SUPPORTED\_SCOPE¶

IF partial application established:¶

RETURN PARTIALLY\_APPLIED¶

RETURN OUTCOME\_UNKNOWN¶

5.130. 7.C.12.7. Reconcile Usage and Accounting

FUNCTION RECONCILE\_SESSION\_ACCOUNTING(¶

session\_context, usage\_records, accounting\_contract ):¶

normalized = []¶

FOR EACH usage\_record IN usage\_records:¶

identity = CHECK\_USAGE\_RECORD\_IDENTITY(¶

usage\_record )¶

interval = CHECK\_USAGE\_INTERVAL\_AND\_RESOURCE(¶

usage\_record, session\_context )¶

semantics = CHECK\_COUNTER\_OR\_INCREMENT\_MEANING(¶

usage\_record )¶

ancestry = CHECK\_DUPLICATE\_OR\_DERIVED\_REPORT(¶

usage\_record )¶

ADD QUALIFIED\_RECORD(¶

identity, interval, semantics, ancestry ) TO normalized return RECONCILE\_UNDER\_ACCOUNTING\_CONTRACT(¶

normalized, accounting\_contract )¶

A cumulative quantity is not simply added to every other cumulative report.¶

5.131. 7.C.12.8. Reconcile Cross-Operator State

FUNCTION RECONCILE\_OPERATOR\_SESSION\_STATE(¶

logical\_session, home\_context, visited\_context, boundary\_evidence ):¶

correspondence = CHECK\_OPERATOR\_BOUNDARY\_MAPPING(¶

home\_context, visited\_context, boundary\_evidence )¶

applicability = CHECK\_APPLICABLE\_ROAMING\_MODEL(¶

logical\_session )¶

local\_state = EVALUATE\_HOME\_OR\_LOCAL\_STATE(¶

home\_context )¶

remote\_state = EVALUATE\_REMOTE\_EXPOSED\_STATE(¶

visited\_context )¶

RETURN BUILD\_QUALIFIED\_CROSS\_OPERATOR\_RESULT(¶

correspondence, applicability, local\_state, remote\_state )¶

5.132. 7.C.12.9. Determine Session Closure

FUNCTION EVALUATE\_SESSION\_CLOSURE(¶

session\_context, release\_evidence, accounting\_evidence, closure\_objective ):¶

logical = CHECK\_LOGICAL\_TERMINATION(¶

session\_context )¶

resources = CHECK\_REQUIRED\_RESOURCE\_RELEASE(¶

release\_evidence )¶

usage = CHECK\_REQUIRED\_USAGE\_COVERAGE(¶

accounting\_evidence )¶

accounting = CHECK\_REQUIRED\_ACCOUNTING\_FINALITY(¶

accounting\_evidence )¶

RETURN EVALUATE\_OBJECTIVE\_SPECIFIC\_CONJUNCTION(¶

closure\_objective, logical, resources, usage, accounting¶

)¶

5.133. 7.C.12.10. Common Workflow Orchestration

FUNCTION PROCESS\_SESSION\_LIFECYCLE\_CHANGE(¶

session\_reference, incoming\_event, repositories, transition\_rules ):¶

context = ESTABLISH\_SESSION\_CONTEXT(¶

session\_reference, repositories )¶

event = QUALIFY\_LIFECYCLE\_EVENT(¶

incoming\_event, context, repositories.source\_registry )¶

IF event == INCOMPATIBLE:¶

RETURN RECORD\_NONAPPLICABLE\_EVENT()¶

IF event == UNRESOLVED:¶

RETURN RECORD\_UNRESOLVED\_CONTEXT()¶

candidates = GENERATE\_LIFECYCLE\_TRANSITIONS(¶

context, event, transition\_rules )¶

evaluated = []¶

FOR EACH candidate IN candidates:¶

verdict = EVALUATE\_LIFECYCLE\_TRANSITION(¶

candidate, context, CURRENT\_RESOURCE\_EVIDENCE(), CURRENT\_OPERATOR\_EVIDENCE() )¶

ADD {¶

candidate, verdict } TO evaluated¶

selected = SELECT\_SUPPORTED\_TECHNICAL\_TRANSITION(¶

evaluated )¶

operation\_status = RECONCILE\_ANY\_SEPARATELY\_PERFORMED\_OPERATIONS(¶

selected )¶

usage\_status = RECONCILE\_SESSION\_ACCOUNTING(¶

context, CURRENT\_USAGE\_RECORDS(), APPLICABLE\_ACCOUNTING\_CONTRACT() )¶

operator\_status = RECONCILE\_OPERATOR\_SESSION\_STATE(¶

context, CURRENT\_OPERATOR\_EVIDENCE() )¶

result = BUILD\_VERSIONED\_LIFECYCLE\_RESULT(¶

context, event, evaluated, operation\_status, usage\_status, operator\_status )¶

STORE\_SESSION\_LIFECYCLE\_REVISION(result)¶

RETURN result¶

The orchestration function is a technical reconstruction and transition-evaluation algorithm.¶

It is not itself a universal authorization or network-effectuation facility.¶

5.134. 7.C.13. Worked Technical Examples

5.135. 7.C.13.1. Example 1 - Active Session with a Changed Subscription Condition

A subscriber has an active network session.¶

A supported subscriber information source reports that one service condition has changed.¶

The processor identifies the affected subscriber, session, service, and source revision.¶

It determines whether the condition applies to the ongoing session.¶

An unaffected service can remain unchanged under the selected model.¶

A service requiring modification is associated with the appropriate existing network procedure.¶

The processor distinguishes the reported subscription change from the later observed resource effect.¶

A device-associated source reports a SIM-swap event.¶

An existing data session remains present in the serving network's state.¶

The processor determines the event's subscriber and service correspondence.¶

It does not infer automatic session termination from the label alone.¶

Where a governing condition requires a network lifecycle transition, the system identifies the affected session and later reconciles the actual resource state.¶

5.137. 7.C.13.3. Example 3 - Roaming with Home and Visited Operator State

A device moves into a visited network.¶

The home operator maintains one logical service representation.¶

The visited operator exposes a serving-resource reference.¶

The two operators use different local identifiers.¶

The processor evaluates the boundary correspondence under the actual roaming architecture.¶

It does not equate a change in the visited resource identifier with mandatory termination of the home-side logical session.¶

5.138. 7.C.13.4. Example 4 - QoS Modification Accepted but Not Observed

An application requests a higher QoS profile.¶

The relevant programmable interface accepts the request.¶

The network-resource state still reflects the previous profile.¶

The system records:¶

| x | API request accepted; | |---|---| | x | intended profile updated; | | x | network application not yet established. |¶

It does not report the new performance profile as applied solely from the API response.¶

5.139. 7.C.13.5. Example 5 - Two Concurrent Session Extensions

Two application processes submit extension requests for the same programmable service session.¶

The requests have different client references.¶

The receiver may process them under its own idempotency and revision semantics.¶

The processor identifies whether the second request extends the already modified expiry time, repeats the first request, or conflicts with the current session state.¶

It does not assume both requested extensions must be summed.¶

5.140. 7.C.13.6. Example 6 - Reservation and Consumption

A service has an illustrative budget of 100 usage units.¶

An application reserves 40 units.¶

Actual accounted usage becomes 25 units.¶

Under a defined accounting model in which the reservation is adjusted as usage occurs, the outstanding reservation may be reduced appropriately.¶

The processor does not add 40 reserved units and 25 consumed units as independent consumption unless the specified model requires that representation.¶

5.141. 7.C.13.7. Example 7 - Duplicate Cumulative Usage Reports

A user-plane source reports cumulative usage of 500 MB.¶

The same report is retransmitted.¶

A later compatible cumulative report states 620 MB.¶

Under a supported same-counter-generation model, the incremental usage between the distinct positions is:¶

[ 620-500=120\\ \\mathrm{MB}. ]¶

The duplicated 500 MB record is not counted as another 500 MB of usage.¶

The example assumes compatible resource, counter, and time semantics.¶

A subscriber withdraws consent for one identified data-processing purpose.¶

The operator also maintains unrelated connectivity services.¶

The processor determines which active session functions depend upon the changed consent condition.¶

It does not automatically classify every active network resource as requiring release.¶

The actual affected operations remain governed by their separate policy and authorization mechanisms.¶

5.143. 7.C.13.9. Example 9 - User-Plane Release with Accounting Pending

A service session is terminated.¶

The relevant user-plane resource release is established.¶

A final usage report has not arrived.¶

The lifecycle result may state:¶

logical\_session = TERMINATED user\_plane\_resource = RELEASED usage\_reporting = FINAL\_REPORT\_PENDING accounting = UNRESOLVED resource\_cleanup = COMPLETE¶

The processor need not pretend the network resource remains active simply because accounting is outstanding.¶

5.144. 7.C.13.10. Example 10 - Remote Operator Failure During Release

A home operator initiates a session closure procedure.¶

Its local state changes to released.¶

The visited operator is unreachable.¶

The processor records the home-side result and the unknown remote cleanup state.¶

It does not infer remote release from the home-side acknowledgement.¶

5.145. 7.C.13.11. Example 11 - Resource Change Without New Logical Session

A user-plane function is replaced as part of a supported continuity procedure.¶

The logical session reference remains applicable.¶

The processor associates the new resource generation with the continuing logical session.¶

It avoids treating resource replacement alone as a second independent charging session.¶

5.146. 7.C.13.12. Example 12 - Charging Report Arrives after Closure

A session ends at 12:00.¶

A valid usage report arrives at 12:03 describing traffic measured between 11:55 and 12:00.¶

The processor uses the measurement interval and accounting correspondence.¶

It does not assume that the session remained operational until 12:03 merely because the report was received then.¶

5.147. 7.C.13.13. Example 13 - Source Counter Reset

A usage counter reads 900 MB.¶

The network function restarts.¶

The next counter report reads 30 MB.¶

The processor does not calculate negative 870 MB as actual usage.¶

It evaluates the source generation and reset semantics before reconstructing consumption.¶

5.148. 7.C.13.14. Example 14 - Two Operator Revision Numbers

The home operator reports local version 105.¶

The visited operator reports local version 220.¶

These values belong to different version namespaces.¶

The processor does not conclude that the visited operator holds a later globally ordered state merely because 220 is greater than 105.¶

It uses cross-operator event or state correspondence.¶

5.149. 7.C.13.15. Example 15 - Failed API Deletion with Resource Still Allocated

A programmable session-delete request is transmitted.¶

The response is lost.¶

A later status query shows that the session-facing API record is absent.¶

However, a relevant network-resource observation still shows an allocation.¶

The processor reports the two separately established conditions.¶

It does not assume that deleting the API-facing session record necessarily completed every underlying resource cleanup operation.¶

5.150. 7.C.13.16. Example 16 - Partial Operator Failure and Deferred Settlement

An operator loses connectivity to a remote charging or settlement function.¶

Local resource release is established.¶

The final usage records are preserved for later reconciliation under the applicable source contract.¶

The lifecycle result distinguishes operational closure from outstanding settlement.¶

The processor does not fabricate a final settlement acknowledgement.¶

5.151. 7.C.14. Common Workflow Implementation Alternatives

The common technical relationship may be implemented through different architectures.¶

The following alternatives provide practical support for Group C and may be further specialized in Embodiments 1.C-6.C.¶

5.152. C-DA-01 - Centralized Session-Lifecycle Reconciliation

A shared processor obtains relevant subscriber, operator, resource, and accounting information.¶

It reconstructs lifecycle state under a defined model.¶

Its completeness remains dependent upon the information sources actually available.¶

5.153. C-DA-02 - Distributed Operator-Local Reconciliation

Each participating operator maintains local lifecycle state and exchanges supported boundary information.¶

An external component may reconcile abstract relationships without requiring complete internal topology disclosure.¶

5.154. C-DA-03 - Event-Sourced Lifecycle State

The system reconstructs session state from an identified baseline and applicable event history.¶

Missing events and incompatible source generations are explicitly represented.¶

5.155. C-DA-04 - Snapshot-and-Delta Session Reconstruction

A versioned session snapshot is supplemented by subsequent qualified changes.¶

The processor evaluates snapshot completeness and any missing deltas.¶

5.156. C-DA-05 - Relational Session-State Representation

Session and resource correspondences are maintained through conventional relational tables.¶

A graph database is not mandatory.¶

5.157. C-DA-06 - Graph-Based Resource and Operator Correspondence

The system represents logical sessions, resources, subscribers, and operators as related nodes.¶

The graph provides structural correspondence but does not independently prove the current operational state.¶

5.158. C-DA-07 - State-Machine-Based Lifecycle Evaluation

A state machine describes permitted session transitions and their required conditions.¶

The implementation retains independent dimensions where one flat state would be inadequate.¶

5.159. C-DA-08 - Constraint-Based Lifecycle Reconstruction

A constraint solver evaluates which combinations of subscriber, operator, resource, and accounting state are compatible with the evidence.¶

Solver unknown or timeout is not treated as physical infeasibility.¶

5.160. C-DA-09 - Conditional Native Session Modification

Where the receiving interface supports appropriate conditional or versioned updates, those native capabilities may be used.¶

The workflow does not invent the existing conditional-update mechanism.¶

5.161. C-DA-10 - Asynchronous Job-Based Lifecycle Processing

A session change may be processed through a remote job.¶

The processor distinguishes acceptance from applied network state.¶

5.162. C-DA-11 - State-Observation-Based Reconciliation

The processor obtains actual resource-state evidence after an operation.¶

The resulting value does not automatically prove which actor caused the change.¶

5.163. C-DA-12 - Home-Routed Roaming Correspondence

The processor evaluates the home and visited operator references under a home-routed service arrangement.¶

It uses the actual supported session and resource relationships.¶

5.164. C-DA-13 - Local-Breakout Roaming Correspondence

The processor evaluates the different relevant home and visited operator responsibilities under an applicable local-breakout arrangement.¶

The mechanism is not assumed equivalent to home-routed operation.¶

5.165. C-DA-14 - Abstract Interoperator State Exchange

Operators exchange only selected session and lifecycle properties.¶

Unknown internal detail remains explicit.¶

5.166. C-DA-15 - Usage-Report Lineage Reconstruction

The processor identifies original and derived usage records.¶

It detects duplicates and applies the appropriate cumulative or incremental measurement semantics.¶

5.167. C-DA-16 - Event-Time-Based Accounting Reconciliation

Usage records are associated with measurement intervals, separately from report arrival times.¶

Delayed reports do not automatically extend session duration.¶

5.168. C-DA-17 - Reservation-Aware Usage Reconciliation

The processor distinguishes reservations, consumption, release, and outstanding quantities under a defined accounting model.¶

This is a reconciliation mechanism, not a newly invented quota-enforcement primitive.¶

5.169. C-DA-18 - Source-Scoped Revision Handling

The processor maintains revision and generation scopes separately for subscriber, operator, resource, and charging sources.¶

It does not impose an unsupported global order.¶

5.170. C-DA-19 - Partial-State Session Recovery

The system represents several possible states when asynchronous operations have unresolved outcomes.¶

It avoids choosing a single state without supporting evidence.¶

5.171. C-DA-20 - Deferred Accounting Settlement

The processor permits operational resource release to be established while accounting remains pending.¶

Final settlement is reported only when supported by the applicable records.¶

5.172. C-DA-21 - Hardware-Adjacent Resource Observation

Device or network-function telemetry provides evidence about resource application or release.¶

The observation is interpreted within its actual hardware and network context.¶

5.173. C-DA-22 - Privacy-Minimizing Operator Correspondence

A domain may expose only the attributes necessary for the selected cross-operator lifecycle assessment.¶

The resulting limited visibility is recorded.¶

5.174. C-DA-23 - Multi-Access Session Correspondence

A logical session may be associated with several access contexts or resource paths under an applicable network architecture.¶

The processor evaluates the actual access and session rules rather than assuming all accesses share one physical lifecycle.¶

5.175. C-DA-24 - Optional Advanced Timing and Hybrid Computation

Suitable timing sources or optimization methods may assist with resolving session events or planning reconstruction.¶

They do not eliminate source uncertainty or prove global ordering without adequate guarantees.¶

5.176. 7.C.15. Representative Proposed Verification Tests

The following 65 cases are proposed reference implementation tests and are not represented as having been executed.¶

5.177. Test

5.178. Scenario Expected technical result

5.179. ID

C-T01 Establish one session with complete source¶

Initial state reconstructed correspondence C-T02 Session identifier reused in another namespace Identity distinguished C-T03 Session resource replaced without logical¶

Continuity evaluated termination C-T04 Subscriber profile changes during active Applicable condition revision¶

session identified¶

Unaffected session condition C-T05 Subscriber update does not affect one service¶

preserved C-T06 SIM-related event arrives without session¶

No automatic termination evidence C-T07 SIM-related event identifies affected¶

Correct relationship evaluated subscriber context C-T08 Operator role changes during roaming Operator correspondence updated C-T09 Home and visited operator identifiers differ Namespace mapping preserved C-T10 Home-routed session changes serving network Applicable model evaluated C-T11 Local-breakout roaming arrangement Appropriate responsibility mapping C-T12 Remote operator exposes abstract state only Internal uncertainty retained C-T13 Home-side transition completes, remote side¶

Partial cross-operator status unknown¶

C-T14 Service modification request accepted C-T15 Service modification observed in resource¶

state¶

Not automatically applied¶

Applied-state correspondence¶

C-T16 API state changes but network resource does¶

Discrepancy detected not¶

C-T17 Network resource changes before API status Asynchronous dimensions¶

update distinguished C-T18 Two concurrent session extensions Receiver semantics applied C-T19 Duplicate extension request under supported¶

Correct logical interpretation idempotency¶

C-T20 Same identifier reused with different¶

parameters C-T21 Session release request times out C-T22 Release succeeds but reply lost C-T23 Local release complete, remote resource¶

remains C-T24 Logical termination and accounting pending C-T25 Final usage report arrives after termination C-T26 Duplicate usage report¶

C-T27 Cumulative usage reports 500 and 620¶

Conflict evaluated¶

Remote outcome unresolved No false nonapplication¶

Partial cleanup result¶

Different terminal dimensions Measurement time respected No double counting Correct 120-unit difference under model¶

C-T28 Incremental usage reports Correct aggregation C-T29 Counter resets on function restart Generation handled C-T30 Counter rollover supported by source¶

Correct reconstruction semantics C-T31 Counter rollover semantics unknown Usage unresolved C-T32 Usage report refers to wrong resource instance Mapping rejected C-T33 Usage interval overlaps two session¶

Attribution qualified generations¶

Reservation and consumption C-T34 Reservation created but no usage reported¶

separated C-T35 Consumption recorded while reservation¶

Accounting model applied pending C-T36 Reservation expires with earlier measured¶

No zero-consumption inference usage¶

C-T37 Two services share one accounting budget C-T38 Budget and reservations have incompatible¶

units¶

Scoped reconciliation¶

Semantics mismatch¶

C-T39 Consent withdrawn for one purpose Scope-specific effect evaluation C-T40 Consent update unrelated to one session No universal service termination¶

C-T41 Consent source event delayed C-T42 Operator revisions use independent¶

namespaces C-T43 Event arrival order differs from effective order Source ordering respected C-T44 Source event duplicated after replay C-T45 Source generation changes C-T46 Session control function fails¶

Effective context evaluated¶

Deduplication Identity continuity checked Available state reconstructed¶

C-T47 Replacement control function takes over C-T48 Existing user-plane resources survive¶

controller change C-T49 User-plane resource released but local record¶

stale¶

No numeric global order¶

Resource/session correspondence evaluated¶

No false new session¶

State discrepancy reported¶

C-T50 Remote operator unreachable at termination Unknown remote cleanup C-T51 Source charging record missing Settlement unresolved C-T52 Charging records complete but resource still¶

Separate closure dimensions allocated C-T53 Resource cleanup complete and charging¶

Partial terminal status pending C-T54 All mandatory closure requirements¶

Full closure under scope established C-T55 One mandatory closure condition¶

Full closure not established demonstrably false C-T56 One mandatory closure condition unknown Unresolved closure C-T57 Session history reconstructed from complete¶

Reference-equivalent result event log C-T58 Session event history contains gap Incomplete state retained C-T59 Snapshot and deltas reconstruct supported state Correct applicable revision C-T60 Snapshot is authentic but stale Applicability checked C-T61 Graph and relational implementations use¶

Equivalent supported evaluation same constraints¶

C-T62 Solver search budget exhausted C-T63 Change is technically applicable but¶

unauthorized C-T64 Network operation succeeds but accounting¶

record delayed C-T65 Final session result includes all relevant state¶

dimensions¶

Unresolved, not infeasible¶

No automatic effectuation¶

Technical/accounting distinction¶

Reconstructible lifecycle output¶

The reference test harness should retain the underlying simulated session state independently from the reconstruction engine.¶

It should also distinguish deterministic correctness, source coverage, operator correspondence, usage reconciliation, and computational performance.¶

No performance improvements or completed test outcomes are asserted by the proposed test list.¶

5.180. 7.C.16. PHOSITA Reference Implementation

5.181. 7.C.16.1. Reference Environment

A reference implementation may comprise:¶

1. A subscriber information simulator. 2. A session-management simulator. 3. A user-plane resource simulator. 4. A home-operator state service. 5. A visited-operator state service. 6. A programmable network-service API simulator. 7. A usage-report generator. 8. A charging-record repository. 9. A session-lifecycle event log. 10. A cross-domain resource mapping repository. 11. A lifecycle transition evaluator. 12. A resource-effect observer. 13. An accounting reconciler. 14. A session-closure evaluator. 15. A test and fault-injection harness.¶

The components may execute as ordinary software processes.¶

The simulation can distinguish native 3GPP session procedures from higher-level application-facing session abstractions.¶

An implementation shall not treat a CAMARA API session as identical to a PDU Session unless an applicable deployment-specific correspondence has been established.¶

5.182. 7.C.16.2. Initial Reference Operation

The test harness creates a logical session with:¶

| x | a subscriber reference; | |---|---| | x | a home operator reference; | | x | a serving operator reference; | | x | an applicable service profile; | | x | one or more network resources; and | | x | an accounting reference. |¶

It records the independent source states.¶

5.183. 7.C.16.3. State-Change Injection

The simulator changes one governing condition while preserving the logical session identifier.¶

The lifecycle processor determines the affected state dimensions.¶

5.184. 7.C.16.4. Delayed Resource Application

The simulated network accepts a service modification but delays application.¶

The processor must distinguish requested and observed states.¶

5.185. 7.C.16.5. Cross-Operator Change

A roaming context changes.¶

One operator observes the change before another.¶

The processor reconciles the applicable operator representations without imposing unsupported global version ordering.¶

5.186. 7.C.16.6. Accounting Delay

The simulator sends the final usage report after session-resource release.¶

The processor must not classify the resource as active solely because accounting remains pending.¶

5.187. 7.C.16.7. Concurrent Requests

Two API processes modify the same service-session context.¶

The processor evaluates request identity, receiver semantics, and resulting state.¶

5.188. 7.C.16.8. Partial Failure

One function becomes unreachable during the transition.¶

The system retains supported local state and unresolved remote conditions.¶

5.189. 7.C.16.9. Closure

The logical session terminates.¶

The processor separately evaluates resource cleanup, usage coverage, and accounting finalization.¶

5.190. 7.C.16.10. Result Validation

The harness compares the reconstructed lifecycle with independently controlled simulation ground truth.¶

It records unsupported conclusions, missing evidence, version mismatches, and resource/accounting discrepancies.¶

5.191. 7.C.17. Standards and Industrial Implementation References

The common workflow may use established telecommunications architecture and protocol mechanisms as implementation foundations.¶

5.192. 7.C.17.1. 3GPP PDU Session Procedures

3GPP TS 23.502 defines procedures relevant to PDU Session establishment, modification, and release.¶

It also describes session procedures associated with subscriber and mobility-related changes.¶

This technical profile does not claim those established procedures as newly invented.¶

Its processing arrangement evaluates technical correspondence among the relevant lifecycle states and their available evidence.¶

5.193. 7.C.17.2. PFCP Resource-State Information

3GPP TS 29.244 defines PFCP session establishment, modification, deletion, and reporting procedures.¶

Depending upon the supported feature set, modification results may include partialacceptance semantics.¶

Session deletion and reporting may also provide information relevant to usage and resource release.¶

The group may use such information to distinguish control-plane intent from supported userplane state.¶

PFCP session identity is not treated as globally identical to an application-facing servicesession identifier.¶

5.194. 7.C.17.3. Charging and Usage

3GPP TS 32.255 addresses data connectivity charging, including applicable charging data and interactions among network functions.¶

The present group may use charging-session and usage references where technically relevant.¶

It does not redefine standard charging procedures.¶

5.195. 7.C.17.4. Programmable Network APIs

CAMARA and GSMA Open Gateway define various programmable network APIs, including Quality on Demand and device-related information APIs.¶

Some API services create, query, modify, extend, delete, or report the status of applicationfacing sessions.¶

The group evaluates the correspondence between these representations and the actual supporting network resources.¶

An application-facing QoS session is not automatically presumed to be identical to a 3GPP PDU Session.¶

5.196. 7.C.17.5. Roaming and Operator Interoperability

A deployment may support home-routed or local-breakout service architectures, or other applicable interoperator arrangements.¶

The processor uses the actual standardized and deployed responsibilities.¶

It does not assert that every roaming implementation transfers the same authority or data structures.¶

5.197. 7.C.17.6. Other Session Technologies

The workflow may be adapted to SIP dialogs, fixed-network subscriber sessions, enterprise connectivity services, network-slice services, or other programmable session systems.¶

Such adaptation requires the actual session identity, state, resource, and accounting semantics of the selected environment.¶

A SIP dialog, a PDU Session, and an application API service session are not automatically interchangeable concepts.¶

Workflow Variation C-V1.¶

The embodiment will address the correspondence between reported SIM or deviceassociation events, versioned subscriber context, active sessions, and the network-resource state relevant to session continuation.¶

It will distinguish a change in subscriber-associated information from an established change in the state of an active network session.¶

It will not repeat generic device authentication or execution authorization.¶

Embodiment 2.C - Interoperator Roaming Transition and Session-State Responsibility Correspondence¶

Workflow Variation C-V2.¶

The embodiment will examine home and visited operator session contexts, local versus remote state, abstract cross-operator mappings, resource continuity, and incomplete handoff evidence.¶

It will distinguish logical session continuity from operator or network-function replacement.¶

5.199. Embodiment 3.C - Concurrent Programmable Session Updates and Usage-Quota State Reconciliation

Workflow Variation C-V3.¶

The embodiment will address competing session modifications, extensions, reservations, and usage reports that affect shared or overlapping service state.¶

It will focus on reconstructing resulting operational and accounting correspondence.¶

It will not repeat previously disclosed generic shared-quota enforcement or API permission gating.¶

5.200. Embodiment 4.C - Service Effect, Network Usage, and Charging-Record Correspondence

Workflow Variation C-V4.¶

The embodiment will distinguish requested service behavior, observed resource effects, traffic usage intervals, charging records, and delayed or duplicated accounting information.¶

It will provide source-qualified reconciliation between operational effect and accounting evidence.¶

5.201. Embodiment 5.C - Purpose-Scoped Consent-State Changes During Active Telecommunications Service

Workflow Variation C-V5.¶

The embodiment will examine how a changed consent condition relates to a continuing session and its different service or data-processing functions.¶

It will distinguish consent scope, effective event context, actual network effects, and any outstanding lifecycle operations.¶

It will not reintroduce the prior purpose-authority or protected execution-finality invention.¶

Embodiment 6.C - Partial Operator Failure, Session Release, and Deferred Settlement Reconstruction¶

Workflow Variation C-V6.¶

The embodiment will address a session whose logical, resource, operator, and accounting states become partially inconsistent following an interruption.¶

It will distinguish local completion, remote unknown outcome, resource cleanup, usagereport completion, and settlement finality.¶

It will provide implementation variations for reconstruction and continuity without assuming global atomic cross-operator transactions.¶

5.202. 7.C.19. Implementation and Interoperability Relationships

The following are potential technical building blocks for engineering evaluation and interoperability analysis.¶

They are not claims of established novelty.¶

Relationship C-1 - Session identity continuity: Associating a logical session with¶

changing resource and network-function instances under supported identity and generation information.¶

5.203. Relationship C-2 - Governing-condition state correspondence: Determining which

versioned subscriber or service conditions apply to a session at a particular lifecycle stage.¶

Relationship C-3 - Operator transition reconstruction: Relating home and visited¶

operator states without assuming common version namespaces or complete internal visibility.¶

Relationship C-4 - Requested versus applied resource state: Distinguishing service-¶

session modification from the actual network resources implementing that modification.¶

Relationship C-5 - Concurrent session-operation reconciliation: Evaluating overlapping¶

lifecycle requests against the applicable state and receiver contracts.¶

Relationship C-6 - Usage and resource correspondence: Associating usage records with¶

session intervals and resource instances while respecting record duplication and counter semantics.¶

Relationship C-7 - Reservation versus consumption distinction: Reconstructing usage¶

and reservation states under their defined accounting relationship.¶

Relationship C-8 - Consent-state lifecycle relevance: Determining which active service¶

functions are affected by a scoped governing-condition change.¶

Relationship C-9 - Partial release: Distinguishing logical termination from incomplete¶

resource cleanup and pending accounting.¶

Relationship C-10 - Cross-domain unresolved-state preservation: Retaining unknown¶

operator or resource conditions when a remote system is unreachable.¶

Relationship C-11 - Historical revision reconstruction: Preserving source-qualified¶

evidence needed to reconstruct the applicable session-state transition.¶

Relationship C-12 - Multi-dimensional lifecycle closure: Evaluating the specific resource¶

and accounting conditions required by a selected closure objective.¶

The legal scope of any subsequent claims depends upon the actual detailed disclosure and applicable prior art.¶

Established 3GPP, CAMARA, charging, roaming, and network-management functionality shall be considered when identifying any potentially inventive technical cooperation among these elements.¶

5.204. 7.C.20. Industrial Applicability

The common workflow may be useful in the following telecommunications environments.¶

Mobile network session management: Interpreting subscription, session, mobility, and¶

resource-state changes during active connectivity.¶

Interoperator roaming: Maintaining a technically qualified relationship between home and¶

visited network states.¶

Programmable quality-of-service services: Distinguishing API-facing service-session¶

status from the supporting network-resource state.¶

Mobile network exposure platforms: Reconciling resource and accounting consequences of¶

permitted programmable service requests.¶

Usage and charging systems: Interpreting delayed, duplicated, cumulative, and interval-¶

based usage reports.¶

Enterprise connectivity: Managing session continuity across private and public¶

telecommunications infrastructure.¶

Fixed-mobile convergence: Reconstructing sessions with changing access and subscriber-¶

service context.¶

Network-slice services: Evaluating service and resource-state correspondence for applicable¶

slice-dependent connectivity.¶

Hybrid satellite-terrestrial networks: Tracking logical service continuity where serving¶

network infrastructure changes under substantial communication delay.¶

Autonomous network operations: Supplying technical session-state evidence to existing¶

service management, monitoring, and separately governed effectuation systems.¶

These are non-limiting industrial applications.¶

The disclosure does not assume endorsement or implementation by any named standards organization or commercial entity.¶

5.205. 7.C.21. Relationship to the Foundational Shared Technical Foundation

This profile is a technical description of Group C operational consistency. Any independent authorization, protected execution decision, or post-effect verification is a separate requirement determined by the applicable interface and source evidence; this document alone grants no execution authority.¶

That foundational disclosure includes extensive subject matter concerning autonomous processing, telecommunications, state-dependent governance, execution-finality enforcement, and related technical mechanisms.¶

The present group does not describe established 3GPP session management, roaming, charging, CAMARA APIs, subscriber authentication, quota enforcement, or generic revocation checks as inventions newly created by this specification.¶

The proposed additional focus concerns operational-state correspondence during the¶

evolution of a session, including relationships among logical session identity, governing-¶

condition revisions, operator context, network resources, usage evidence, and incomplete closure.¶

The exact incremental features must be examined against the earlier as-filed materials and relevant public prior art.¶

This text is an illustrative technical disclosure. Separate formal disclosures and external references follow their applicable processes.¶

Any subsequent claims should be grounded in the particular processing relationships, source assumptions, and technical outcomes that the detailed specification enables.¶

This technical profile is constrained by the source-defined operation, observation, identity, timing and state relationships. Other profiles are applicable only where their independently required interfaces and guarantees are established.¶

5.206. 7.C.22. Non-Limiting Implementation Character

The present group may be implemented through software, firmware, network-control functions, operator management platforms, telecommunications databases, usage-report processors, programmable API services, resource observers, and combinations thereof.¶

The system may be centralized, distributed, or federated.¶

Its data may be represented through conventional records, graphs, event histories, relational databases, or constrained state models.¶

No particular language, database, 3GPP network-function deployment, commercial API platform, or device manufacturer is essential to every variation.¶

The logical session may correspond to one or several resource instances.¶

The session may continue across a change in serving network or underlying resource.¶

Its governing conditions may change without requiring termination.¶

Network resource release and charging settlement may complete at different times.¶

A remote operator may expose only partial state.¶

An operation may have an unknown result.¶

A usage report may arrive after session termination.¶

A source record may be authentic while remaining incomplete or stale.¶

The implementation must respect the resulting technical limitations.¶

The common workflow does not impose universal global atomicity across operator and accounting systems.¶

It does not assert exactly-once charging or effectuation without the corresponding mechanisms.¶

It does not require a new cryptographic execution capability.¶

Any consequential network operation remains governed by the separately applicable operational and authorization mechanisms.¶

All algorithms, numerical examples, source representations, and implementation variations are non-limiting illustrations of the disclosed technical relationships.¶

5.207. 7.C.23. Common Workflow Conclusion

The central technical subject of GROUP C is maintaining an evidence-qualified correspondence among the multiple changing states of an active or terminating telecommunications session.¶

The disclosed common workflow identifies a logical session and its governing context, observes relevant subscriber, operator, service, or resource changes, evaluates the technical applicability of lifecycle transitions, reconciles actual network effects, associates usage and accounting evidence, and determines whether continuation or closure conditions are established.¶

It specifically distinguishes:¶

1. Logical session identity from resource-instance identity. 2. Subscriber state from session state. 3. Operator context from logical session continuity. 4. Requested service changes from applied resource effects. 5. Reservation from consumption. 6. Measurement occurrence from report arrival. 7. Local operator completion from remote completion. 8. Session termination from resource cleanup. 9. Resource cleanup from accounting settlement. 10. Technical lifecycle compatibility from authorization to act.¶

Where the required evidence supports a lifecycle state, the processor may report that state under its specified scope.¶

Where an applicable condition is demonstrably violated, the corresponding transition is classified incompatible.¶

Where necessary source or remote state remains unavailable, the processor preserves an unresolved result.¶

5.208. Common Workflow C-CW-01 therefore provides the technical foundation for

5.209. Embodiments 1.C through 6.C, without repeating the radio-observation, multiagent

incident-remediation, or protected execution-finality inventions addressed elsewhere in the portfolio.¶

5.211. QUALIFIED CONTINUITY RECONSTRUCTION

5.212. 1.C.1. Embodiment Identification

Invention Group: C - Programmable Telecommunications Session Lifecycle and Cross-¶

Operator Operational-State Consistency.¶

Embodiment Number: 1.C - First Embodiment of GROUP C.¶

Technical Title: Systems and Methods for Reconstructing Active Telecommunications¶

Session Continuity Following SIM Association Changes, eSIM Profile Transitions, and Versioned Subscriber-State Updates.¶

Common Workflow: C-CW-01.¶

Principal Workflow Variation: C-V1 - SIM-Related Trust-State Changes During Active¶

Session Continuity.¶

Embodiment Algorithm: C-ALG-02.¶

Specific Alternative Implementations: C-1-DA-01 through C-1-DA-36.¶

Common Workflow Relationships: C-CW-01.01-C-CW-01.28 and C-CW-01.32-C-CW-¶

01.38, with particular emphasis on subscriber-state correspondence, session-instance continuity, resource-state verification, and incomplete transition reconstruction.¶

x x x x¶

x¶

2.C - Interoperator roaming and session-state responsibility correspondence. 3.C - Concurrent programmable session updates and usage-quota reconciliation. 4.C - Service effect, network usage, and charging-record correspondence. 5.C - Purpose-scoped consent-state changes during active telecommunications service. 6.C - Partial operator failure, session release, and deferred settlement reconstruction.¶

1.C.1.1. General Technical Subject¶

The present embodiment describes a telecommunications session-continuity processing system configured to evaluate the effects of SIM-related and subscriber-association changes upon one or more previously established communication or connectivity sessions.¶

The system receives or retrieves an event concerning a mobile subscription, subscriber identity association, SIM replacement, remotely provisioned SIM profile, device association, or another supported subscriber-related state change.¶

It determines the actual meaning of the event under the originating source's information model.¶

It then identifies which active or historical session instances may be associated with the affected subscriber or service context.¶

For each candidate session, the system reconstructs the relevant subscriber-state version, network-function context, resource assignments, outstanding lifecycle operations, and observed session status.¶

The processor evaluates whether the event:¶

(a) has an established technical relationship to the session;¶

(b) changes a governing condition relevant to that session;¶

(d) is merely a risk signal without established session-level effect;¶

(e) describes a device or profile transition whose impact depends upon the applicable deployment; or¶

(f) cannot presently be associated with a specific session lifecycle.¶

The resulting reconstruction distinguishes the occurrence of the SIM-related event from any independently observed change in network-session state.¶

A SIM swap may occur without the external evidence source reporting which data sessions were affected.¶

An eSIM profile may be enabled without a complete public view of the network registration and session state.¶

A new serving context may coexist temporarily with an older session context whose release is not yet established.¶

The disclosed system does not treat any of these possibilities as automatically equivalent.¶

It maintains evidence-qualified correspondence among the event, affected subscription, logical session, supporting resources, and observed lifecycle effects.¶

1.C.1.2. Principal Technical Distinction¶

The central mechanism is event-to-session applicability reconstruction followed by¶

network-effect correspondence.¶

It separates three technical questions.¶

5.214. Question A - What changed?

The processor determines what the source establishes: for example, a mobile-line association change, profile enablement, subscription-data revision, or device-associated observation.¶

5.215. Question B - Which sessions are affected?

The processor associates that change with the relevant subscriber and service contexts and identifies the active or historical session instances for which the event is technically applicable.¶

5.216. Question C - What actually happened to those sessions?

The processor obtains appropriate control-plane, user-plane, resource, or service observations and determines which lifecycle effects are established.¶

A positive answer to Question A does not automatically provide positive answers to Questions B and C.¶

1.C.1.3. Distinction from Generic SIM-Swap Fraud Detection¶

Existing SIM-swap information services can provide risk-relevant information to applications.¶

The present embodiment does not claim the general concept of checking whether a SIM changed.¶

It does not claim that detecting a SIM change itself proves account compromise.¶

Nor does it claim a conventional subscriber authentication or fraud-scoring system as a new technical mechanism.¶

Its particular subject is the stateful association of such events with existing session¶

instances and the reconciliation of actual session-continuity outcomes across changing subscriber and network contexts.¶

A fraud-assessment system may consume the reconstructed state.¶

The network-session reconstruction remains technically distinct from that assessment.¶

1.C.1.4. Separation from Existing Execution-Finality Mechanisms¶

The present embodiment does not redefine prior protected authority, capability, revocation, or Finality Sink mechanisms.¶

It may determine that an active session has a changed applicable subscriber context.¶

It may identify that a particular service requires modification under an established operator procedure.¶

Such a determination is not itself a newly created execution authorization.¶

Actual network modification or release remains governed by the relevant established network procedures and independently applicable operational controls.¶

5.217. 1.C.2. Particular Technical Problem Space

5.218. 1.C.2.1. A Mobile Number Is Not a Universal Session Identifier

A mobile phone number may be used by an external application to request SIM-change information.¶

However, a 5G network session is associated with its actual subscriber and sessionmanagement context.¶

The mobile number, internal subscriber identifier, SIM profile identifier, and PDU Session identifier are not interchangeable.¶

A processor that joins sessions using only a phone number can incorrectly associate different subscribers or subscription generations.¶

The system therefore uses a supported mapping from the event's subject to the relevant internal subscriber and session identities.¶

5.219. 1.C.2.2. A SIM-Swap API Response May Not Expose the Underlying Subscription Identity

An external SIM-swap API may indicate whether a change occurred within a requested period.¶

It need not expose the actual IMSI, SUPI, ICCID, eUICC identifier, or network session identifier.¶

The receiving application cannot infer that hidden information merely from a positive boolean result.¶

A deployment may use an operator-controlled internal resolver where such resolution is permitted and technically supported.¶

Otherwise, session-level applicability remains unresolved.¶

5.220. 1.C.2.3. A Positive SIM-Change Signal Is Not Automatically Evidence of Fraud

A SIM replacement may be legitimate.¶

A mobile user may replace a damaged SIM, change devices, activate a supported additional SIM, or otherwise change the subscriber association.¶

The processor describes the technical event.¶

Any fraud-risk classification must be separately grounded in appropriate evidence and policy.¶

The present embodiment does not equate a SIM change with malicious behavior.¶

5.221. 1.C.2.4. A Negative SIM-Change Response May Have Limited Historical Scope

An API may report no change within a specified lookback period.¶

This does not establish that no SIM change occurred at any earlier time.¶

Likewise, a null latest-change date may reflect limits in history retention or disclosure.¶

The system retains the source's monitoring horizon.¶

A negative result within a limited interval is not converted into a universal statement about the subscription's entire history.¶

5.222. 1.C.2.5. An External Event May Arrive After Its Effective Time

A subscriber association may change before an application receives the corresponding notification.¶

The session may already have modified its state.¶

A processor that treats notification arrival as the event's effective time may incorrectly interpret sessions and network resources.¶

The system distinguishes source occurrence or effective time from notification delivery time.¶

5.223. 1.C.2.6. The Meaning of a SIM Event Depends on Its Source

A SIM-change risk API, an operator subscription database, an eSIM profile manager, a device telemetry source, and a network-registration function may report different aspects of a subscription.¶

A profile-enable operation is not necessarily equivalent to a mobile-number-to-SIM reassociation.¶

An operator subscription-data update is not necessarily equivalent to a physical SIM replacement.¶

A device change is not necessarily a SIM swap.¶

The system identifies the technical event type before evaluating session effects.¶

5.224. 1.C.2.7. Different Subscriber Identifiers Have Different Scopes

A system may encounter a SUPI, legacy IMSI, subscription-related phone number, ICCID, EID, device identifier, and application account identifier.¶

These represent different technical concepts.¶

The system does not assume that a shared string format or administrative association makes them identical.¶

It uses source-scoped, time-applicable identity relationships.¶

Where an event cannot be linked to a network subscription through an adequate mapping, the system preserves that limitation.¶

5.225. 1.C.2.8. One Subscriber May Have Several Active Sessions

A subscriber may have several PDU Sessions associated with different DNNs, slices, access contexts, or service requirements.¶

A subscriber-state change may affect only some of them.¶

The processor must evaluate applicable scope rather than assume that every session under the subscriber is affected identically.¶

5.226. 1.C.2.9. One Device May Have Several Active Subscription Profiles

A device may support multiple physical SIMs, eSIM profiles, or simultaneously enabled profiles under an applicable hardware and software architecture.¶

A transition involving one profile does not automatically establish an equivalent transition for the other profiles.¶

The processor identifies the affected subscription and its relevant session instances.¶

It does not treat the device itself as the sole session identity.¶

5.227. 1.C.2.10. An eSIM Profile Can Be Installed Without Being Enabled

Remote provisioning may permit a profile to be downloaded and installed separately from enabling it for network use.¶

Installation alone does not establish that the profile has become active in the mobile network.¶

The processor distinguishes profile installation, enablement, disablement, deletion, and registration outcomes.¶

5.228. 1.C.2.11. A Profile Disable Event Does Not Prove Every Session Was Released

A device-side profile operation may affect the ability to use a subscription.¶

However, the release of a particular network-session context may depend on the actual access and core-network procedures.¶

A network function may retain stale or temporarily unresolved state.¶

The processor therefore obtains session-management and user-plane evidence where the release result is material.¶

1.C.2.12. A New Subscription Context May Coexist with an Older Unresolved Session¶

A newly associated subscription may establish a network session while a previous session context has not yet been conclusively released.¶

Such overlap does not automatically prove simultaneous legitimate use or malicious use.¶

It may result from delayed cleanup, stale control-plane records, reporting lag, or another supported condition.¶

The system reconstructs both contexts separately.¶

5.229. 1.C.2.13. Source-Reported Subscriber Association May Be Corrected

A subscription system may amend an earlier association record.¶

A previous event may be superseded or corrected.¶

The processor maintains event identity and revision semantics so that an earlier session interpretation can be reevaluated.¶

It does not treat a corrected event as an independent new SIM swap without source support.¶

5.230. 1.C.2.14. Subscriber-Data Notifications May Precede Session Modifications

An operator's subscription-data function may notify a session-management function about updated information.¶

The receiving function may subsequently apply an appropriate existing session modification or release procedure.¶

The notification and the procedure outcome are distinct lifecycle events.¶

The present embodiment evaluates their correspondence without claiming the standardized notification or procedure as newly invented.¶

5.231. 1.C.2.15. Network Function Replacement Can Obscure the Session Outcome

A session-management function may restart or be replaced during the event.¶

An old function instance may have recorded the subscriber update.¶

A successor may hold a reconstructed session context.¶

A processor must distinguish function-instance identity from logical session identity.¶

It must not assume that a new function instance necessarily means that a new session was established.¶

5.232. 1.C.2.16. Local State May Not Prove User-Plane Effect

A control-plane repository may report session release.¶

A user-plane resource may still be present or its state may not be observable.¶

The processor distinguishes logical release, control-plane result, user-plane rule state, and service reachability.¶

5.233. 1.C.2.17. An Update May Affect Only Selected Service Conditions

A subscriber profile change may affect one DNN, network slice, service entitlement, or other scoped condition.¶

An unaffected session may remain valid under the applicable operating model.¶

A processor that applies a subscriber-wide interpretation to every session may cause unnecessary service disruption.¶

The present embodiment requires scope-specific correspondence.¶

5.234. 1.C.2.18. Emergency and Special Services May Have Distinct Procedures

Certain emergency or special-service session behaviors may differ from ordinary commercial data sessions.¶

An implementation must apply the relevant network standards and legal requirements.¶

It shall not assume that one generic subscriber-risk signal automatically requires termination of all such sessions.¶

1.C.2.19. A Network-Session Change Does Not Necessarily Mean a New Billable Session¶

A user-plane function or service resource may change while the same logical session continues.¶

The processor identifies the applicable charging and session relationship.¶

It avoids treating resource replacement alone as proof of a second independent billable session.¶

The detailed accounting reconciliation belongs primarily to Embodiment 4.C.¶

5.235. 1.C.2.20. A SIM-Swap Risk Signal May Become Stale

An application may check whether a SIM changed within a specified lookback period.¶

The check reflects the source's result at the query time under its monitoring contract.¶

It may not establish the status at a much later action or session transition.¶

The processor records the query context and does not silently extend the result beyond its supported applicability.¶

5.236. 1.C.2.21. A Device Change May Occur Without a SIM Change

The same subscription may be used in a different physical device.¶

A device-information service may report that change.¶

The event may have relevance to network continuity or application risk assessment.¶

However, a device change should not automatically be represented as a SIM replacement.¶

The processor retains the event's actual semantics.¶

5.237. 1.C.2.22. Number Portability and Number Reassignment Require Distinct Interpretation

A phone number may be ported between operators while remaining associated with the same subscriber under the applicable process.¶

A number may also be reassigned to a different subscriber at a later time.¶

Those situations have different identity and continuity consequences.¶

An application relying only on the phone number may incorrectly associate sessions from separate subscriber generations.¶

The system therefore evaluates the operator and subscriber-mapping history.¶

5.238. 1.C.2.23. A SIM Change Can Affect an Application's Trust Assessment Without Proving Network Session Failure

A payment or account application may evaluate a SIM-swap signal as one factor in its risk policy.¶

That does not establish that the underlying PDU Session failed or was released.¶

The present embodiment permits a risk-related observation and a network-continuity observation to coexist without forcing them into one state.¶

5.239. 1.C.2.24. Out-of-Order Events Can Produce False State Regressions

A notification describing an older subscriber state may arrive after a newer source revision.¶

If the processor blindly applies arrival order, it may overwrite the current mapping with obsolete information.¶

The system applies the source's supported revision and event-order semantics.¶

It does not impose a global numerical order across unrelated sources.¶

5.240. 1.C.2.25. Replayed Events Can Cause Duplicate Transitions

A subscriber-state event may be delivered more than once.¶

Without appropriate event identity, a processor may interpret the replay as repeated changes.¶

The system identifies source-qualified duplicate events and correction records.¶

It does not assume all repeated textual descriptions are the same event without sufficient evidence.¶

5.241. 1.C.2.26. A Partial Session Release Must Be Represented Explicitly

A subscriber-related transition may lead to one established resource release while another relevant resource remains active or unresolved.¶

The system must distinguish partial and complete results.¶

It does not infer global completion from one successful operation acknowledgement.¶

5.242. 1.C.2.27. Data Privacy Limits Available Identity Correspondence

Raw subscriber identifiers may be sensitive and subject to operator and jurisdictional restrictions.¶

A system may be unable or unauthorized to access the complete mapping between a phone number, subscription, device, and session.¶

The processor should use the minimum necessary information and preserve the resulting analytical limitation.¶

A hash of an identifier does not automatically make the data anonymous or permit unrestricted correlation.¶

5.243. 1.C.2.28. Accurate Reconstruction Does Not Establish Execution Authority

Even if the processor establishes that a session is associated with a newly applicable subscriber profile, it does not independently gain authority to modify or release that session.¶

Network operations continue to use the applicable standards-based and separately governed execution controls.¶

5.244. 1.C.3. Specific Technical Contribution Sought

The present embodiment provides a session-specific reconciliation procedure configured to:¶

(a) receive a SIM-related or subscriber-association event; (b) classify the event according to the actual source semantics; (c) establish the event's scope, source generation, revision, effective interval, and monitoring limitations; (d) identify the mobile-line or subscriber context to which it applies;¶

(e) obtain a technically supported mapping to relevant network subscriber identities where permitted;¶

(f) enumerate candidate active or historical sessions;¶

(g) evaluate each session's applicability independently;¶

(h) distinguish concurrent sessions, additional subscriptions, and separate device profiles;¶

(i) identify outstanding control-plane and resource operations;¶

(j) evaluate whether a governing condition changed for each session;¶

(k) identify which existing session-transition procedures may be applicable;¶

(l) separately observe network-operation acknowledgement and applied resource state;¶

(m) determine which sessions are established as continuing, modified, released, replaced, or unresolved;¶

(n) preserve the distinction between an external risk signal and a network-session effect;¶

(o) reconcile delayed and out-of-order event reports;¶

(p) identify older session contexts whose cleanup remains uncertain;¶

(q) preserve session and resource-generation continuity across function replacement;¶

(r) identify the evidence needed to distinguish competing session-state reconstructions;¶

(s) revise affected assessments when corrected subscriber or resource information arrives; and¶

(t) provide a reproducible session-continuity result.¶

The arrangement is not limited to a single SIM technology or one mobile network generation.¶

It may use the relevant 3GPP, GSMA, operator, and device-specific interfaces according to their actual contracts.¶

5.245. 1.C.4. Representative Technical Architecture

Receives events or responses from available subscription, SIM-swap, eSIM-profile, device, or subscriber-state sources.¶

It maintains the source-specific event meaning.¶

A boolean indicating a recent SIM swap is not transformed into an invented network-session identifier.¶

5.247. 1.C.4.2. Event-Semantic Classifier

Classifies the received information into its supported technical category.¶

Illustrative categories include:¶

| x | mobile-line SIM association change; | |---|---| | x | recent SIM-swap risk information; | | x | subscriber-data revision; | | x | eSIM profile installation; | | x | eSIM profile enablement; | | x | eSIM profile disablement; | | x | eSIM profile deletion; | | x | device-association change; | | x | subscriber-number portability; | | x | number reassignment; | | x | operator correction or withdrawal of an earlier event; and | | x | unknown or insufficiently specified subscriber-related change. |¶

The classification is based upon actual source semantics rather than keyword matching alone.¶

5.248. 1.C.4.3. Identity Correspondence Resolver

Determines supported mappings among the event's subject and the relevant internal subscriber, subscription, and session references.¶

It records the direction, scope, validity, and provenance of each mapping.¶

The resolver need not expose raw internal identifiers to an external application.¶

5.249. 1.C.4.4. Session Inventory Resolver

Enumerates session instances potentially affected by the subscriber-related event.¶

It may obtain the session information from an applicable session-management context repository.¶

The result distinguishes active, historical, pending, and uncertain session contexts.¶

5.250. 1.C.4.5. Subscriber-State Revision Repository

Maintains relevant subscriber and service-condition versions.¶

It records the source and applicability of each revision.¶

A revision may affect one service rather than all sessions belonging to the subscriber.¶

5.251. 1.C.4.6. eSIM Profile State Adapter

Where applicable, obtains supported information about profile installation, enablement, disablement, deletion, or another remote-provisioning event.¶

It does not infer network registration or PDU Session continuity merely from the profilemanagement response.¶

5.252. 1.C.4.7. Multi-Subscription Context Evaluator

Determines which subscription or profile is relevant when a device has more than one subscription context.¶

It distinguishes device identity from subscription and session identity.¶

5.253. 1.C.4.8. Session Applicability Evaluator

Tests whether the event's subject, effective interval, service scope, and governing-condition semantics correspond to each candidate session.¶

It produces a separate result per session.¶

5.254. 1.C.4.9. Session Transition Model

Represents possible existing lifecycle procedures such as continuation, modification, release, reestablishment, or resource reassignment.¶

The applicable procedure follows the actual network architecture and operator policies.¶

5.255. 1.C.4.10. Control-Plane Status Observer

Obtains supported information concerning relevant session-management state.¶

It distinguishes notification receipt, processing acknowledgement, and established session transition.¶

5.256. 1.C.4.11. User-Plane State Observer

Obtains relevant resource-state information, where available.¶

This may include session-specific forwarding rules, QoS resources, or other applicable userplane conditions.¶

It does not assume complete access to all physical traffic.¶

5.257. 1.C.4.12. Outstanding Operation Reconciler

Tracks session changes whose outcomes are delayed, incomplete, or unknown.¶

It interprets receiving-interface semantics as described in Common Workflow C-CW-01.¶

5.258. 1.C.4.13. Session Continuity Evaluator

Determines whether a particular session remains established as continuing under its applicable logical and resource conditions.¶

It may report more than one state dimension.¶

5.259. 1.C.4.14. Session Release and Cleanup Observer

Tracks the supported release state of affected logical sessions and their resources.¶

It distinguishes release initiation from completed cleanup.¶

5.260. 1.C.4.15. Evidence Coverage Evaluator

Determines whether the relevant subscriber and session sources adequately cover the event and transition.¶

It distinguishes incomplete historical monitoring from affirmative absence.¶

5.261. 1.C.4.16. Reconstruction Revision Manager

Identifies which session assessments depend upon corrected or newly available evidence.¶

It reevaluates the affected results while retaining their earlier contexts.¶

5.262. 1.C.4.17. Optional Risk-Assessment Interface

Supplies technically qualified subscriber-association information to an independently governed risk assessment.¶

It does not require the network-continuity processor to classify every SIM change as fraud.¶

5.263. 1.C.4.18. Optional Existing Effectuation Interface

Where an operator or deployment uses protected execution-finality mechanisms, the technical session findings may serve as inputs.¶

The existing system independently controls consequential operations.¶

5.264. 1.C.5. Necessary Embodiment-Specific Interpretations

The Group C definitions and later Master Definitions remain applicable.¶

Only the following local descriptions are necessary to interpret this embodiment.¶

A SIM-related state event is a source-qualified observation or update concerning a SIM, eSIM profile, mobile-line association, subscription, or device-associated subscriber context.¶

The event's exact meaning depends upon its source.¶

5.266. 1.C.5.2. Event-to-Session Correspondence

Event-to-session correspondence is the supported relationship between a subscriber-related event and a particular logical or network session under the relevant identity, service, and temporal conditions.¶

5.267. 1.C.5.3. Subscriber-Association Revision

A subscriber-association revision identifies a versioned or otherwise ordered change in the mapping among the relevant mobile-line, subscription, profile, and subscriber identities.¶

It does not imply that every associated session has already changed.¶

5.268. 1.C.5.4. Session Impact Set

The session impact set comprises the session instances for which the event is established as relevant or remains potentially relevant under the available correspondence information.¶

The result may distinguish confirmed from unresolved membership.¶

5.269. 1.C.5.5. Continuity Evidence

Continuity evidence is the available session, control-plane, user-plane, and service-state information relevant to establishing whether a particular logical session persisted through the event.¶

5.270. 1.C.5.6. Transition Boundary

The transition boundary is the supported event, effective-state, or observation context separating the earlier governing condition from a later condition.¶

It need not correspond to one globally synchronized instant.¶

5.271. 1.C.5.7. Residual Session Context

A residual session context is an earlier session or resource representation whose continued presence or cleanup status remains relevant after a subscriber-association or profile transition.¶

The presence of such a context does not automatically establish active traffic or improper use.¶

5.272. 1.C.6. Representative Data Structures

SubscriberAssociationEvent:¶

event\_id source\_identity source\_generation source\_event\_reference event\_type event\_subtype mobile\_line\_reference subscription\_reference\_if\_available profile\_reference\_if\_available device\_reference\_if\_available source\_revision effective\_time\_or\_interval reporting\_time monitoring\_window observation\_limitations previous\_association\_reference new\_association\_reference evidence\_reference privacy\_scope¶

Fields unavailable to the receiving component remain absent or explicitly unresolved.¶

No implementation is required to expose hidden internal subscriber identifiers merely to populate every field.¶

5.274. 1.C.6.2. Identity Correspondence Record

SubscriberIdentityCorrespondence:¶

correspondence\_id source\_namespace destination\_namespace source\_reference destination\_reference\_if\_permitted subscriber\_generation applicable\_interval mapping\_source mapping\_evidence mapping\_completeness privacy\_restrictions correspondence\_verdict¶

A mapping may be maintained within the operator without exposing the destination identifier to an external application.¶

5.275. 1.C.6.3. Candidate Session Record

AffectedSessionCandidate:¶

logical\_session\_reference session\_namespace session\_generation subscriber\_context\_reference service\_scope dnn\_or\_equivalent\_service\_reference slice\_or\_service\_class\_reference access\_context serving\_operator\_context control\_function\_reference user\_plane\_resource\_references governing\_condition\_revision observed\_lifecycle\_state event\_applicability\_verdict unresolved\_identity\_relationships¶

5.276. 1.C.6.4. eSIM Profile Context

ProfileContext:¶

profile\_reference device\_or\_euicc\_reference\_if\_available subscription\_correspondence profile\_management\_generation installed\_state enabled\_state management\_operation\_reference relevant\_source\_evidence related\_network\_registration\_reference applicable\_session\_references unknown\_correspondence\_conditions¶

A profile-management operation does not by itself establish a particular network-session state.¶

5.277. 1.C.6.5. Session Transition Candidate

SessionTransitionCandidate:¶

candidate\_id subscriber\_event\_reference session\_reference original\_governing\_state proposed\_governing\_state transition\_type mandatory\_preconditions resource\_dependencies operator\_dependencies expected\_control\_plane\_effect expected\_user\_plane\_effect expected\_service\_effect¶

applicable\_procedure\_reference technical\_feasibility\_verdict¶

5.278. 1.C.6.6. Session Effect Observation

SessionEffectObservation:¶

observation\_id source\_id source\_generation logical\_session\_reference resource\_instance\_reference observed\_state\_type observed\_value state\_revision event\_or\_measurement\_interval receiver\_arrival\_context related\_operation\_reference evidence\_coverage source\_semantics¶

5.279. 1.C.6.7. Transition Outcome

SessionTransitionOutcome:¶

event\_reference logical\_session\_reference subscriber\_mapping\_verdict governing\_condition\_verdict operation\_submission\_status receiver\_acceptance\_status control\_plane\_state user\_plane\_state service\_continuity\_state residual\_resource\_state accounting\_relationship\_reference unresolved\_conditions outcome\_revision¶

5.280. 1.C.6.8. Session Impact Reconstruction

SessionImpactReconstruction:¶

reconstruction\_id event\_reference source\_monitoring\_limitations identity\_correspondence\_version candidate\_session\_ids established\_affected\_sessions established\_unaffected\_sessions potentially\_affected\_sessions transition\_candidates observed\_transition\_outcomes¶

residual\_session\_contexts evidence\_requirements unresolved\_conditions reconstruction\_revision¶

5.281. 1.C.7. Detailed Operational Procedure

The following 40 stages elaborate the first Group C embodiment without repeating the full common workflow.¶

5.282. 1.C-01 - Receive the SIM-Related Event

The processor obtains a SIM-related notification, API response, operator subscription revision, eSIM management event, or related supported record.¶

It preserves the raw source reference and the event's declared type.¶

Output: Candidate subscriber-state event.¶

5.283. 1.C-02 - Determine the Source and Event Contract

The processor identifies which system produced the record and what the reported event means.¶

It distinguishes operator subscription events from external SIM-swap information APIs and device-originated observations.¶

Output: Source-semantic context.¶

5.284. 1.C-03 - Establish Event Identity

The system obtains the event reference and source generation where available.¶

It checks whether the record is a new event, replay, duplicate delivery, or correction under the source's contract.¶

Output: Qualified event identity.¶

5.285. 1.C-04 - Determine the Event's Technical Category

The event is classified according to the actual data model.¶

For example, an eSIM profile enablement is not automatically reclassified as a mobilenumber reassignment.¶

Output: Event classification.¶

5.286. 1.C-05 - Determine the Subject Identity Scope

The processor identifies whether the event applies to a phone number, subscription, profile, device, network subscriber, or other subject.¶

It records the source namespace.¶

Output: Event subject context.¶

5.287. 1.C-06 - Determine Historical Monitoring Limits

For an external risk-information API, the processor identifies the supported lookback period, date availability, or other source reporting limitations.¶

A null or negative result is interpreted within those limits.¶

Output: Monitoring-coverage assessment.¶

5.288. 1.C-07 - Establish Event Timing

The processor distinguishes the event's supported effective time, reported time, and arrival time.¶

Where the effective time is known only as an interval, that interval is preserved.¶

Output: Event temporal context.¶

5.289. 1.C-08 - Obtain Supported Identity Mappings

The processor retrieves permitted correspondence between the event subject and the relevant internal subscription or network subscriber.¶

It does not invent unavailable mappings.¶

Output: Qualified subscriber correspondence.¶

5.290. 1.C-09 - Check Identity Generation and Reassignment

The system determines whether a mobile number or subscription reference may have been reassigned or reused.¶

It identifies whether historical session associations belong to the relevant subscriber generation.¶

Output: Identity-generation result.¶

5.291. 1.C-10 - Enumerate Candidate Sessions

The system identifies active, pending, or historical sessions potentially related to the affected subscription.¶

Multiple sessions may be present.¶

Output: Candidate session inventory.¶

5.292. 1.C-11 - Distinguish Other Subscription Profiles

Where the device supports several subscriptions or profiles, the processor identifies which profile context is implicated.¶

It does not automatically include unrelated subscriptions on the same device.¶

Output: Subscription-profile scope.¶

5.293. 1.C-12 - Associate Each Session with Its Governing State

The processor identifies the applicable service, subscriber, and operator context of each session before the reported change.¶

Output: Pre-event session-state references.¶

5.294. 1.C-13 - Determine Which Conditions Changed

The processor identifies the specific subscriber or profile attributes affected by the event.¶

A general risk signal may not identify a particular changed network entitlement.¶

Output: Condition-change set.¶

5.295. 1.C-14 - Evaluate Session-Specific Applicability

For each session, the system checks identity, service scope, effective-state interval, and relevant subscriber conditions.¶

It classifies the event as applicable, inapplicable, or unresolved.¶

Output: Session impact set.¶

5.296. 1.C-15 - Determine Outstanding Session Operations

The processor identifies previously submitted session modifications, releases, or establishment procedures whose outcomes may overlap the event.¶

Output: Outstanding operation context.¶

5.297. 1.C-16 - Identify Applicable Existing Network Procedures

The processor determines which standardized or operator-defined session procedures may be relevant.¶

For example, an established subscriber-data update may lead to an SMF-initiated modification or release under the applicable 3GPP procedure.¶

The standard procedure itself is not claimed as newly invented.¶

Output: Procedure candidates.¶

5.298. 1.C-17 - Evaluate Logical Session Continuity

The system determines whether the supported lifecycle model permits the existing logical session to continue.¶

It distinguishes continuity of the logical session from continuity of any one serving function or user-plane resource.¶

Output: Logical continuity assessment.¶

5.299. 1.C-18 - Evaluate Multi-Session Effects

The processor checks whether the same event has different effects across the subscriber's session instances.¶

It does not force one global transition when per-session conditions differ.¶

Output: Per-session transition requirements.¶

5.300. 1.C-19 - Evaluate Multi-Profile Effects

Where profile enablement, disablement, or replacement is involved, the processor checks the relevant device and subscription contexts.¶

It does not infer network-session release from a profile-management notification alone.¶

Output: Profile-to-session correspondence.¶

5.301. 1.C-20 - Evaluate Current Operator Context

The processor determines which operator and network-function contexts are relevant to the session.¶

Cross-operator matters may be further processed under Embodiment 2.C.¶

Output: Operator-state context.¶

5.302. 1.C-21 - Evaluate Network Resource Preconditions

The processor identifies the currently supported resource state and any conditions relevant to an applicable session modification, continuation, or release.¶

Output: Resource-state assessment.¶

5.303. 1.C-22 - Construct Candidate Session Transitions

The processor may construct candidates for:¶

| x | no material network-session change; | |---|---| | x | continued operation under updated governing conditions; | | x | network-session modification; | | x | partial service restriction; | | x | logical session release; | | x | resource reassignment; | | x | new session establishment; or | | x | unresolved state pending additional observations. |¶

Output: Candidate transitions.¶

5.304. 1.C-23 - Evaluate Each Candidate's Technical Applicability

The system checks the candidate's required subscriber, session, operator, and resource conditions.¶

It does not infer applicability from the SIM-change label alone.¶

Output: Transition feasibility result.¶

5.305. 1.C-24 - Determine Whether New Network Effectuation Is Required

The processor identifies which candidates require actual network operations and which concern only an informational or risk-assessment update.¶

This distinction prevents an external information query from being treated as direct evidence of a required PDU Session release.¶

Output: Effect requirement classification.¶

5.306. 1.C-25 - Associate Consequential Operations with Existing Controls

Where a transition requires network modification or release, the system provides a structured operation specification to the applicable established management and authorization path.¶

It does not independently authorize the action.¶

Output: Operation specification.¶

5.307. 1.C-26 - Observe Operation Submission

The processor records any separately performed session-management operation and its target.¶

A local submission record is not classified as remote application.¶

Output: Submission status.¶

5.308. 1.C-27 - Interpret Receiver Acceptance

The processor evaluates acknowledgement and processing information according to the receiver's contract.¶

Output: Acceptance status.¶

5.309. 1.C-28 - Observe Control-Plane Session Effects

The system obtains relevant session-management state observations.¶

It determines whether the required logical session modification or release is established.¶

Output: Control-plane transition evidence.¶

5.310. 1.C-29 - Observe User-Plane Resource Effects

Where relevant, the processor obtains supported information about user-plane rules or resource assignments.¶

It distinguishes control-plane state from user-plane application.¶

Output: User-plane effect evidence.¶

5.311. 1.C-30 - Observe Service Continuity

The processor obtains any service-level observations required by the transition model.¶

It does not assume service continuity merely from the continued presence of a session database record.¶

Output: Service-state correspondence.¶

5.312. 1.C-31 - Reconcile Unknown Remote Outcomes

Where operation acknowledgement or resource-state information is missing, the processor retains appropriate possible states.¶

It may obtain additional evidence under supported status and observation mechanisms.¶

Output: Qualified outcome reconstruction.¶

5.313. 1.C-32 - Identify Residual Earlier Session Contexts

The system identifies older session and resource contexts whose release or continued presence remains relevant after the subscriber-state change.¶

It distinguishes stale records from established active traffic where possible.¶

Output: Residual session assessment.¶

5.314. 1.C-33 - Determine Whether Apparent Simultaneous Sessions Are Actually Distinct

The processor compares subscriber and resource generations, service references, and observation intervals.¶

It does not automatically classify the coexistence of two records as unauthorized duplicate access.¶

Output: Concurrent-state interpretation.¶

5.315. 1.C-34 - Evaluate Any Required Accounting Correspondence

Where relevant, the system associates the affected logical session and resource generations with their accounting references.¶

The detailed charging procedure remains within Embodiment 4.C.¶

Output: Accounting continuity reference.¶

5.316. 1.C-35 - Determine Final Per-Session Continuity Status

The processor classifies each session as continuing, modified, released, replaced, unaffected, or unresolved, subject to the applicable evidence and lifecycle definitions.¶

It may preserve several independent lifecycle dimensions.¶

Output: Per-session result.¶

5.317. 1.C-36 - Evaluate Additional Evidence Requirements

The processor identifies information that could distinguish competing states, such as a current SMF session record, relevant user-plane status, profile state, or operator mapping correction.¶

Output: Evidence requirement set.¶

5.318. 1.C-37 - Reevaluate After Source Corrections

If a SIM-related event or identity mapping is corrected, the processor identifies affected session assessments and reevaluates them.¶

Historical assessments remain associated with their earlier source context.¶

Output: Revised reconstruction.¶

5.319. 1.C-38 - Reevaluate After Resource or Function Changes

If a session-management function restarts or a resource is replaced, the processor updates the relevant resource correspondence without automatically creating a new logical session.¶

Output: Updated continuity context.¶

5.320. 1.C-39 - Preserve the Reconstruction History

The system stores the event, source scope, identity correspondence, session impact set, governing conditions, observed effects, and unresolved states.¶

It applies appropriate data minimization and access restrictions.¶

Output: Reconstructible subscriber-event impact history.¶

5.321. 1.C-40 - Produce the Session-Continuity Result

The processor reports the supported relationship among the SIM-related event, affected sessions, governing conditions, and observed network effects.¶

It does not convert uncertainty into a definitive session state.¶

Output: C-V1 session-impact reconstruction.¶

5.322. 1.C.8. Technical Invariants

C1-I01 - A SIM-change report is not automatically a PDU Session state-change report.¶

C1-I02 - A positive SIM-swap signal is not proof of fraud.¶

5.323. C1-I03 - A negative bounded SIM-swap check is not proof of an unchanged lifetime history.

C1-I04 - A null latest-change date is not necessarily proof of no change.¶

C1-I05 - Mobile number, subscriber identifier, profile identifier, device identifier, and session identifier are not interchangeable.¶

C1-I06 - Identity correspondence must be interpreted within applicable namespaces and generations.¶

5.324. C1-I07 - A reassigned mobile number must not automatically inherit the earlier subscriber's session history.

C1-I08 - Device replacement does not automatically prove SIM replacement.¶

C1-I09 - eSIM profile installation does not automatically prove enablement.¶

5.325. C1-I10 - eSIM profile enablement does not automatically prove successful network registration.

C1-I11 - Profile disablement does not automatically prove completed network-session release.¶

C1-I12 - A multi-profile device does not have one universally shared subscription state.¶

C1-I13 - One subscriber may have several independently affected active sessions.¶

C1-I14 - A subscriber-state event may affect one service without requiring identical changes to every service.¶

C1-I15 - Source event time and notification arrival time are distinct.¶

C1-I16 - Out-of-order event delivery must not automatically regress state.¶

C1-I17 - Duplicate notification delivery is not necessarily a new SIM change.¶

C1-I18 - Source correction is not automatically a new event.¶

C1-I19 - Source monitoring coverage is distinct from source authentication.¶

C1-I20 - A source can be authentic while its information remains incomplete.¶

5.326. C1-I21 - A subscriber-data notification does not itself prove an SMF-initiated procedure completed.

C1-I22 - Network-operation acceptance is not automatically resource application.¶

C1-I23 - Control-plane session release is not necessarily proof of completed user-plane cleanup.¶

C1-I24 - Session database presence is not necessarily proof of current user-plane traffic.¶

C1-I25 - User-plane resource replacement does not automatically create a new logical session.¶

5.327. C1-I26 - Session continuity does not require one unchanged network-function instance.

C1-I27 - A new subscription context and an unresolved old session record may coexist without proving simultaneous malicious use.¶

C1-I28 - A local timeout does not prove remote operation nonapplication.¶

C1-I29 - Idempotency is determined by the receiver's actual contract.¶

C1-I30 - A subscriber-associated risk signal may be relevant without establishing a network-session effect.¶

C1-I31 - A SIM-related event does not automatically justify universal release of special or emergency services.¶

C1-I32 - An operator's policy decision must be distinguished from technical evidence of resource state.¶

C1-I33 - Session continuity and accounting continuity are different relationships.¶

5.328. C1-I34 - A change in resource identity does not automatically establish a second billable session.

C1-I35 - Privacy-limited identity information must not be replaced with fabricated subscriber mappings.¶

C1-I36 - Pseudonymization does not automatically eliminate privacy or linkage risks.¶

5.329. C1-I37 - An unresolved event-to-session correspondence cannot silently become established.

5.330. C1-I38 - A demonstrated inapplicable event must not be treated as merely missing data.

C1-I39 - Several possible session states may remain under incomplete evidence.¶

C1-I40 - A technically consistent reconstruction does not itself authorize network effectuation.¶

C1-I41 - Historical continuity may remain valid despite a later subscription change.¶

C1-I42 - Verification is limited to the specified source and session scope.¶

C1-I43 - A single risk indicator need not determine a global session-lifecycle action.¶

C1-I44 - Unknown source semantics cannot be repaired through arbitrary identifier equality.¶

C1-I45 - A complete lifecycle conclusion requires the mandatory state dimensions of its stated objective.¶

C1-I46 - Resource-state and subscriber-state revisions may lack a common total order.¶

C1-I47 - A model-compatible transition is not necessarily the only physically possible transition.¶

5.331. C1-I48 - No claimed guarantee extends beyond the actual source, operator, and network-function contracts.

5.332. 1.C.9. Embodiment-Specific Mathematical Formulation

The following mathematical formulation supplements C-CW-01.¶

The separate Group C mathematical document shall provide the full workflow-level equations and assumptions.¶

5.333. 1.C.9.1. Identity Domains

Let:¶

| x | (M) denote mobile-line identifiers; | |---|---| | x | (P) denote SIM or profile references; | | x | (U) denote internal subscriber references; | | x | (S) denote logical session instances; | | x | (R) denote supporting network resources. |¶

These are distinct identity domains.¶

A mapping between two domains is represented as a supported relationship rather than equality.¶

5.334. 1.C.9.2. Time-Qualified Subscriber Mapping

Define:¶

[ I(m,u,t)\\in{T,F,U}, ]¶

where (I) describes whether mobile-line identifier (m) corresponds to subscriber (u) at time or effective-state context (t).¶

The predicate is established only where a sufficient source relationship exists.¶

The same phone number may correspond to different subscribers at different periods.¶

5.335. 1.C.9.3. Event Applicability

For event (e) and session (s), define:¶

[ A(e,s)=I\_e\\land T\_e\\land G\_e\\land Q\_e, ]¶

where:¶

| x | (I_e) is the required subscriber or profile identity correspondence; | |---|---| | x | (T_e) is temporal applicability; | | x | (G_e) is governing-condition and service-scope applicability; | | x | (Q_e) is any additional mandatory source-qualification condition. |¶

Each term is evaluated in three-valued logic.¶

A required FALSE condition establishes nonapplicability.¶

An unresolved mandatory term prevents an unqualified applicable classification unless another required term is already FALSE.¶

5.336. 1.C.9.4. Candidate Session Impact Set

For event (e), define:¶

{s\\in S(e,s)\\neq F}. ]¶

This set includes established and unresolved candidates.¶

It is not equivalent to the set of conclusively affected sessions.¶

Define the established affected subset as:¶

{s\\in S(e,s)=T}. ]¶

5.337. 1.C.9.5. Event Effective-Time Interval

Let an event have an effective time within:¶

[ t\_e\\in[e^-,e^+]. ]¶

Let a session's relevant state interval be:¶

[ I\_s=[s^-,s^+]. ]¶

An overlapping interval may establish possible temporal relevance.¶

It does not by itself establish the identity or service-scope relationship.¶

5.338. 1.C.9.6. Source Lookback Limitation

Suppose an external SIM-change check concerns interval:¶

[ I\_q=[t\_q-H,t\_q], ]¶

where (H) is the requested and supported lookback period.¶

A negative result can support only the conclusion specified by the source's contract for (I\_q).¶

It does not imply no change before (t\_q-H).¶

5.339. 1.C.9.7. Multi-Dimensional Session State

Let a session's relevant state be:¶

[ X\_s(t)= \\left( L\_s(t), G\_s(t), C\_s(t), R\_s(t), V\_s(t) \\right), ]¶

where:¶

| x | (L_s) is logical lifecycle state; | |---|---| | x | (G_s) is governing subscriber or service state; | | x | (C_s) is control-plane session state; | | x | (R_s) is network-resource state; | | x | (V_s) is required service observation state. |¶

The components need not change simultaneously.¶

5.340. 1.C.9.8. Transition Feasibility

For candidate transition (a), define:¶

\\bigwedge\_{p\\in P\_a}p(X\_s). ]¶

Here (P\_a) is the set of mandatory technical preconditions.¶

The predicate evaluates technical feasibility under the model.¶

It does not establish permission to execute (a).¶

5.341. 1.C.9.9. Resource-Generation Correspondence

Let (r\_1) and (r\_2) represent two resource instances.¶

Logical session continuity may exist across a resource change:¶

[ s\\leftrightarrow r\_1 \\quad\\rightarrow\\quad s\\leftrightarrow r\_2. ]¶

The transition is interpreted under the actual network procedure.¶

The mere replacement of (r\_1) by (r\_2) does not prove that logical session (s) was terminated.¶

5.342. 1.C.9.10. Possible State Reconstruction

Let (E) denote the available subscriber, control-plane, and user-plane evidence.¶

The possible session-state set is:¶

{X\\text{ is compatible with all established mandatory evidence}}. ]¶

Where an operation outcome is unknown, the set may contain multiple possible states.¶

The processor shall not arbitrarily select the desired one.¶

5.343. 1.C.9.11. Continuity Objective

A selected network-continuity objective may require:¶

[ C\_s= C\_{\\mathrm{logical}} \\land C\_{\\mathrm{governing}} \\land C\_{\\mathrm{resource}} \\land C\_{\\mathrm{service}}, ]¶

where the included predicates depend upon the stated objective.¶

A narrower objective may require fewer dimensions.¶

The result must identify its scope.¶

5.344. 1.C.9.12. Change-Impact Reassessment

For a corrected event, mapping, or resource observation (\\Delta), define the affected session assessments:¶

{s(s)\\cap\\Delta\\neq\\varnothing}, ]¶

where (D(s)) identifies the relevant assessment dependencies.¶

An incomplete dependency index may require broader reevaluation.¶

5.345. 1.C.9.13. Illustrative Lookback Example

Suppose an API query occurs at 14:00 and checks the preceding 24 hours.¶

The supported query window begins at 14:00 on the preceding day.¶

A negative result under a complete applicable 24-hour reporting contract does not establish that the mobile-line association remained unchanged two days earlier.¶

The processor retains the 24-hour limitation.¶

5.346. 1.C.9.14. Illustrative Session-Impact Example

A subscriber has three sessions:¶

| x | (s_1): enterprise data service; | |---|---| | x | (s_2): consumer data service; | | x | (s_3): service associated with a different subscription profile. |¶

Suppose a governing-condition update specifically changes the enterprise service entitlement for the first subscription.¶

The applicability model may establish:¶

[ A(e,s\_1)=T, ]¶

[ A(e,s\_2)=F, ]¶

[ A(e,s\_3)=F. ]¶

The event does not become a universal three-session release request merely because all sessions are present on one device.¶

5.347. 1.C.10. Implementable Pseudocode - C-ALG-02

5.348. 1.C.10.1. Technical Types

ENUM Verdict:¶

COMPATIBLE INCOMPATIBLE UNRESOLVED¶

ENUM EventKind:¶

MOBILE\_LINE\_SIM\_ASSOCIATION\_CHANGE¶

SUBSCRIPTION\_DATA\_UPDATE PROFILE\_INSTALLED PROFILE\_ENABLED PROFILE\_DISABLED PROFILE\_DELETED DEVICE\_ASSOCIATION\_CHANGE NUMBER\_PORTABILITY\_EVENT NUMBER\_REASSIGNMENT HISTORICAL\_SIM\_SWAP\_CHECK EVENT\_CORRECTION UNKNOWN\_EVENT¶

ENUM SessionOutcome:¶

CONTINUING\_ESTABLISHED MODIFIED\_ESTABLISHED RELEASED\_ESTABLISHED REPLACED\_ESTABLISHED UNAFFECTED\_ESTABLISHED PARTIAL\_TRANSITION OUTCOME\_UNKNOWN¶

TYPE SessionCandidate:¶

logical\_session\_reference subscriber\_generation service\_scope resource\_references governing\_state operation\_status observed\_session\_state¶

TYPE SubscriberEvent:¶

source source\_generation event\_reference event\_kind subject effective\_context monitoring\_limits change\_scope evidence\_reference¶

5.349. 1.C.10.2. Qualify the Event

FUNCTION QUALIFY\_SIM\_RELATED\_EVENT(¶

event, source\_registry ):¶

source\_contract = source\_registry.RESOLVE(¶

event.source,¶

event.source\_generation )¶

identity = CHECK\_EVENT\_IDENTITY(¶

event, source\_contract )¶

semantics = INTERPRET\_EVENT\_KIND(¶

event, source\_contract )¶

timing = RESOLVE\_EFFECTIVE\_INTERVAL(¶

event, source\_contract )¶

coverage = EVALUATE\_SOURCE\_MONITORING\_LIMITS(¶

event, source\_contract )¶

RETURN {¶

identity, semantics, timing, coverage, raw\_evidence\_reference: event.evidence\_reference }¶

5.350. 1.C.10.3. Resolve Subscriber Correspondence

FUNCTION RESOLVE\_SUBSCRIBER\_CONTEXT(¶

event, permitted\_mapping\_service ):¶

mapping = permitted\_mapping\_service.RESOLVE(¶

subject = event.subject, effective\_context = event.effective\_context )¶

IF mapping conclusively incompatible:¶

RETURN INCOMPATIBLE¶

IF mapping insufficient:¶

RETURN UNRESOLVED(¶

"SUBSCRIBER\_MAPPING\_NOT\_ESTABLISHED" )¶

RETURN {¶

subscriber\_reference: mapping.scoped\_reference, subscriber\_generation: mapping.generation, mapping\_evidence: mapping.evidence, permitted\_scope: mapping.scope }¶

No caller is entitled to obtain raw internal identifiers merely because it can request an eventto-session assessment.¶

5.351. 1.C.10.4. Enumerate Candidate Sessions

FUNCTION FIND\_EVENT\_RELEVANT\_SESSIONS(¶

subscriber\_context, session\_inventory ):¶

candidates = session\_inventory.QUERY(¶

subscriber\_reference =¶

subscriber\_context.scoped\_reference, relevant\_time\_context =¶

subscriber\_context.effective\_context )¶

RETURN CLASSIFY\_SESSION\_GENERATIONS(¶

candidates, subscriber\_context )¶

5.352. 1.C.10.5. Evaluate Per-Session Applicability

FUNCTION EVALUATE\_EVENT\_APPLICABILITY(¶

event, subscriber\_context, session ):¶

identity = CHECK\_IDENTITY\_CORRESPONDENCE(¶

event, subscriber\_context, session )¶

temporal = CHECK\_EFFECTIVE\_STATE\_RELATION(¶

event, session )¶

service = CHECK\_SERVICE\_SCOPE(¶

event, session )¶

profile = CHECK\_PROFILE\_APPLICABILITY(¶

event, session )¶

results = [¶

identity, temporal, service, profile ]¶

IF any mandatory result == INCOMPATIBLE:¶

RETURN INCOMPATIBLE¶

IF any mandatory result == UNRESOLVED:¶

RETURN UNRESOLVED¶

RETURN COMPATIBLE¶

5.353. 1.C.10.6. Construct Session Transition Candidates

FUNCTION CONSTRUCT\_SESSION\_TRANSITIONS(¶

event, session, governing\_state, standards\_procedure\_model ):¶

affected\_conditions =¶

IDENTIFY\_CHANGED\_GOVERNING\_CONDITIONS(¶

event, session )¶

candidate\_procedures =¶

standards\_procedure\_model.FIND\_APPLICABLE(¶

affected\_conditions, session )¶

RETURN BUILD\_TECHNICAL\_TRANSITION\_CANDIDATES(¶

candidate\_procedures, governing\_state, session )¶

This function references existing procedure semantics; it does not invent standard subscriberupdate or session-release procedures.¶

5.354. 1.C.10.7. Reconcile Network Effects

FUNCTION RECONCILE\_SESSION\_EFFECTS(¶

session, transition, status\_sources, resource\_sources ):¶

operation = RESOLVE\_RELATED\_LIFECYCLE\_OPERATION(¶

session, transition )¶

receiver\_status =¶

INTERPRET\_RECEIVER\_LIFECYCLE\_STATUS(¶

operation, status\_sources )¶

control\_state =¶

OBSERVE\_APPLICABLE\_CONTROL\_PLANE\_STATE(¶

session )¶

resource\_state =¶

OBSERVE\_APPLICABLE\_USER\_PLANE\_STATE(¶

session, resource\_sources )¶

service\_state =¶

OBSERVE\_REQUIRED\_SERVICE\_STATE(¶

session )¶

RETURN COMBINE\_SCOPE\_QUALIFIED\_STATES(¶

receiver\_status, control\_state, resource\_state, service\_state )¶

5.355. 1.C.10.8. Handle Unknown Remote State

FUNCTION RECONCILE\_UNKNOWN\_SESSION\_OUTCOME(¶

operation,¶

receiver, resource\_observer ):¶

IF receiver supports status query:¶

status = receiver.QUERY(¶

operation.original\_reference )¶

IF status establishes required outcome:¶

RETURN status observed\_state =¶

resource\_observer.READ\_RELEVANT\_STATE(¶

operation.target\_session )¶

IF observed\_state establishes¶

one required state condition:¶

RETURN {¶

state\_condition: COMPATIBLE, operation\_attribution: EVALUATE\_ATTRIBUTION\_SEPARATELY() }¶

RETURN UNRESOLVED(¶

"SESSION\_OPERATION\_OUTCOME\_UNKNOWN" )¶

5.356. 1.C.10.9. Reconcile Concurrent Subscription Profiles

FUNCTION EVALUATE\_MULTI\_PROFILE\_IMPACT(¶

event, device\_context, session\_inventory ):¶

affected\_profile =¶

RESOLVE\_EVENT\_PROFILE(event)¶

results = []¶

FOR EACH profile IN device\_context.profiles:¶

relation =¶

CHECK\_PROFILE\_IDENTITY\_AND\_GENERATION(¶

affected\_profile, profile¶

)¶

sessions =¶

FIND\_PROFILE\_ASSOCIATED\_SESSIONS(¶

profile, session\_inventory )¶

FOR EACH session IN sessions:¶

ADD {¶

session, event\_applicability:¶

EVALUATE\_PROFILE\_SESSION\_RELATION(¶

relation, event, session ) } TO results¶

RETURN results¶

5.357. 1.C.10.10. Reconcile Residual Earlier Sessions

FUNCTION EVALUATE\_RESIDUAL\_SESSION\_CONTEXTS(¶

event, earlier\_sessions, current\_session\_inventory ):¶

results = []¶

FOR EACH old\_session IN earlier\_sessions:¶

logical = OBSERVE\_LOGICAL\_SESSION\_STATUS(¶

old\_session )¶

control = OBSERVE\_CONTROL\_CONTEXT(¶

old\_session )¶

resources = OBSERVE\_RESOURCE\_STATUS(¶

old\_session )¶

evidence = CHECK\_SOURCE\_COVERAGE(¶

old\_session )¶

ADD BUILD\_RESIDUAL\_CONTEXT\_RESULT(¶

logical, control, resources, evidence ) TO results¶

RETURN results¶

An old session record does not by itself establish ongoing traffic.¶

5.358. 1.C.10.11. Reevaluate After a Mapping Correction

FUNCTION PROCESS\_IDENTITY\_MAPPING\_CORRECTION(¶

correction, assessment\_dependency\_index, session\_repository ):¶

affected =¶

assessment\_dependency\_index.FIND\_AFFECTED(¶

correction )¶

IF dependency coverage incomplete:¶

affected = EXPAND\_RECONSTRUCTION\_SCOPE()¶

FOR EACH assessment IN affected:¶

revised = RECONSTRUCT\_SESSION\_IMPACT(¶

assessment.event, corrected\_identity\_context )¶

STORE\_RECONSTRUCTION\_REVISION(¶

assessment, revised )¶

RETURN affected¶

5.359. 1.C.10.12. Complete Embodiment Algorithm

FUNCTION PROCESS\_SIM\_RELATED\_SESSION\_EVENT(¶

incoming\_event ):¶

event = QUALIFY\_SIM\_RELATED\_EVENT(¶

incoming\_event, SOURCE\_REGISTRY()¶

)¶

subscriber = RESOLVE\_SUBSCRIBER\_CONTEXT(¶

event, PERMITTED\_IDENTITY\_MAPPING\_SERVICE() )¶

IF subscriber == INCOMPATIBLE:¶

RETURN RECORD\_NONAPPLICABLE\_EVENT()¶

IF subscriber == UNRESOLVED:¶

RETURN RECORD\_UNRESOLVED\_EVENT\_MAPPING()¶

sessions = FIND\_EVENT\_RELEVANT\_SESSIONS(¶

subscriber, SESSION\_INVENTORY() )¶

results = []¶

FOR EACH session IN sessions:¶

applicability = EVALUATE\_EVENT\_APPLICABILITY(¶

event, subscriber, session )¶

IF applicability == INCOMPATIBLE:¶

ADD UNAFFECTED\_SESSION\_ASSESSMENT(¶

session¶

) TO results¶

CONTINUE¶

IF applicability == UNRESOLVED:¶

ADD UNRESOLVED\_SESSION\_ASSESSMENT(¶

session¶

) TO results¶

CONTINUE¶

transitions = CONSTRUCT\_SESSION\_TRANSITIONS(¶

event, session, CURRENT\_GOVERNING\_STATE(session), APPLICABLE\_PROCEDURE\_MODEL() )¶

FOR EACH transition IN transitions:¶

feasibility =¶

EVALUATE\_TRANSITION\_PRECONDITIONS(¶

transition )¶

IF corresponding operation¶

separately performed:¶

effects = RECONCILE\_SESSION\_EFFECTS(¶

session, transition, STATUS\_SOURCES(), RESOURCE\_SOURCES() )¶

ELSE:¶

effects = NO\_OPERATION\_EFFECT\_ESTABLISHED¶

ADD BUILD\_SESSION\_TRANSITION\_RESULT(¶

session, transition, feasibility, effects ) TO results residual = EVALUATE\_RESIDUAL\_SESSION\_CONTEXTS(¶

event, RELEVANT\_EARLIER\_SESSIONS(), SESSION\_INVENTORY() )¶

reconstruction = BUILD\_SESSION\_IMPACT\_RESULT(¶

event, subscriber, sessions, results, residual )¶

STORE\_VERSIONED\_RECONSTRUCTION(reconstruction)¶

RETURN reconstruction¶

The algorithm evaluates session consequences. It does not independently submit or authorize consequential network operations.¶

5.360. 1.C.11. Worked Technical Examples

5.361. 1.C.11.1. Example 1 - Recent SIM Change While Data Session Remains Recorded

An external risk-information API reports that the mobile line experienced a SIM change within the preceding 24 hours.¶

The application has no access to the subscriber's internal session identity.¶

The network operator separately maintains an active PDU Session record.¶

The processor does not directly join the external boolean result to the PDU Session.¶

It requires a permitted, supported subscriber correspondence.¶

Until that correspondence is available, the event is known at the mobile-line level but its effect on the particular session remains unresolved.¶

5.362. 1.C.11.2. Example 2 - A Legitimate Replacement SIM

A subscriber replaces a damaged physical SIM.¶

The operator records the replacement.¶

The subscriber establishes connectivity using the new SIM.¶

An external fraud-prevention application may treat the recent change as a risk signal under its own policies.¶

The session-continuity processor independently evaluates which older and newer session contexts are present.¶

It does not label the replacement malicious merely because it was recent.¶

5.363. 1.C.11.3. Example 3 - No SIM Change Within the Lookback Period

An API reports swapped = false for a supported 48-hour query.¶

The processor records that the source did not report a swap within the specified interval under the actual API contract.¶

It does not infer that the subscriber association was unchanged for the preceding year.¶

If an active session was established before the lookback interval, the negative response does not by itself prove its entire historical association.¶

5.364. 1.C.11.4. Example 4 - Null Latest-Change Date

A mobile-line information service cannot disclose the latest SIM change timestamp and returns a null value with a documented monitoring limitation.¶

The processor retains the limitation.¶

It does not interpret null as never changed.¶

Any session-level consequence must be evaluated through other sufficient information.¶

5.365. 1.C.11.5. Example 5 - Three PDU Sessions, One Affected Service

A subscriber has three active sessions:¶

| Session | Service | State | |---|---|---| | S1 | Enterprise connectivity Active | | | S2 | Consumer connectivity Active | | | S3 | Separate service context Active | |¶

A subscriber-data revision affects only the enterprise service condition.¶

The system evaluates S1 as potentially requiring a transition.¶

S2 and S3 need not receive the same transition under the stated model.¶

The result is per session, not a blanket subscriber-wide release.¶

5.366. 1.C.11.6. Example 6 - Profile Installed but Not Enabled

A device downloads and installs an eSIM profile.¶

The profile remains disabled.¶

The profile-management source reports the successful installation.¶

The processor does not infer that network registration under the new profile succeeded.¶

It does not infer an active PDU Session associated with the profile.¶

5.367. 1.C.11.7. Example 7 - Multiple Enabled Profiles

A supported device has two enabled profiles, P1 and P2.¶

A profile-management operation changes P1's state.¶

P2 remains enabled.¶

The processor evaluates sessions associated with P1 separately from those associated with P2.¶

It does not assume every session on the device must be terminated.¶

5.368. 1.C.11.8. Example 8 - Device Change Without Subscriber Change

A subscriber moves a supported subscription to another device.¶

The device association changes.¶

The internal subscriber reference remains applicable.¶

The processor distinguishes device association from subscriber association and evaluates actual session changes.¶

A new physical device does not automatically establish a new mobile-line owner.¶

5.369. 1.C.11.9. Example 9 - Mobile Number Reassignment

A phone number was previously associated with Subscriber A.¶

It is later reassigned to Subscriber B.¶

An external application retains historical records keyed only by the phone number.¶

The processor identifies the distinct subscriber generations.¶

It does not merge Subscriber A's earlier sessions with Subscriber B's current sessions simply because the displayed mobile number is the same.¶

5.370. 1.C.11.10. Example 10 - Notification Arrives Late

An operator association change is effective at 10:00.¶

The event reaches an external processor at 10:08.¶

A session transition occurred at 10:03.¶

The processor evaluates the event using its supported effective time rather than assuming it occurred at 10:08.¶

The event may be relevant to the transition even though its notification arrived later.¶

5.371. 1.C.11.11. Example 11 - Out-of-Order Subscription Revisions

A subscription system produces revision 41 and later revision 42.¶

The receiver observes revision 42 first.¶

Revision 41 arrives afterward.¶

If the source contract establishes a monotonic revision ordering within the subscription object, the processor does not overwrite revision 42 with revision 41.¶

It retains revision 41 as historical or delayed evidence.¶

5.372. 1.C.11.12. Example 12 - Duplicate SIM-Change Notification

An event-subscription service sends the same SIM-change notification twice.¶

The processor identifies the duplicate using the source-qualified event reference and applicable delivery semantics.¶

The event is not counted as two independent SIM changes.¶

If the source does not provide a stable event identity, deduplication may remain probabilistic or unresolved rather than asserted as exact.¶

5.373. 1.C.11.13. Example 13 - Subscription Update Followed by Pending Session Modification

A subscription-data source reports an updated service condition.¶

The session-management function receives the update and initiates a modification.¶

The receiver accepts processing.¶

The relevant user-plane state still reflects the previous configuration.¶

The processor reports:¶

| x | subscriber-state update established; | |---|---| | x | session modification initiated; | | x | receiver acceptance established; | | x | intended user-plane effect not yet established. |¶

It does not prematurely report completed modification.¶

5.374. 1.C.11.14. Example 14 - Session Release with Lost Response

A session-release request is transmitted.¶

The response is lost.¶

The processor records unknown remote outcome.¶

A later control-plane query shows the session context absent, while user-plane release evidence remains unavailable.¶

The result may establish a specific logical-state condition while retaining unresolved resource cleanup.¶

5.375. 1.C.11.15. Example 15 - New Session While Old Context Persists

A subscriber establishes a new session after a subscription-association change.¶

An earlier session record remains in an operator database.¶

The system evaluates whether the old record is stale, in release processing, or still associated with active resources.¶

The coexistence of two records does not automatically establish active unauthorized simultaneous use.¶

5.376. 1.C.11.16. Example 16 - Emergency-Service Exception

A general subscriber-state risk signal is received.¶

An emergency-related session is present.¶

The system evaluates the actual session and service rules.¶

It does not assume that the same transition used for ordinary data services automatically applies.¶

The appropriate network procedures and legal requirements remain controlling.¶

5.377. 1.C.11.17. Example 17 - Function Replacement Without Session Replacement

A session-management function is replaced after a software failure.¶

The successor reconstructs the relevant logical session context under the supported network procedure.¶

The processor preserves the logical session relationship while recording the function-instance transition.¶

It does not create an independent new session solely because the controlling process changed.¶

5.378. 1.C.11.18. Example 18 - Application Risk and Network Continuity Disagree Without Contradiction

A fraud-prevention application classifies a recent SIM swap as elevated risk.¶

The network operator independently establishes that a particular data session remains active under its applicable current state.¶

These findings need not be contradictory.¶

The first concerns the application's risk assessment.¶

The second concerns observed network-session continuity.¶

The processor records the distinction instead of forcing one result to overwrite the other.¶

5.379. 1.C.12. Specific Design-Around Alternatives and Implementation Pathways

The following 36 alternatives provide materially different technical implementations.¶

Each identifies its mechanism, relevant limitations, failure treatment, and representative test.¶

They are non-limiting technical pathways, not assertions of legal equivalence.¶

5.380. C-1-DA-01 - Operator-Internal Subscriber-to-Session Resolver

Mechanism: An operator-internal service maps the qualified subscriber event to relevant¶

active session contexts.¶

Implementation: The resolver uses supported internal subscriber and session identifiers and¶

their applicable generations.¶

Limitation: The mapping may be incomplete after function failure or reassignment.¶

Failure handling: Missing mappings remain unresolved.¶

Test: Reassign a mobile number and verify separation of earlier and current subscriber¶

sessions.¶

5.381. C-1-DA-02 - Privacy-Minimized External Event Resolver

Mechanism: An external application receives only an operator-approved limited association¶

result.¶

Implementation: The operator evaluates the subscriber mapping internally and returns a¶

scoped assessment rather than raw network identifiers.¶

Limitation: The external processor may not reconstruct full internal resource detail.¶

Failure handling: Unexposed relationships remain unresolved.¶

Test: Compare complete operator-internal assessment with limited external output.¶

5.382. C-1-DA-03 - Historical SIM-Swap Query Adapter

Mechanism: The system obtains a bounded historical SIM-change result through a supported¶

API.¶

Implementation: It records the requested lookback period, query time, response meaning,¶

and monitoring limitations.¶

Limitation: The result may not cover earlier history.¶

Failure handling: Negative or null values are not expanded beyond the contract.¶

Test: Query a 24-hour window when the known change occurred 48 hours earlier.¶

5.383. C-1-DA-04 - Event-Subscription-Based SIM-Change Processing

Mechanism: A supported notification subscription delivers SIM-related events.¶

Implementation: The processor maintains subscription identity, event references, and source¶

coverage.¶

Limitation: Notifications may be delayed, duplicated, or unavailable during subscription¶

interruption.¶

Failure handling: Delivery gaps remain qualified.¶

Test: Drop one event and replay another.¶

5.384. C-1-DA-05 - Subscriber-Data Notification Adapter

Mechanism: The processor uses applicable operator subscription-data notifications.¶

Implementation: It associates changed subscriber-management information with the affected¶

session contexts.¶

Limitation: A notification does not prove the subsequent session procedure completed.¶

Failure handling: Control-plane and user-plane effects are observed separately.¶

Test: Notify a subscriber update and delay the resulting session modification.¶

5.385. C-1-DA-06 - Multi-Source Event-Semantic Reconciliation

Mechanism: The system distinguishes operator, device, risk-API, and profile-management¶

events.¶

Implementation: Each event is interpreted according to its source type and declared¶

information model.¶

Limitation: Different sources may report related but nonidentical changes.¶

Failure handling: Unresolved semantic correspondence remains explicit.¶

Test: Report one device change and one SIM-change check with different underlying causes.¶

5.386. C-1-DA-07 - Source-Versioned Association History

Mechanism: Subscriber mappings are stored as versioned records.¶

Implementation: The processor reconstructs which association was applicable during a¶

particular session interval.¶

Limitation: Historical data may be missing.¶

Failure handling: Unknown history is not replaced by current mapping.¶

Test: Reassign an identifier and query an earlier session.¶

5.387. C-1-DA-08 - Event-Sourced Subscriber-Session Reconstruction

Mechanism: A sequence of qualified events reconstructs changes to subscriber and session¶

relationships.¶

Implementation: The processor replays applicable source records under their ordering¶

semantics.¶

Limitation: Missing events may prevent unique reconstruction.¶

Failure handling: Multiple possible states are retained.¶

Test: Remove one material association event.¶

5.388. C-1-DA-09 - Snapshot-and-Delta Session Reconstruction Mechanism: A saved subscriber-session snapshot is combined with subsequent updates.

Implementation: Each delta is associated with its source revision or effective context.¶

Limitation: Snapshot and delta generations must correspond.¶

Failure handling: Version gaps produce unresolved state.¶

Test: Apply updates in shuffled delivery order.¶

5.389. C-1-DA-10 - Relational Identity Correspondence

Mechanism: Subscriber, profile, device, and session references are represented in¶

conventional database tables.¶

Implementation: Time-qualified joins determine candidate session associations.¶

Limitation: Database relationships may not represent all network operational effects.¶

Failure handling: Missing joins do not establish absence where coverage is incomplete.¶

Test: Compare relational results against controlled identity histories.¶

5.390. C-1-DA-11 - Graph-Based Association Reconstruction

Mechanism: Different identity domains and session resources are represented through typed¶

relationships.¶

Implementation: The processor traverses applicable subscriber-to-session edges.¶

Limitation: Graph reachability does not establish current network operation.¶

Failure handling: State applicability is evaluated separately.¶

Test: Insert a stale historical mapping edge.¶

5.391. C-1-DA-12 - Constraint-Based Identity and Session Matching

Mechanism: A solver evaluates possible subscriber-session mappings under identity, time,¶

and resource constraints.¶

Implementation: Compatible mapping assignments are retained.¶

Limitation: Incomplete constraints may admit several possibilities.¶

Failure handling: No unique subscriber identity is fabricated.¶

Test: Supply ambiguous mappings and verify multiple consistent solutions.¶

5.392. C-1-DA-13 - Time-Interval-Based Event Applicability

Mechanism: Events and sessions are associated with supported effective-time intervals.¶

Implementation: The processor evaluates whether the intervals permit the required¶

relationship.¶

Limitation: Overlap alone does not prove identity or causation.¶

Failure handling: Ambiguous temporal relationships remain unresolved.¶

Test: Introduce delayed notifications and overlapping time uncertainty.¶

5.393. C-1-DA-14 - Logical Event-Ordering-Based Applicability

Mechanism: The processor uses source-provided ordering or dependency references where¶

timestamps are uncertain.¶

Implementation: Relevant event predecessors and successors constrain reconstruction.¶

Limitation: Logical order does not necessarily establish elapsed physical time.¶

Failure handling: Missing order relations remain unresolved.¶

Test: Reorder network delivery while preserving source event order.¶

5.394. C-1-DA-15 - Device and Subscription Identity Separation

Mechanism: The system maintains distinct device, subscription, profile, and session¶

associations.¶

Implementation: A device change updates the device relationship without automatically¶

changing subscriber identity.¶

Limitation: Device mapping may not be available to an external service.¶

Failure handling: Missing device correspondence is recorded.¶

Test: Move the same subscription to another device.¶

5.395. C-1-DA-16 - eSIM Profile-State Adapter

Mechanism: The processor consumes supported eSIM profile-management information.¶

Implementation: Install, enable, disable, and delete operations are distinguished.¶

Limitation: Profile state is not a complete network-session state.¶

Failure handling: Missing registration and session evidence remains unresolved.¶

Test: Install a profile without enabling it.¶

5.396. C-1-DA-17 - Multiple Enabled Profile Processing

Mechanism: Several subscriptions are maintained independently on one supported device.¶

Implementation: Session mappings are associated with the relevant profile and subscription¶

generation.¶

Limitation: Device and modem capabilities may constrain simultaneous behavior.¶

Failure handling: Unsupported concurrency assumptions are not imposed.¶

Test: Disable one enabled profile while another profile's session remains present.¶

5.397. C-1-DA-18 - Multiple Active PDU Session Evaluation Mechanism: One subscriber has several active PDU Session contexts.

Implementation: The processor checks event applicability for each session's service and¶

governing conditions.¶

Limitation: Subscription updates may use different service-specific rules.¶

Failure handling: No blanket transition is assumed.¶

Test: Modify one enterprise service entitlement while other sessions remain unchanged.¶

5.398. C-1-DA-19 - Scope-Specific Subscriber-Policy Reconciliation

Mechanism: A changed subscriber condition is associated with selected network services.¶

Implementation: The processor evaluates service-specific applicability before interpreting a¶

session transition.¶

Limitation: The scope may be incompletely specified.¶

Failure handling: Unclear affected services remain unresolved.¶

Test: Update one DNN-related condition among several active sessions.¶

5.399. C-1-DA-20 - Existing SMF Procedure Correspondence

Mechanism: The processor relates subscriber-data changes to resulting standardized session-¶

management procedures.¶

Implementation: Notification, modification or release, and resource effects are tracked¶

separately.¶

Limitation: The precise procedure depends upon the deployment and 3GPP context.¶

Failure handling: Acceptance without observed effect is not completion.¶

Test: Deliver a subscription-data notification but delay the SMF's resulting procedure.¶

5.400. C-1-DA-21 - User-Plane Observation-Based Continuity Mechanism: The processor obtains supporting user-plane state for an affected session.

Implementation: It relates relevant rules or resource instances to the session and its¶

governing revision.¶

Limitation: User-plane state may be partially observable.¶

Failure handling: Incomplete resource visibility is retained.¶

Test: Remove the control-plane session record while leaving a simulated user-plane rule¶

installed.¶

5.401. C-1-DA-22 - Service-Observation-Based Continuity

Mechanism: The system observes the service behavior associated with the session.¶

Implementation: It checks relevant reachability or QoS properties under the required¶

observation scope.¶

Limitation: Service success alone may not establish all subscriber or control-plane details.¶

Failure handling: Unobserved dimensions remain separate.¶

Test: Maintain application connectivity while one control-plane state is stale.¶

5.402. C-1-DA-23 - Asynchronous Transition Outcome Reconciliation

Mechanism: Session procedures are tracked through their supported receiver and resource¶

states.¶

Implementation: A lost response is reconciled through native status or resource¶

observations.¶

Limitation: No universal exactly-once execution guarantee is assumed.¶

Failure handling: Unknown outcomes remain explicit.¶

Test: Apply a release and drop its response.¶

5.403. C-1-DA-24 - Conditional Session-Modification Processing

Mechanism: A receiver-supported condition is used where appropriate.¶

Implementation: The transition request refers to an applicable resource or session-state¶

precondition.¶

Limitation: The conditional scope may not cover every indirect resource dependency.¶

Failure handling: Failed conditions trigger reassessment.¶

Test: Change the session state before submitting a conditional modification.¶

5.404. C-1-DA-25 - Residual Session Context Reconciliation Mechanism: Older session records are inspected after a subscriber association change.

Implementation: The processor distinguishes logical state, resource presence, and actual¶

traffic evidence.¶

Limitation: A stale record may be difficult to classify conclusively.¶

Failure handling: Presence is not automatically treated as active misuse.¶

Test: Keep an old session database entry after underlying resource release.¶

5.405. C-1-DA-26 - Network Function Replacement Continuity Mechanism: Logical sessions are associated across network-function instance replacement.

Implementation: The processor records function-generation changes and supported session¶

continuity mappings.¶

Limitation: Restoration semantics depend upon the network architecture.¶

Failure handling: Unknown predecessor state remains explicit.¶

Test: Replace a session-management process while preserving a logical session reference.¶

5.406. C-1-DA-27 - Mobile Number Portability Correspondence Mechanism: Operator and number-portability records are interpreted separately from SIM

and session identities.¶

Implementation: The processor determines relevant home or serving operator¶

correspondence for the event.¶

Limitation: An external application may lack sufficient internal mapping detail.¶

Failure handling: Cross-operator association remains unresolved if unsupported.¶

Test: Port a number while distinguishing subscriber continuity from operator change.¶

5.407. C-1-DA-28 - Mobile Number Reassignment Protection Mechanism: Historical associations are separated by subscriber generation or effective

interval.¶

Implementation: The processor prevents current-number matching from silently merging¶

distinct subscriber histories.¶

Limitation: Some legacy records may lack generation information.¶

Failure handling: Ambiguous historical matches are rejected or qualified.¶

Test: Reuse one number for two different subscribers in successive periods.¶

5.408. C-1-DA-29 - Privacy-Minimizing Session Impact Reporting

Mechanism: The processor publishes only the event-to-session findings required by the¶

requesting function.¶

Implementation: Internal subscriber mapping remains within permitted boundaries.¶

Limitation: The recipient may not be able to independently reconstruct the full mapping.¶

Failure handling: Limited disclosure is represented as limited evidentiary scope.¶

Test: Verify that external output does not reveal raw subscriber or profile identifiers¶

unnecessarily.¶

5.409. C-1-DA-30 - Subscriber Event Correction and Revision Handling

Mechanism: Corrected source records trigger selective session reassessment.¶

Implementation: The processor maintains event revisions and dependent session¶

assessments.¶

Limitation: Source corrections may arrive after network effects occur.¶

Failure handling: Historical outcome and current corrective needs are kept separate.¶

Test: Correct an earlier subscriber mapping after a session transition.¶

5.410. C-1-DA-31 - Concurrent Change-Conflict Evaluation

Mechanism: Several subscriber or session operations may overlap.¶

Implementation: The processor evaluates their relevant state dependencies and receiver¶

semantics.¶

Limitation: Source versions from separate systems may not share a total order.¶

Failure handling: Unsupported ordering is not invented.¶

Test: Submit a service modification while a related session release is pending.¶

5.411. C-1-DA-32 - Special-Service Exception Handling

Mechanism: Sessions subject to specific service or regulatory requirements are evaluated¶

under their applicable procedures.¶

Implementation: The processor identifies required exception conditions and avoids generic¶

blanket transitions.¶

Limitation: The technical and legal requirements vary by service and jurisdiction.¶

Failure handling: Unsupported generic termination assumptions are not applied.¶

Test: Include a specially governed service alongside ordinary data sessions.¶

5.412. C-1-DA-33 - Hardware- or Device-Originated Profile Evidence

Mechanism: Device or secure-element management information supplies evidence about a¶

profile's state.¶

Implementation: The processor associates the observation with the correct profile generation¶

and device context.¶

Limitation: Device-side profile evidence does not establish all core-network effects.¶

Failure handling: Missing network registration or PDU Session evidence remains¶

unresolved.¶

Test: Report successful device-side profile activation while network registration fails.¶

5.413. C-1-DA-34 - Cryptographically Authenticated Subscriber Events

Mechanism: Event records may be authenticated and integrity-protected under an existing¶

source contract.¶

Implementation: The processor verifies provenance and separately checks event scope,¶

freshness, and session applicability.¶

Limitation: Authenticity does not prove the session was changed or that the event is benign¶

or malicious.¶

Failure handling: Stale but authentic events are not treated as current.¶

Test: Replay an authentic older notification after a later subscriber revision.¶

5.414. C-1-DA-35 - Federated Operator-Local Impact Reconstruction

Mechanism: The operator performs session impact analysis locally and exchanges a¶

qualified result with another authorized domain.¶

Implementation: The result contains relevant session continuity or uncertainty information¶

without exposing all internal identity mappings.¶

Limitation: The external domain may have only an abstract view.¶

Failure handling: Unexposed internal state is not fabricated.¶

Test: Compare a full local reconstruction with the information available through a limited¶

federation response.¶

5.415. C-1-DA-36 - Deterministic and Statistical Hybrid Assessment

Mechanism: Deterministic identity and session-state requirements may be combined with a¶

separate probabilistic assessment where the deployment actually supports one.¶

Implementation: Mandatory identity and resource correspondence are evaluated¶

independently of any risk score.¶

Limitation: Statistical risk cannot substitute for a missing mandatory session mapping.¶

Failure handling: Uncalibrated risk estimates are qualified and network-state unknowns¶

remain unknown.¶

Test: Supply a high fraud-risk score with no established session-state change and verify that¶

the two results remain distinct.¶

5.416. 1.C.13. Technical Design-Around Correspondence

The alternatives provide different means of implementing event-to-session reconciliation.¶

A centralized operator may use internal subscriber and session mappings.¶

A federated deployment may publish only qualified, scoped results.¶

A constrained system may use relational records.¶

Another may use graph relationships or a constraint solver.¶

One deployment may reconstruct session history through events.¶

Another may combine snapshots and revisions.¶

An eSIM environment may obtain profile-management state.¶

A conventional mobile-core environment may use subscriber and session-management information.¶

An external application may rely solely upon a limited SIM-swap information API.¶

These implementations have materially different visibility and guarantees.¶

In particular:¶

| x | an external SIM-swap API does not automatically expose active PDU Session identity; | |---|---| | x | a profile manager does not automatically establish user-plane state; | | x | a subscriber-data update notification does not prove a subsequent session procedure completed; | | x | a mobile-number match does not establish subscriber identity across reassignment; | | x | a current session record does not necessarily prove historical subscriber mapping; | | x | a device identifier does not replace the subscription identifier; | | x | a signed event can remain stale; | | x | a delayed event may require retrospective interpretation; and | | x | a risk classification does not independently justify a network-state transition. |¶

The common technical relationship is the evaluation of an event's actual subscriber and¶

service scope against the applicable active-session identities and observed network effects.¶

The implementation variations may support different dependent limitations.¶

5.417. 1.C.14. PHOSITA Reference Implementation

5.418. 1.C.14.1. Reference System

A practical software implementation may contain:¶

Subscriber database simulator: Maintains subscription generations and relevant service¶

conditions.¶

Mobile-line association simulator: Produces mobile-number-to-SIM association changes.¶

eSIM profile simulator: Separately models profile installation, enablement, disablement,¶

and deletion.¶

Device and multi-profile simulator: Represents multiple subscription contexts on one¶

device.¶

SIM-change API simulator: Provides bounded lookback checks and latest-change¶

information according to a selected contract.¶

Event-subscription simulator: Delivers SIM-change notifications with controlled delay and¶

duplication.¶

Session-management simulator: Maintains logical session contexts and existing¶

modification or release procedures.¶

User-plane simulator: Represents session-associated forwarding and QoS resources.¶

Identity mapping service: Maintains time-qualified internal correspondence between events¶

and subscribers.¶

Event-semantic classifier: Determines what each source actually reports.¶

Session impact evaluator: Computes per-session event applicability.¶

Transition candidate processor: Constructs the relevant existing lifecycle options.¶

Effect observer: Collects control-plane and user-plane state after transitions.¶

History repository: Stores source-qualified events and assessment revisions.¶

Privacy filter: Limits exposure of sensitive internal identifiers.¶

Test harness: Supplies independent ground truth for each synthetic event and session.¶

The components may run on one workstation without live operator infrastructure.¶

The simulator should maintain the true subscriber mappings and actual session/resource states separately from the reconstruction engine.¶

5.419. 1.C.14.2. Minimum Synthetic Dataset

The reference dataset should include:¶

| x | two distinct subscriber generations; | |---|---| | x | three active sessions under one subscriber; | | x | a separate subscription profile on one device; | | x | one eSIM profile installation without enablement; | | x | one SIM-change event with bounded historical coverage; | | x | one delayed event; | | x | one duplicated event; | | x | one corrected mapping; | | x | one pending session modification; | | x | one unknown release outcome; | | x | one residual older session record; and | | x | one session-management function replacement. |¶

The dataset may be extended to multi-operator and roaming scenarios.¶

5.420. 1.C.14.3. Controlled Event Scenarios

The harness should be able to inject a subscriber mapping event while leaving existing network-session state unchanged.¶

It should separately support a scenario in which the event is followed by a successful existing session modification.¶

It should also support one in which the modification is initiated but does not reach the expected user-plane state.¶

These scenarios are essential for distinguishing event occurrence from session consequence.¶

5.421. 1.C.15. Detailed PHOSITA Implementation Procedure

Phase 1 - Define the Identity Domains¶

Create separate data types for mobile numbers, internal subscriber references, SIM profile references, device references, logical sessions, and network resources.¶

Phase 2 - Define Source-Specific Event Types¶

Implement distinct schemas for SIM-swap information, subscription-data updates, eSIM profile events, and device-associated changes.¶

Phase 3 - Define Source Coverage¶

For each event source, document its monitoring interval, generation, event identity, and completeness limitations.¶

Phase 4 - Create Subscriber Association History¶

Allow one mobile-line identifier to be associated with different subscriber generations across time.¶

Phase 5 - Create Active Session Inventory¶

Generate several PDU Session-like instances associated with different services.¶

Phase 6 - Implement Event Qualification¶

Parse and classify source records without collapsing semantically distinct events.¶

Phase 7 - Implement Subscriber Mapping Resolution¶

Use a controlled internal service to resolve event subjects to eligible subscriber contexts.¶

Phase 8 - Implement Session-Specific Applicability¶

Evaluate every candidate session independently against identity, time, and governingcondition constraints.¶

Phase 9 - Implement eSIM State Variations¶

Support installed, enabled, disabled, and deleted profile states separately.¶

Phase 10 - Implement Multi-Profile Devices¶

Create several subscription contexts for one simulated device.¶

Phase 11 - Implement Subscription-Data Revisions¶

Change a service-specific condition and evaluate which sessions are affected.¶

Phase 12 - Implement Existing Session Procedures¶

Simulate supported modification and release procedures.¶

Avoid inventing a new protocol where the relevant standard already defines the transition.¶

Phase 13 - Separate Request and Effect State¶

Represent submitted, accepted, applied, rejected, and unknown outcomes independently.¶

Phase 14 - Implement User-Plane Observations¶

Provide a separate source for relevant session-resource state.¶

Phase 15 - Implement Session-Continuity Evaluation¶

Evaluate logical and operational continuity under explicitly stated conditions.¶

Phase 16 - Implement Delayed Event Delivery¶

Deliver a source event after a relevant session transition has occurred.¶

Phase 17 - Implement Out-of-Order Event Delivery¶

Deliver revisions in an order different from their supported source ordering.¶

Phase 18 - Implement Duplicate Events¶

Replay the same event and test its identity handling.¶

Phase 19 - Implement Source Corrections¶

Correct an earlier subscriber mapping and revise dependent assessments.¶

Phase 20 - Implement Lost Operation Responses¶

Apply a session operation while dropping its acknowledgement.¶

Phase 21 - Implement Residual Session Contexts¶

Keep an earlier session record after the associated resource was released.¶

Phase 22 - Implement Function Replacement¶

Replace the simulated session-management process while preserving the logical session context where supported.¶

Phase 23 - Implement Privacy-Limited External Results¶

Expose event applicability without leaking internal subscriber identifiers unnecessarily.¶

Phase 24 - Evaluate Source-Scoped Negative Claims¶

Return a negative SIM-change check for a bounded lookback period and verify that the processor does not interpret it as a lifetime guarantee.¶

Phase 25 - Evaluate Incomplete Mapping¶

Withhold the internal subscriber mapping and verify that the system does not invent an affected PDU Session.¶

Phase 26 - Test Conditional Multi-Session Effects¶

Apply one subscriber-data revision to a specific service and verify that unaffected sessions are not automatically modified.¶

Phase 27 - Implement Reconstruction Revisions¶

Persist evidence and reassess dependent session results following corrections.¶

Phase 28 - Compare Two Representations¶

Implement both relational and graph-based correspondence processing using the same synthetic dataset.¶

Phase 29 - Measure Actual Behavior¶

Record correct mappings, false associations, unresolved cases, reconstruction time, and resource use.¶

Phase 30 - Document Limitations¶

Report source coverage, mapping availability, resource-state visibility, and any unimplemented operator-specific behavior.¶

No claim of real-world performance improvement should be made without executed validation.¶

5.422. 1.C.16. Failure and Adversarial Conditions

5.423. F1 - SIM-change event lacks sufficient subject information: Session mapping

unresolved.¶

F2 - API reports only a bounded negative check: No lifetime absence inferred.¶

F3 - Latest-change timestamp is unavailable: Null interpreted under source contract.¶

F4 - Source event arrives late: Effective event context preserved.¶

F5 - Source delivers older revision after newer revision: No unsupported regression.¶

F6 - Source replays one event: Duplicate handled within source semantics.¶

F7 - Source corrects an earlier mapping: Dependent session assessments revised.¶

F8 - Mobile number reassigned: Earlier subscriber history separated.¶

F9 - Device identifier changes without subscription change: Device and subscriber states¶

distinguished.¶

F10 - Profile installed but not enabled: No automatic registration or session inference.¶

F11 - Profile enabled but network registration fails: Session effect not fabricated.¶

F12 - One of several profiles changes: Other profile contexts not universally changed.¶

5.424. F13 - One of several PDU Sessions has affected service conditions: Per-session

applicability enforced.¶

F14 - Subscription event is broader than service-specific evidence: Scope uncertainty¶

retained.¶

5.425. F15 - Existing emergency session requires distinct treatment: Applicable special

procedure evaluated.¶

5.426. F16 - Session-modification request accepted but not applied: Lifecycle stages

distinguished.¶

5.427. F17 - User-plane resource changes before control-plane record updates: State

discrepancy preserved.¶

F18 - Session-release response lost: Outcome not assumed failed.¶

F19 - Old session record persists after release: Stale record distinguished from proven¶

active use.¶

F20 - New session established while old cleanup unknown: Parallel state represented¶

without unsupported fraud inference.¶

F21 - Function restarts and resource identifiers are reused: Generation-qualified¶

mapping required.¶

F22 - Operator provides abstract mapping only: Internal details not invented.¶

F23 - Source is authenticated but stale: Current applicability checked separately.¶

F24 - Identifier mapping conflicts between sources: Conflict preserved.¶

F25 - Risk score is high but session state unchanged: Independent results maintained.¶

F26 - Risk score is low but session state uncertain: Uncertainty remains.¶

F27 - SIM event refers to a different subscription on the same device: Incorrect impact¶

rejected.¶

F28 - Mobile number ported between operators: Applicable subscriber and operator¶

context reconstructed.¶

F29 - Two session records share an identifier in different namespaces: No false identity¶

equality.¶

F30 - Historical session reference predates reassignment: Earlier subscriber context¶

retained.¶

F31 - Source monitoring coverage is incomplete: Absence-based conclusions limited.¶

F32 - Subscriber-state event arrives during pending release: Concurrent transition¶

evaluated.¶

F33 - New device registration occurs while old record remains: Actual session and¶

resource states reconciled.¶

F34 - Reporting function fails during transition: Unknown outcomes preserved.¶

5.428. F35 - Source's event field semantics change after API upgrade: Schema/version

interpretation reevaluated.¶

F36 - Privacy rules prevent identity resolution: Restricted mapping not bypassed.¶

F37 - Pseudonymous references are not linkable across authorized scopes: No guessed¶

correlation.¶

F38 - Subscriber association changes but no relevant session exists: Empty impact set¶

correctly represented.¶

F39 - A session changes resources without logical identity change: Continuity preserved¶

where supported.¶

F40 - A transition is technically applicable but not authorized: No automatic network¶

operation.¶

F41 - An existing operation completes after a later correction: Historical and current¶

effects distinguished.¶

5.429. F42 - Assessment processor crashes before recording results: Reconstruction uses

source-qualified history where available.¶

5.430. 1.C.17. Representative Proposed Verification Test Suite

The following 90 tests are proposed and have not been claimed as executed.¶

5.431. Test ID

C1- T01 C1- T02 C1- T03 C1- T04 C1- T05¶

5.432. Controlled scenario

Valid subscriber association event¶

External SIM-swap boolean without session ID¶

Positive recent SIM-swap check¶

Negative 24-hour SIM-swap check¶

SIM change occurred before lookback window¶

5.433. Expected behavior

Correct event classification¶

No invented PDU Session mapping¶

No automatic fraud conclusion¶

Scope limited to supported window¶

No lifetime absence claim¶

C1-¶

Latest-change date is null Source limitation preserved T06¶

C1-¶

Source provides monitored period Correct historical coverage T07¶

C1-¶

Event subject resolves to internal subscriber Supported correspondence T08¶

C1- T09 C1- T10 C1- T11 C1- T12 C1- T13¶

Event subject cannot be resolved¶

Two subscribers used same phone number in different periods¶

Phone number reassigned¶

Phone number ported¶

Device changes but subscription remains same¶

Unresolved mapping¶

Generation separation¶

No historical session merging¶

Operator and identity semantics evaluated¶

Device/subscriber separation¶

C1-¶

SIM changes but device remains same Correct event distinction T14 C1- No inferred active network¶

Profile installed but disabled T15 session C1-¶

Profile successfully enabled Only profile state established T16¶

C1- T17 C1- T18 C1- T19 C1- T20 C1- T21 C1- T22 C1- T23 C1- T24 C1- T25 C1- T26 C1- T27 C1- T28 C1- T29 C1- T30 C1- T31 C1- T32 C1- T33¶

Profile enabled but registration fails Network result separate¶

Profile disabled but stale session record remains Residual context qualified¶

Profile deleted after release Lifecycle ordering interpreted¶

Two enabled profiles on one device Per-profile correspondence¶

One profile changes, another unaffected No blanket modification¶

Device supports only restricted profile concurrency Applicable device semantics¶

Subscriber has three active sessions All candidates enumerated¶

Event affects only enterprise service Correct scoped impact¶

Event affects all selected service classes Applicable sessions identified¶

Event has unknown service scope Impact membership unresolved¶

Session belongs to different subscriber generation Inapplicability established¶

Session interval precedes event Correct temporal assessment¶

Event effective interval overlaps session Uncertainty evaluated¶

Event report arrives after session transition Event time distinguished¶

Old revision arrives after new revision No false regression¶

No duplicated transition Duplicate event delivered¶

inference¶

Corrected event delivered Revision handling¶

C1-¶

Source event reference reused after restart Generation-qualified identity T34¶

C1- T35 C1- T36¶

Subscription-data update delivered to session function¶

Session modification initiated but pending¶

Notification recorded separately¶

Pending result¶

C1-¶

Session modification accepted T37¶

Acceptance not equated with application¶

C1-¶

User-plane modification applied Applied resource state evaluated T38¶

C1- T39 C1- T40¶

Control plane reports success, user plane unchanged¶

User plane updated but service remains degraded¶

Discrepancy retained¶

Service continuity separately evaluated¶

C1-¶

Session modification rejected Correct rejection T41¶

C1- T42 C1- T43 C1- T44 C1- T45 C1- T46 C1- T47 C1- T48 C1- T49 C1- T50¶

Session release submitted with lost response Unknown remote outcome¶

Release applied despite lost response State reconciliation¶

Session logical release without full cleanup Partial terminal state¶

Residual database record without resource No false active-use inference¶

Residual resource without control-plane record Discrepancy identified¶

New session appears during unresolved old cleanup Multiple states preserved¶

Same logical session moves to new resource Session continuity assessed¶

Instance/logical identity Session-management function replaced¶

separated¶

Source history incomplete after function failure Reconstruction qualified¶

C1- T51 C1- T52 C1- T53 C1- T54 C1- T55 C1- T56 C1- T57 C1- T58 C1- T59 C1- T60 C1- T61 C1- T62 C1- T63 C1- T64 C1- T65 C1- T66 C1- T67¶

Subscriber event affects only one DNN Per-DNN impact¶

Subscriber event affects selected slice condition Scoped applicability¶

Subscriber event unrelated to one active session Inapplicability¶

Special-service session has distinct rules Applicable exception evaluated¶

General risk event with no network procedure No invented release requirement¶

High fraud-risk score with healthy session Independent assessments¶

Low fraud-risk score with unknown resource state Resource uncertainty preserved¶

Subscriber risk data become stale Temporal applicability limited¶

Source event lacks effective timestamp Ordering uncertainty preserved¶

Source provides bounded timestamp uncertainty Interval reasoning¶

Same event reported by two systems Source provenance retained¶

Two reports share upstream event source No false independent evidence¶

Operator event and device event disagree Semantic conflict evaluated¶

Internal identity mapping is corrected Affected results revised¶

Unrelated subscriber mapping corrected Unaffected sessions preserved¶

Existing mapping record is stale Current applicability checked¶

Mapping unavailable due to privacy restriction No unauthorized reconstruction¶

C1-¶

External output requires minimal disclosure Internal identifier protected T68¶

C1- T69 C1- T70 C1- T71 C1- T72 C1- T73¶

Hashed identifier remains linkable¶

Mobile line belongs to distinct business account generation Multi-SIM service enables additional subscription association SIM-swap API treats an association change within its definition Subscription state update does not affect active resource¶

Pseudonymization not called anonymity¶

Historical separation¶

Correct event semantics¶

Contract-specific interpretation¶

No fabricated effect¶

C1-¶

Operator function changes without session release Logical continuity supported T74¶

C1-¶

Partial network modification Multi-dimensional state T75¶

C1- T76 C1- T77 C1- T78 C1- T79 C1- T80 C1- T81 C1- T82 C1- T83 C1- T84¶

Several unknown operation outcomes¶

Receiver status query resolves unknown¶

Receiver status query history expired¶

Retry identifier has restricted scope¶

Duplicate request payload differs¶

Graph and relational reconstruction implementations Constraint solver admits multiple possible mappings¶

Constraint solver times out¶

Event-source history complete¶

State envelope retained¶

Correct state revision¶

Unknown preserved¶

Contract respected¶

Not treated as identical retry¶

Equivalent mandatory predicates¶

No false uniqueness¶

Unknown not impossible¶

Correct reconstructed timeline¶

C1-¶

Event-source history has missing material event Explicit gap T85¶

C1-¶

Snapshot-and-delta history has missing revision Incomplete reconstruction T86¶

C1-¶

Authenticated old event replayed after newer state Staleness detected T87¶

C1- Hardware reports profile enabled but network¶

Distinct state dimensions¶

| T88 | session absent | |---|---| | C1- | Technically applicable transition without execution | | No automatic effectuation | | | T89 | authority | | C1- | Final reconstruction contains affected, unaffected, |¶

Complete scoped result T90 and unknown sessions¶

5.434. 1.C.17.1. Test Evidence Requirements

Each executed test should retain:¶

1. Event source and schema version. 2. Event identity and source generation. 3. Actual simulated subscriber association. 4. Event effective-time and delivery-time context. 5. Monitoring lookback and disclosure limits. 6. Relevant mobile-line, subscriber, device, and profile identities. 7. Mapping generations and effective intervals. 8. Applicable session inventory. 9. Session-specific service and governing conditions. 10. Candidate transition requirements. 11. Actual network-operation lifecycle. 12. Control-plane state. 13. User-plane resource state. 14. Service-level observations where required. 15. Residual earlier session contexts. 16. Expected and actual applicability classifications. 17. Unresolved evidence. 18. Reconstruction revisions. 19. Privacy-related output restrictions. 20. Processing time and resource consumption.¶

The harness should report deterministic correctness separately from inferred risk, source completeness, and performance.¶

A passing event-classification test is not proof of actual network-session recovery.¶

A passing session-mapping test is not proof of successful network effectuation.¶

A passing privacy-filter test is not proof that all associated data are legally anonymous.¶

5.435. 1.C.18. Standards and Established Technology Correspondence

5.436. 1.C.18.1. 3GPP Session-Management Subscription Data

A PHOSITA may use 3GPP TS 23.502 as a reference for session-management subscriberdata updates and the resulting standardized session procedures.¶

Under the applicable architecture, subscription-data changes can be notified to an SMF and may lead to an SMF-initiated PDU Session Modification or Release.¶

These established operations are not claimed individually as new.¶

The embodiment concerns the reconstruction of how a particular subscriber-related event corresponds to the affected active sessions and their observed resulting network states.¶

5.437. 1.C.18.2. Subscriber and Session Identity

5G architectures employ identifiers with defined meanings and scopes, including internal subscriber references, PDU Session identifiers, network slices, and DNNs.¶

A PHOSITA may use the existing identity and context structures.¶

The present embodiment does not redefine those identifiers.¶

It emphasizes correct correspondence across their versioned mappings.¶

5.438. 1.C.18.3. CAMARA SIM Swap

CAMARA's SIM Swap API provides application-facing information concerning recent mobile-line SIM association changes.¶

The capabilities may include a bounded check and latest-change date retrieval.¶

The API's supported monitoring period and privacy limitations are relevant.¶

The API does not, by itself, furnish complete internal PDU Session state.¶

The present embodiment may use it as one source of event information without requiring every deployment to expose operator-internal identifiers.¶

5.439. 1.C.18.4. SIM Swap Notifications

Where a supported event-subscription API is deployed, the processor may receive SIMchange notifications.¶

Subscription lifecycle, notification identity, delivery, and completeness limitations must be interpreted according to the applicable specification and provider implementation.¶

The present embodiment does not invent the event-subscription mechanism.¶

5.440. 1.C.18.5. GSMA eSIM Remote Provisioning

GSMA eSIM specifications provide existing architectures for profile management.¶

A PHOSITA may use supported profile installation, enablement, disablement, deletion, and multi-profile features where applicable.¶

The embodiment distinguishes these profile states from actual network registration and session-resource states.¶

5.441. 1.C.18.6. Network Resource State

A deployment may use existing network-management and session-control observations to determine whether the required network effect occurred.¶

The information may come from session-management functions, user-plane management interfaces, or another relevant monitoring service.¶

The actual standards and operator implementation determine what each observation establishes.¶

5.442. 1.C.18.7. Non-Limiting Industrial Environments

The mechanism may be implemented in public mobile networks, private 5G networks, IoT connectivity services, enterprise mobile services, dual-SIM devices, eSIM-enabled devices, roaming services, and other supported telecommunications environments.¶

The details of each deployment determine which subscriber, device, profile, and session mappings are available.¶

5.443. 1.C.19. Specific Claim-Supporting Relationships

The following relationships may be evaluated during subsequent claim drafting.¶

They are not assertions of established novelty.¶

Relationship 1 - Source-semantic differentiation: Distinguishing a SIM-change¶

information result, subscriber-data update, eSIM profile event, and device-associated change before determining session consequences.¶

Relationship 2 - Time-qualified identity correspondence: Associating an event with the¶

relevant subscriber generation and active-session references without assuming equality among distinct identity domains.¶

Relationship 3 - Session-specific impact set: Determining separately which concurrent¶

sessions are affected, unaffected, or unresolved.¶

Relationship 4 - Multi-profile separation: Maintaining independent subscription and¶

session relationships on a device with several profiles.¶

Relationship 5 - Subscriber revision to session-effect reconstruction: Relating a¶

versioned governing-condition change to the actual control-plane and resource effects of an applicable existing session procedure.¶

Relationship 6 - Bounded source-evidence interpretation: Preventing a limited historical¶

SIM-change check from being interpreted as complete subscriber history.¶

5.444. Relationship 7 - Asynchronous outcome preservation: Distinguishing notification,

operation acceptance, resource application, and unresolved remote outcomes.¶

Relationship 8 - Residual earlier session assessment: Evaluating old session records and¶

resources following a new subscriber association without assuming that every residual record represents active service.¶

Relationship 9 - Cross-generation continuity: Distinguishing logical session persistence¶

from replacement of one network-function or resource instance.¶

Relationship 10 - Retrospective assessment revision: Reevaluating affected session¶

continuity when source mappings or events are corrected.¶

Relationship 11 - Privacy-minimized correlation: Producing a scoped impact assessment¶

without unnecessary disclosure of raw internal subscriber identifiers.¶

Relationship 12 - Risk and network-state separation: Retaining a risk-information result¶

independently of the observed technical session state.¶

The described mechanisms require operationally precise conditions, evidence sources and specific state semantics. They do not automatically imply equivalent behavior in a different deployment.¶

5.445. 1.C.20. Relationship to the Foundational Shared Technical Foundation

The foundational disclosures already include telecommunications, subscriber-related governance, protected execution-finality, virtual identity, and other cross-domain mechanisms.¶

The present embodiment shall not recharacterize an already disclosed protected authorization or execution-time capability mechanism as a newly introduced feature.¶

Its proposed incremental technical focus is the event-to-session operational¶

correspondence problem, especially where external SIM-related information, operator¶

subscriber-state revisions, device-side profile changes, and actual network-session effects are not synchronously or completely visible.¶

The specific additions potentially requiring closer examination include:¶

(a) differentiating source-specific subscriber events before session impact determination; (b) maintaining versioned identity correspondence across mobile-line and subscriber generations; (c) identifying impacted session subsets rather than assuming subscriber-wide uniform effects;¶

(d) distinguishing eSIM profile transitions from session-management transitions;¶

(e) reconstructing control-plane and user-plane effects independently;¶

(f) retaining residual earlier session contexts under uncertain cleanup;¶

(g) preventing source monitoring limitations from becoming unsupported negative claims;¶

(h) separating SIM-change risk information from actual network-session state; and¶

(i) producing a versioned, evidence-qualified session impact result suitable for later reconciliation.¶

These mechanisms must be compared with the earlier as-filed materials and relevant public prior art.¶

This text is an illustrative technical disclosure. Separate formal disclosures and external references follow their applicable processes.¶

5.446. 1.C.21. Particular Technical Effects

Depending upon the selected implementation, the embodiment may provide:¶

(a) more reliable association of subscriber-related events with specific active sessions; (b) reduced incorrect correlation across reused mobile numbers; (c) improved handling of subscriber and profile generations; (d) improved distinction between device, profile, subscriber, and network-session changes;¶

(e) reduced assumption that a recent SIM change means fraud;¶

(f) improved interpretation of external SIM-swap information APIs;¶

(g) better treatment of bounded monitoring windows and null results;¶

(h) more accurate determination of which simultaneous sessions are affected;¶

(i) improved separation of session-modification requests from applied network effects;¶

(j) better reconstruction of residual old session contexts;¶

(k) improved continuity across network-function replacement;¶

(l) reduced unsupported attribution of network effects to external events;¶

(m) improved historical reassessment after corrected subscriber mappings;¶

(n) reduced unnecessary exposure of internal subscriber identity data;¶

(o) compatibility with standard session-management and eSIM procedures;¶

(p) improved technical support for later cross-operator lifecycle reconciliation; and¶

(q) improved evidence quality for independently governed risk or network-management decisions.¶

These are possible technical effects, not completed experimental findings.¶

No specific reduction in fraud, unauthorized access, service interruption, incorrect session release, or processing latency is asserted without actual supporting measurements.¶

5.447. 1.C.22. Non-Limiting Implementation Character

The present embodiment may be implemented in software, firmware, network-control functions, operator subscriber systems, eSIM management components, session-management services, device information systems, application-facing network exposure platforms, or combinations thereof.¶

A deployment may use physical SIMs, embedded SIMs, or another applicable subscription technology.¶

The implementation need not collect every identity field.¶

A restricted external system may receive only a qualified impact result.¶

A telecommunications operator may perform the complete internal session mapping.¶

An active subscriber may have one session or several sessions.¶

A device may support one profile or several profiles.¶

A session may continue across network-function replacement.¶

A subscriber-state change may affect one service without affecting another.¶

A risk-information event may be valid without proving a network-resource transition.¶

A profile may be enabled without a successful network registration.¶

A released session may leave cleanup evidence outstanding.¶

The processor may retain unresolved conditions rather than inventing a complete result.¶

No particular vendor, mobile-network generation, database, graph engine, programming language, or AI model is mandatory.¶

The embodiment does not itself grant network effectuation authority.¶

All consequential operations remain subject to the independently applicable standardized procedures and authorization controls.¶

5.448. 1.C.23. Conclusion

5.449. The central technical subject of Embodiment 1.C is the evidence-qualified

reconstruction of which active telecommunications sessions, if any, are affected by a SIM-related or subscriber-association change, and what network-session lifecycle effects are actually established afterward.¶

The embodiment distinguishes:¶

1. Mobile-number association from internal subscriber identity. 2. Subscriber identity from device identity. 3. SIM-related risk information from network-session state. 4. Physical or embedded SIM profile changes from network registration. 5. Profile installation from enablement. 6. Subscriber-data notification from completed session modification. 7. Logical session continuity from resource-instance continuity. 8. Control-plane operation from user-plane effect. 9. Session release from resource cleanup. 10. Current identity mapping from historical subscriber generation. 11. Source observation limits from definitive absence of an event. 12. Technical session impact from authorization to perform consequential operations.¶

It supplies concrete algorithms, data structures, source-specific interpretations, implementation pathways, failure handling, and verification tests.¶

Where the evidence establishes that a session is affected, the processor records the applicable state and observed consequences.¶

Where the event is demonstrably unrelated to a session, the system does not impose a fictitious transition.¶

Where subscriber mapping, temporal applicability, or network-resource outcomes remain unknown, the corresponding session result remains unresolved.¶

5.450. This completes Embodiment 1.C without repeating Common Workflow C-CW-01,

generic SIM-swap fraud detection, standard 3GPP subscriber-notification procedures, or the foundational execution-finality architecture.¶

5.451. EMBODIMENT 2.C - INTEROPERATOR ROAMING SESSION-STATE RECONSTRUCTION, DISTRIBUTED RESPONSIBILITY CORRESPONDENCE,

5.452. AND CONTINUITY ACROSS SERVING-NETWORK TRANSITIONS

5.453. 2.C.1. Embodiment Identification

Invention Group: C - Programmable Telecommunications Session Lifecycle and Cross-¶

Operator Operational-State Consistency.¶

Embodiment Number: 2.C - Second Embodiment of GROUP C.¶

Technical Title: Systems and Methods for Reconstructing Session Continuity and¶

Distributed Network-Function Responsibility Across Home-Routed, Local-Breakout, and Interoperator Mobility Transitions.¶

Common Workflow: C-CW-01.¶

Principal Workflow Variation: C-V2 - Interoperator Roaming Transition and Session-¶

State Responsibility Correspondence.¶

Embodiment Algorithm: C-ALG-03.¶

Specific Alternative Technical Implementations: C-2-DA-01 through C-2-DA-36.¶

Relevant Common Workflow Stages: C-CW-01.01-C-CW-01.08, C-CW-01.09-C-CW-¶

01.29, and C-CW-01.32-C-CW-01.38.¶

| x | 1.C - SIM-related trust-state changes during active session continuity. | |---|---| | x | 3.C - Concurrent programmable session updates and usage-quota state reconciliation. |¶

x 4.C - Service effect, network usage, and charging-record correspondence.¶

| x | 5.C - Purpose-scoped consent-state changes during active telecommunications service. | |---|---| | x | 6.C - Partial operator failure, session release, and deferred settlement reconstruction. |¶

2.C.1.1. General Technical Subject¶

The present embodiment describes a telecommunications session-lifecycle processing arrangement configured to reconstruct technical correspondence among session representations maintained by different mobile network operators and network functions during roaming, serving-area transitions, session-management function changes, user-plane resource relocation, and related mobility procedures.¶

The arrangement considers a logical communication or connectivity session that may be associated with multiple, separately evolving control and resource contexts.¶

In an illustrative 5G deployment, the home network and serving network may maintain different information relevant to the session.¶

Depending upon whether the applicable architecture uses home-routed roaming, local breakout, or another supported arrangement, those networks may have different responsibilities for session management, policy, user-plane connectivity, and related resources.¶

The device may move into a different serving network.¶

A visited-network function may be inserted, replaced, or removed under a supported mobility procedure.¶

A user-plane resource may be changed.¶

A session-management request may be accepted before all resulting state changes become observable.¶

A remote network function may be temporarily unreachable.¶

The logical session may continue under an applicable procedure, or the network may require session release and subsequent establishment of another session.¶

The mere persistence of a session identifier in one database does not determine which outcome occurred.¶

The present embodiment provides a structured mechanism for establishing, to the extent supported by available evidence:¶

1. The logical session and its applicable generation. 2. The roaming architecture under which the session operates. 3. The relevant home and visited network responsibilities. 4. The local session references maintained by each participating function. 5. The supported correspondence among those references. 6. The governing service, access, and network-slice context.¶

7. The current and proposed mobility-related session transition. 8. The individual operation lifecycle and outstanding requests. 9. The user-plane resource effects associated with the transition. 10. The continuity or replacement of the logical session. 11. The actual scope of remote release and cleanup. 12. The persistence or interruption of required service properties. 13. The unresolved state when one domain cannot supply the required information.¶

The processor does not require all participating functions to expose their internal state to one operator or central management system.¶

It may evaluate cross-domain relationships using permitted, abstracted correspondence information.¶

The arrangement is not restricted to one mobile network generation, although 5G system procedures provide non-limiting reference implementations.¶

2.C.1.2. Specific Technical Distinction¶

The central mechanism is distributed session responsibility and state correspondence.¶

The processor separately determines:¶

A. Session identity correspondence: Whether different local records refer to the same¶

applicable logical session or to distinct sessions.¶

B. Responsibility correspondence: Which participating network functions have which¶

session-management or resource responsibilities under the actual roaming architecture.¶

C. Transition correspondence: Whether the observed local changes are part of a supported¶

session-continuity procedure, a release procedure, or an unresolved transition.¶

D. Resource correspondence: Whether the target network resources and user-plane state¶

required by the resulting session are established.¶

E. Service correspondence: Whether the specified service-continuity requirements are¶

satisfied under the new context.¶

F. Cleanup correspondence: Whether previously associated resources and contexts have¶

been released where release is required.¶

These relationships may have different results.¶

For example, a home-side session may remain established while a visited-network function change is pending.¶

Alternatively, the visited-network resource may be established while an older resource cleanup remains unresolved.¶

The processor does not collapse such results into one unsupported ACTIVE, TRANSFERRED, or CLOSED label.¶

2.C.1.3. Distinction from Established Roaming Procedures¶

Existing standards already define home-routed roaming, local breakout, mobility procedures, selection and change of session-management functions, and applicable session-management service operations.¶

The present embodiment does not claim:¶

| x | selecting an H-SMF or V-SMF; | |---|---| | x | implementing a conventional PDU Session Establishment procedure; | | x | implementing a conventional Nsmf_PDUSession operation; | | x | inserting or replacing a V-SMF under an existing standardized procedure; | | x | configuring N4 or N9 connectivity; | | x | applying an established roaming agreement; | | x | performing standard user-plane routing; or | | x | maintaining a conventional subscriber identity. |¶

The proposed technical subject is the reconciliation of the multiple resulting state representations, including their partial, delayed, contradictory, or unavailable evidence.¶

2.C.1.4. Distinction from the Earlier Execution-Finality Portfolio¶

The present embodiment does not newly define protected execution authority, a non-bearer capability, an Execution Handle, or a Finality Sink.¶

Where a session operation requires authorization or protected effectuation, the existing applicable mechanisms remain separately responsible.¶

The present embodiment determines whether a session transition remains technically consistent with its governing state and observed effects.¶

A finding of technical compatibility does not independently authorize an operation.¶

5.455. 2.C.2. Particular Technical Problem Space

5.456. 2.C.2.1. Home-Routed and Local-Breakout Arrangements Have Different Responsibilities

A home-routed PDU Session may involve both visited and home session-management functions and associated user-plane relationships.¶

A local-breakout session follows a different responsibility distribution.¶

Consequently, a procedure that assumes every roaming session possesses the same home/visited session-management topology can misidentify the function that should provide a state observation or lifecycle result.¶

The processor must first determine the applicable session architecture.¶

5.457. 2.C.2.2. Session Identity and Local SM Context Identity Are Distinct

An operator or network function may maintain an internal session-management context reference.¶

Another function may maintain a related but differently identified context.¶

The same logical PDU Session may therefore be associated with several local references.¶

Conversely, the same numeric local identifier may occur in unrelated sessions or namespaces.¶

The processor requires supported identity correspondence rather than equality of bare identifier strings.¶

5.458. 2.C.2.3. A Serving-Network Change Does Not Always Mean Session Replacement

Under certain supported mobility procedures, a logical PDU Session may continue while access or serving functions change.¶

Under other conditions, release and new establishment may be required.¶

The processor evaluates the applicable procedure and resulting evidence.¶

It does not automatically infer either continuity or replacement from a serving-operator change.¶

5.459. 2.C.2.4. A Change of V-SMF May Be Unsupported

An existing home-routed session may encounter a mobility condition requiring a change of V-SMF.¶

The relevant procedure may depend upon whether the participating network functions support the corresponding feature.¶

Where the applicable standard requires release rather than unsupported V-SMF change, the processor must recognize that outcome.¶

It does not invent a universally available seamless migration capability.¶

5.460. 2.C.2.5. A Home-Side Record May Outlast the Visited Context

A home network may retain session state while a visited function is being changed or removed.¶

The home-side record may remain correct for the logical session but not identify the current serving resource.¶

The processor distinguishes home-side session persistence from visited-resource continuity.¶

5.461. 2.C.2.6. A Visited-Side Record May Remain after Home-Side Release

A release procedure may be initiated by the home-side network.¶

The visited-side context may not yet reflect completion.¶

The processor does not interpret a home-side release acknowledgement as universal proof that all visited resources are absent.¶

It evaluates the actual release and status semantics.¶

5.462. 2.C.2.7. Local Context Release May Differ from Full Session Release

Some standardized mobility procedures permit releasing only a particular intermediate or visited session context.¶

Such a release may be appropriate when the logical session is continued through another access or function.¶

The processor must distinguish local-context release from complete PDU Session termination.¶

A generic release string is insufficient to establish the required scope.¶

5.463. 2.C.2.8. Control-Plane and User-Plane State May Change at Different Times

A session-management function may complete a control-plane procedure while the target user-plane resource remains pending or its operation is not yet observable.¶

Similarly, the new user-plane path may be operational before all administrative records are updated.¶

The processor represents these dimensions separately.¶

5.464. 2.C.2.9. Session-Management Function Identity Can Change without Logical Session Identity Changing

A serving session-management function may be replaced.¶

Its internal runtime and context reference may change.¶

The relevant logical session may continue under an applicable continuity procedure.¶

The processor maintains separate logical and function-instance identities.¶

5.465. 2.C.2.10. Function Replacement May Also Require Session Release

A function replacement is not universally seamless.¶

The required procedures and capabilities may determine that an existing session cannot continue.¶

The processor cannot infer continuity merely because a replacement function is available.¶

It must evaluate the actual procedure outcome.¶

5.466. 2.C.2.11. Access Mobility May Change the Session's Supporting Resources

A session may move between supported 3GPP and non-3GPP accesses or undergo another relevant access transition.¶

The serving access and intermediate resources may change while the logical session follows supported mobility rules.¶

The processor distinguishes access-specific resource release from entire session release.¶

5.467. 2.C.2.12. Roaming Architecture May Include Additional Local Breakout Functions

Certain supported home-routed architectures may provide selected breakout behavior in a visited network.¶

The mere presence of visited-side breakout does not make the entire session equivalent to conventional LBO.¶

The processor uses the actual architecture and applies the correct responsibility model.¶

5.468. 2.C.2.13. Source and Target Functions May Temporarily Coexist

During a supported mobility transition, old and new function or resource contexts may coexist for a limited period.¶

Such coexistence is not automatically evidence of duplicate sessions.¶

The system must determine whether the observed overlap is consistent with the applicable transition procedure.¶

5.469. 2.C.2.14. Coexistence May Also Conceal Incomplete Cleanup

A previous resource may remain allocated after the target path becomes active.¶

A local source may no longer need the resource, yet the cleanup operation may remain pending or unknown.¶

The processor identifies the outstanding resource-release obligation.¶

5.470. 2.C.2.15. Remote State May Be Abstracted by the Other Operator

The visited operator may expose only a limited status about its serving resources.¶

The home operator may similarly expose only the session state needed at the boundary.¶

An external reconciliation component may therefore know that an operation was accepted without knowing the full internal resource allocation.¶

The processor must not fabricate hidden state.¶

5.471. 2.C.2.16. Interoperator Status Messages May Arrive Out of Order

A notification describing a prior state can arrive after a newer status.¶

Network delay, retries, buffering, and independent function processing may alter delivery order.¶

The processor interprets source-scoped revisions and causal relationships rather than imposing arrival order as physical transition order.¶

5.472. 2.C.2.17. Different Operators May Have Different Clock Accuracy

A home and visited operator may report timestamps generated by independently maintained clocks.¶

A difference between those timestamps need not correspond to the actual event ordering.¶

Where ordering matters, the processor uses supported clock uncertainty intervals, operation dependencies, or native sequence relationships.¶

5.473. 2.C.2.18. An Interoperator API Response May Be Lost after Remote Processing

An update request may be applied by a remote function before its response is lost.¶

The initiating function may observe a timeout.¶

Blind retransmission may have different consequences depending upon the operation's semantics.¶

The processor retains unknown outcome and uses supported status reconciliation where available.¶

5.474. 2.C.2.19. A Status Notification May Not Describe All Underlying Effects

A remote function may notify another component that a session context has been released.¶

That status may have a precisely defined scope.¶

It may not establish final user-plane cleanup, application service reachability, or charging settlement unless the relevant contract supports those conclusions.¶

5.475. 2.C.2.20. Different Network Functions May Maintain Different Revisions

The home SMF, visited SMF, mobility manager, user-plane function, and operator inventory may use separate version identifiers.¶

A larger number from one source does not necessarily describe a later globally applicable state.¶

The processor preserves version namespaces.¶

5.476. 2.C.2.21. Some States May Be Known Only through Resource Observations

A management interface may report a session update as accepted.¶

A resource observer may independently establish the presence of the intended forwarding path.¶

The processor may use the latter to establish particular applied-state conditions.¶

However, resource-state equality does not necessarily prove which control message caused that state.¶

5.477. 2.C.2.22. Session Continuity Does Not Guarantee Service Continuity

A logical session may remain established while traffic experiences disruption.¶

A session could retain its identity but temporarily lose reachability during mobility.¶

The system distinguishes logical persistence from a specified service-continuity objective.¶

5.478. 2.C.2.23. Service Continuity Does Not Prove Logical Session Identity

An application may continue functioning through a newly established session.¶

Service continuity alone does not prove that the original PDU Session persisted.¶

The processor checks the logical session's identity and applicable continuity procedure separately.¶

5.479. 2.C.2.24. QoS State May Differ across Operators

The permitted QoS treatment or resource availability may differ across home and visited network contexts.¶

The processor must determine the actual applicable service and operator rules.¶

It does not assume that every prior QoS property is identically supported by a target network.¶

5.480. 2.C.2.25. Network Slice and DNN Correspondence May Change

A session may depend upon an applicable network slice and DNN.¶

The target roaming context may have different supported slice or service arrangements.¶

The processor evaluates the actual mapping and supported procedure.¶

It does not declare continuity solely from similarity of human-readable names.¶

5.481. 2.C.2.26. Operator Failures Can Leave a Mixed Session State

One operator may be temporarily unreachable while another has already completed a local transition.¶

The resulting state may include:¶

| x | home session context present; | |---|---| | x | visited transition requested; | | x | target resource status unknown; | | x | source resource still present; and | | x | service condition not established. |¶

Such a state cannot be accurately represented by one universal completion flag.¶

5.482. 2.C.2.27. A Retry Can Race with the Original Operation

The initiating function may retry an update after a timeout.¶

The original operation may still be processing.¶

The processor must evaluate operation identity and the receiver's actual retry or idempotency guarantees.¶

An identical request identifier is not automatically proof of exactly-once physical execution.¶

5.483. 2.C.2.28. Resource Cleanup May Depend upon a New Path Being Established

During a mobility transition, premature deletion of a source resource may interrupt service.¶

The correct sequence depends upon the supported procedure and required intermediate conditions.¶

The processor evaluates these dependencies without inventing a new mobility protocol.¶

5.484. 2.C.2.29. Delayed Cleanup May Be Legitimate

A source context may be retained temporarily under a supported transition or failure-recovery procedure.¶

The processor must distinguish expected temporary coexistence from an overdue or inconsistent residual resource.¶

A resource's presence alone does not establish a defect.¶

5.485. 2.C.2.30. Session Continuity and Charging Continuity Are Not Identical

The logical session may continue while the applicable charging function, reporting scope, or resource attribution changes.¶

The processor maintains the relevant session/accounting relationship without performing the full charging reconciliation of Embodiment 4.C.¶

5.486. 2.C.2.31. Local Breakout and Home-Routed Session Charging May Follow Different Paths

The relevant charging roles and traffic paths depend upon the architecture.¶

A home-routed session is not automatically accounted for using the same operator-local records as an LBO session.¶

The processor records which source and accounting context are applicable.¶

5.487. 2.C.2.32. A Remote Release May Be Necessary Even after Service Migration

A subscriber may have moved to a new serving network, but an old function or user-plane resource may remain allocated.¶

The release must be evaluated under the applicable procedure.¶

The processor identifies the state of each required cleanup target.¶

5.488. 2.C.2.33. A New Registration Does Not Automatically Establish Existing Session Continuity

A UE may successfully register under a target access or operator context.¶

That does not, by itself, prove that a particular earlier PDU Session was preserved.¶

The processor requires the relevant session-level procedure and correspondence.¶

5.489. 2.C.2.34. An Apparently Consistent API State Can Conceal Resource Contradiction

Two interoperator status messages may agree that the transition completed.¶

A resource-state observation may nevertheless show that an essential target resource is absent.¶

The processor preserves the contradiction rather than discarding the resource evidence.¶

5.490. 2.C.2.35. Reconstruction Must Respect Interoperator Information Boundaries

A domain may be prohibited from disclosing internal subscriber or routing information.¶

A verifier may receive only a permitted abstract correspondence or status.¶

The inability to observe hidden data is a real limitation, not proof that the underlying state is absent.¶

5.491. 2.C.2.36. A Session-State Reconstruction Does Not Grant Authority to Modify the Network

The processor may establish that a roaming transition is technically inconsistent.¶

It may recommend an existing modification, release, or reconciliation procedure.¶

However, the reconstruction does not independently authorize the corresponding operation.¶

5.492. 2.C.3. Specific Technical Contribution Sought

The proposed contribution is a distributed session-state reconstruction procedure that:¶

(a) identifies the roaming architecture applicable to a particular session; (b) reconstructs the session's logical identity within its namespace and generation; (c) identifies the home and visited operator roles relevant to that architecture; (d) associates the session with the applicable H-SMF, V-SMF, SMF, I-SMF, AMF, and userplane references only where those functions are actually involved; (e) identifies the supported correspondence among function-local session references; (f) distinguishes session identity continuity from network-function and resource continuity; (g) identifies the source and target operator or access contexts for a transition; (h) obtains the relevant mobility or session-management procedure type; (i) determines whether the required participating functions support that procedure; (j) identifies whether the procedure preserves the logical session or requires release; (k) identifies resource states and operation outcomes necessary to establish the transition; (l) distinguishes local function-context release from complete PDU Session release; (m) obtains the evidence available at each participating operator;¶

(n) preserves information-disclosure and source-coverage limitations;¶

(o) reconstructs outstanding requests and uncertain remote results;¶

(p) evaluates source/target resource dependencies and transitional coexistence;¶

(q) assesses logical, control-plane, user-plane, and service continuity separately;¶

(r) identifies residual earlier serving-network resources;¶

(s) evaluates applicable cleanup requirements;¶

(t) handles delayed or corrected interoperator status information;¶

(u) identifies which historical assessments require revision after later evidence;¶

(v) retains accounting continuity references without treating accounting settlement as session state;¶

(w) produces a technically qualified session-transition result; and¶

(x) supports use of that result by independently controlled network operations and monitoring systems.¶

The procedure may operate centrally, within one operator, across cooperating operators, or through a federated interface.¶

It does not claim the standardized mobility procedures as new.¶

5.493. 2.C.4. Representative System Architecture

5.494. 2.C.4.1. Logical Session Identity Resolver

The resolver identifies the subscriber and PDU Session reference under the applicable namespace and generation.¶

It distinguishes the logical session from local SM context resources.¶

Where the selected network technology uses another session model, the resolver applies that technology's actual semantics.¶

5.495. 2.C.4.2. Roaming Architecture Classifier

This component determines whether the session uses:¶

| x | home-routed roaming; | |---|---| | x | local breakout; | | x | non-roaming operation; |¶

| x | a specifically supported home-routed breakout arrangement; | |---|---| | x | another recognized operator architecture; or | | x | an unresolved architecture. |¶

The classifier does not assume that every network with local traffic breakout is equivalent to conventional LBO.¶

5.496. 2.C.4.3. Operator Responsibility Model

The responsibility model associates the relevant operator and network functions with their actual roles.¶

A non-limiting home-routed example may involve:¶

| x | a visited-side SMF; | |---|---| | x | a home-side SMF; | | x | visited-side user-plane resources; | | x | a home-side user-plane anchor; | | x | applicable mobility-management context; and | | x | a relevant interoperator control relationship. |¶

The model is constructed from the actual deployment.¶

It is not a new standardized interface.¶

5.497. 2.C.4.4. Local Session Reference Mapper

The mapper associates function-local session and context references with the logical session.¶

It records the source, relevant generation, and validity of each association.¶

A resource reference from one function is not automatically comparable to a similar reference from another function.¶

5.498. 2.C.4.5. Mobility Transition Detector

The detector identifies relevant serving-network, access, or network-function changes.¶

It obtains the underlying event type and applicable procedure reference.¶

It does not infer that every registration or location event requires a PDU Session transition.¶

5.499. 2.C.4.6. Procedure Capability Evaluator

The evaluator determines whether the participating functions support the required mobility or session-management operation.¶

Where the applicable standard requires release because a continuity operation is unsupported, that requirement is retained.¶

5.500. 2.C.4.7. Interoperator Evidence Collector

The collector obtains permitted status and correspondence information from participating operators.¶

It may receive only abstract boundary-level data.¶

The collector records the completeness and visibility limitations.¶

5.501. 2.C.4.8. Source-State Reconstruction Component

This component reconstructs the relevant session and resource state before the transition.¶

It may use local SMF records, operator context, resource observations, or qualified historical state.¶

5.502. 2.C.4.9. Target-State Reconstruction Component

The target-state component evaluates the session and resource conditions that are established after or during the transition.¶

It does not equate target registration with successful preservation of every previous session.¶

5.503. 2.C.4.10. Control-Plane Operation Tracker

The tracker interprets session-management requests, responses, status notifications, and unknown outcomes under applicable interface semantics.¶

5.504. 2.C.4.11. User-Plane Path Correspondence Evaluator

The evaluator associates the logical session with relevant source, intermediate, and target user-plane resources.¶

It distinguishes intended paths from observed applied state.¶

5.505. 2.C.4.12. Service Continuity Observer

Where the recovery or transition objective requires service continuity, this component obtains relevant reachability, QoS, or other operational observations.¶

It does not infer full service continuity merely from continued logical session identity.¶

5.506. 2.C.4.13. Cleanup and Residual-State Evaluator

The evaluator identifies which earlier contexts and resources must be released under the applicable procedure.¶

It distinguishes local release from remote cleanup and from full session termination.¶

5.507. 2.C.4.14. Cross-Operator Revision Repository

This repository maintains source-scoped versions, relevant event order relationships, and state observations.¶

It does not impose one arbitrary global version number upon independent operators.¶

5.508. 2.C.4.15. Uncertainty and Contradiction Evaluator

The evaluator identifies missing mandatory data and contradictions between source claims and observed state.¶

It distinguishes an unknown state from a demonstrated inconsistent state.¶

5.509. 2.C.4.16. Transition Result Generator

The generator produces a result identifying:¶

| x | logical continuity; | |---|---| | x | responsibility correspondence; | | x | control-plane outcome; | | x | user-plane state; | | x | service continuity; | | x | release scope; | | x | cleanup state; | | x | unresolved conditions; and | | x | supporting evidence. |¶

5.510. 2.C.4.17. Optional Existing Effectuation Interface

Where further session modification or release is required, the technical result may be supplied to a separately authorized network procedure.¶

This interface is not a newly invented execution-finality mechanism.¶

5.511. 2.C.5. Necessary Embodiment-Specific Interpretations

The Group C common definitions remain applicable.¶

The following local descriptions address the distinctive technical relationships of Embodiment 2.C.¶

5.512. 2.C.5.1. Interoperator Session Correspondence

The established relationship between the logical session and the session or resource references exposed by two or more operator contexts.¶

The relationship may be complete, partial, or unresolved.¶

5.513. 2.C.5.2. Responsibility Correspondence

The association of session-management, resource, and lifecycle responsibilities with the participating network functions under the actual roaming architecture.¶

5.514. 2.C.5.3. Serving-Context Transition

A mobility-related change in the operator, access, network function, or resource context serving the session.¶

The transition does not, by definition, imply logical session replacement.¶

5.515. 2.C.5.4. Source Context

The operator, function, or resource state relevant to the session before a selected transition.¶

5.516. 2.C.5.5. Target Context

The operator, function, or resource state relevant to the session after or during the selected transition.¶

5.517. 2.C.5.6. Local-Context Release

Release of a specific function-local session context under an applicable procedure.¶

It is distinguished from complete logical PDU Session release where the protocol makes that distinction.¶

5.518. 2.C.5.7. Session Continuity Assessment

The evidence-qualified determination of whether a particular logical session persisted under its applicable mobility and session-management semantics.¶

The assessment does not automatically establish uninterrupted end-to-end service.¶

5.519. 2.C.5.8. Residual Serving Context

An earlier network-function or user-plane resource context whose continued existence or cleanup status remains relevant after a serving-context transition.¶

5.520. 2.C.6. Representative Data Structures

5.521. 2.C.6.1. Roaming Session Record

RoamingSession:¶

logical\_session\_id subscriber\_reference session\_namespace session\_generation roaming\_architecture¶

home\_operator\_reference visited\_operator\_reference serving\_access\_reference pdu\_session\_reference dnn\_reference slice\_or\_service\_context applicable\_home\_sm\_reference applicable\_visited\_sm\_reference applicable\_intermediate\_sm\_reference current\_resource\_correspondences current\_lifecycle\_state unresolved\_conditions¶

Fields are populated only where relevant to the actual architecture.¶

5.522. 2.C.6.2. Operator Responsibility Record

OperatorResponsibility:¶

responsibility\_id logical\_session\_reference operator\_namespace operator\_role network\_function\_role network\_function\_instance function\_generation session\_reference responsibility\_type applicable\_procedure state\_source effective\_interval\_or\_generation exposed\_status visibility\_limitations¶

5.523. 2.C.6.3. Cross-Operator Correspondence Record

CrossOperatorCorrespondence:¶

correspondence\_id home\_session\_reference visited\_session\_reference logical\_session\_reference relationship\_type applicable\_roaming\_model subscriber\_mapping\_evidence source\_and\_target\_generations established\_state\_dependencies supporting\_boundary\_records correspondence\_verdict unresolved\_conditions¶

5.524. 2.C.6.4. Mobility Transition Record

MobilityTransition:¶

transition\_id logical\_session\_reference source\_operator\_context target\_operator\_context source\_access\_context target\_access\_context source\_sm\_function target\_sm\_function mobility\_trigger procedure\_reference capability\_requirements intended\_logical\_session\_effect intended\_resource\_effects required\_cleanup\_effects operation\_references transition\_status¶

5.525. 2.C.6.5. Interoperator Operation Evidence

InteroperatorOperationEvidence:¶

evidence\_id source\_operator source\_function\_generation receiving\_operator\_or\_function operation\_type request\_reference original\_operation\_parameters transport\_status receiver\_acceptance\_status remote\_processing\_status response\_or\_notification\_reference event\_time\_context source\_revision outcome\_scope reporting\_limitations¶

5.526. 2.C.6.6. User-Plane Resource Correspondence

UserPlaneCorrespondence:¶

logical\_session\_reference source\_up\_resource\_ids target\_up\_resource\_ids source\_up\_function\_generations target\_up\_function\_generations applicable\_interface\_relationships intended\_path\_state observed\_path\_state resource\_activation\_status source\_resource\_release\_status¶

target\_resource\_release\_status service\_observation\_references unresolved\_conditions¶

5.527. 2.C.6.7. Transition State Reconstruction

TransitionStateReconstruction:¶

reconstruction\_id logical\_session\_reference architecture\_reference source\_state\_reference target\_state\_reference established\_logical\_state established\_control\_state established\_user\_plane\_state established\_service\_state potentially\_effective\_operations unresolved\_remote\_states known\_residual\_resources mandatory\_transition\_conditions consistency\_verdict reconstruction\_revision¶

5.528. 2.C.6.8. Final Interoperator Continuity Result

InteroperatorContinuityResult:¶

incident\_or\_mobility\_event\_reference logical\_session\_reference source\_and\_target\_contexts architecture\_classification operator\_responsibility\_assessment session\_identity\_continuity control\_plane\_transition\_assessment user\_plane\_transition\_assessment service\_continuity\_assessment local\_context\_release\_status global\_session\_release\_status outstanding\_cleanup\_requirements unresolved\_conditions evidence\_references result\_revision¶

5.529. 2.C.7. Detailed Operational Procedure

The following 42 stages elaborate C-CW-01 for interoperator roaming and distributed session responsibility.¶

5.530. 2.C-01 - Receive a Roaming or Serving-Context Transition Event

The processor receives a relevant mobility, serving-network, access, session-management, or reconciliation event.¶

It identifies the source and event type.¶

Output: Candidate transition event.¶

5.531. 2.C-02 - Resolve the Logical Session

The processor identifies the applicable subscriber, session namespace, PDU Session reference, and generation.¶

Where insufficient information is available, the mapping remains unresolved.¶

Output: Qualified logical session identity.¶

5.532. 2.C-03 - Determine the Roaming Architecture

The processor identifies the applicable home-routed, local-breakout, or other supported arrangement.¶

Architecture-specific responsibilities are not inferred from the fact of roaming alone.¶

Output: Architecture classification.¶

5.533. 2.C-04 - Identify the Home Operator Context

The system obtains the relevant home network role and exposed session information.¶

It records the source and scope of the information.¶

Output: Home context.¶

5.534. 2.C-05 - Identify the Serving or Visited Operator Context

The processor determines the relevant serving network and visited-side functions.¶

It distinguishes current and historical contexts.¶

Output: Visited context.¶

5.535. 2.C-06 - Resolve the Applicable Session-Management Functions

The processor identifies which SMF, V-SMF, H-SMF, I-SMF, or other function roles are actually involved.¶

It does not populate non-applicable roles merely to complete a fixed schema.¶

Output: Function responsibility set.¶

5.536. 2.C-07 - Resolve Function-Local Session References

Each local session or SM context reference is associated with its source and function generation.¶

The processor evaluates supported correspondence to the logical session.¶

Output: Function-local reference mapping.¶

5.537. 2.C-08 - Establish Pre-Transition Resource State

The processor obtains source-context resources and observed operational state.¶

It records which user-plane and access relationships are relevant.¶

Output: Source state reconstruction.¶

5.538. 2.C-09 - Establish Governing Service Conditions

The processor identifies applicable DNN, slice, QoS, subscriber, and other necessary conditions.¶

Their semantics are obtained from the actual deployment.¶

Output: Governing-state reference.¶

5.539. 2.C-10 - Identify the Mobility Trigger and Procedure

The system determines the applicable mobility or serving-function transition procedure.¶

It distinguishes interoperator movement, serving-area change, access change, and function replacement.¶

Output: Procedure context.¶

5.540. 2.C-11 - Evaluate Procedure Capability Support

The processor checks whether the participating network functions support the required continuity procedure.¶

If the applicable standard requires release under unsupported capabilities, that outcome is retained.¶

Output: Capability assessment.¶

5.541. 2.C-12 - Determine the Intended Logical Session Effect

The system determines whether the procedure is intended to preserve the logical session, replace it, or release it.¶

The intended effect is recorded separately from the observed result.¶

Output: Logical transition requirement.¶

5.542. 2.C-13 - Determine Required Source and Target Functions

The processor identifies which functions must participate in the transition.¶

It distinguishes mandatory and optional participants under the procedure.¶

Output: Participant dependency set.¶

5.543. 2.C-14 - Determine Required Target Resources

The processor identifies the user-plane, access, and related resources required for the target context.¶

Output: Target resource requirements.¶

5.544. 2.C-15 - Determine Source Resource Retention Requirements

The system identifies source resources that must remain available during the transition.¶

It applies the actual procedure and service continuity conditions.¶

Output: Source retention requirements.¶

5.545. 2.C-16 - Determine Cleanup Requirements

The processor identifies which prior contexts and resources require release after the transition.¶

It distinguishes local-context release from complete session release.¶

Output: Cleanup obligations.¶

5.546. 2.C-17 - Identify Outstanding Transition Operations

The system retrieves pending or unresolved create, update, release, status, or context-transfer operations.¶

Output: Outstanding operation set.¶

5.547. 2.C-18 - Evaluate Source and Target State Compatibility

The processor checks whether the proposed transition is technically compatible with the established source and target states.¶

Output: Initial transition feasibility.¶

5.548. 2.C-19 - Evaluate Cross-Operator Mapping

The processor determines whether the home and visited local references describe the same applicable logical session.¶

A shared subscriber does not automatically establish one-to-one session identity.¶

Output: Cross-operator identity verdict.¶

5.549. 2.C-20 - Evaluate Source-Specific Versions and Event Ordering

The processor reconciles relevant revisions, effective intervals, and source-generation references.¶

It does not impose a numerical order across unrelated operator namespaces.¶

Output: Qualified transition chronology.¶

5.550. 2.C-21 - Evaluate Resource-Continuity Dependencies

The processor determines whether the target path or resource must be established before particular source resources can be released.¶

Output: Resource dependency assessment.¶

5.551. 2.C-22 - Evaluate Service-Continuity Requirements

The system identifies whether the procedure requires logical persistence alone or also specified service continuity.¶

It determines which observations will be needed.¶

Output: Service continuity objective.¶

5.552. 2.C-23 - Construct Transition-State Possibilities

Where operations are pending or source evidence is incomplete, the processor represents possible source and target states.¶

Output: Transition state set.¶

5.553. 2.C-24 - Determine Technical Transition Applicability

The processor combines architecture, identity, procedure, capability, state, and dependency requirements.¶

It classifies the transition as compatible, incompatible, or unresolved.¶

Output: Technical applicability verdict.¶

5.554. 2.C-25 - Associate Required Network Operations with Existing Controls

Where a separately performed operation is required, the system provides the supported operation specification to the applicable network procedure and authorization path.¶

No execution authority is created by this assessment.¶

Output: Qualified operation specification.¶

5.555. 2.C-26 - Observe Local Operation Submission

The processor records the relevant submitted operation and target function.¶

It does not infer remote completion from local transmission.¶

Output: Submission record.¶

5.556. 2.C-27 - Interpret Receiver Acknowledgement

The processor interprets received acknowledgements under the relevant service operation and its documented semantics.¶

Output: Acceptance or rejection status.¶

5.557. 2.C-28 - Reconcile Remote Unknown Outcomes

Where a response is lost or incomplete, the processor obtains supported remote status or resource observations when possible.¶

Output: Remote outcome assessment.¶

5.558. 2.C-29 - Observe Home-Side Session State

The processor obtains the relevant H-SMF or other home-side state where applicable.¶

Output: Home-side lifecycle evidence.¶

5.559. 2.C-30 - Observe Visited-Side Session State

The processor obtains the relevant visited-side function state under the applicable architecture.¶

Output: Visited-side lifecycle evidence.¶

5.560. 2.C-31 - Observe Target User-Plane State

The processor evaluates whether the required target resources are established under available source information.¶

Output: Target resource assessment.¶

5.561. 2.C-32 - Observe Source User-Plane State

The processor determines whether source resources remain present, were released, or cannot be conclusively observed.¶

Output: Source resource assessment.¶

5.562. 2.C-33 - Evaluate Logical Session Continuity

The system determines whether the applicable session identity is established as continuing.¶

A new function instance does not automatically negate continuity.¶

Output: Logical continuity verdict.¶

5.563. 2.C-34 - Evaluate Service Continuity Separately

Where required, the processor evaluates relevant service and traffic observations.¶

A persistent logical session does not automatically prove uninterrupted service.¶

Output: Service continuity verdict.¶

5.564. 2.C-35 - Reconcile Local-Context Release

The processor evaluates whether local or intermediate function contexts were released according to the applicable procedure.¶

Output: Local-context cleanup verdict.¶

5.565. 2.C-36 - Reconcile Full Session Release Where Applicable

The processor separately determines whether the complete logical session was released.¶

A local-context release is not automatically classified as full termination.¶

Output: Logical release assessment.¶

5.566. 2.C-37 - Identify Residual Earlier Resources

The system identifies source resources whose retention is unexplained, required, or not yet resolved.¶

It distinguishes expected temporary coexistence from established cleanup failure.¶

Output: Residual resource set.¶

5.567. 2.C-38 - Reconcile Accounting Continuity References

The processor associates earlier and later resource or operator contexts with the applicable accounting references where relevant.¶

It does not perform full settlement reconciliation in this embodiment.¶

Output: Accounting correspondence reference.¶

5.568. 2.C-39 - Identify Contradictory or Missing Evidence

The processor identifies conflicts between operator claims and resource observations, including source limitations.¶

Output: Evidence discrepancy report.¶

5.569. 2.C-40 - Revise the Assessment after Material Updates

The processor reevaluates affected relationships when delayed status, corrected identity mapping, or newly observed resource state becomes available.¶

Output: Revised state assessment.¶

5.570. 2.C-41 - Preserve the Transition Reconstruction History

The system retains the relevant logical session, function references, procedure, evidence, revisions, outstanding operations, and state conclusions.¶

Output: Reconstructible transition history.¶

5.571. 2.C-42 - Produce the Interoperator Session Continuity Result

The processor reports the established and unresolved state dimensions for the completed or pending transition.¶

It identifies the scope of the conclusion.¶

Output: C-V2 interoperator continuity reconstruction.¶

5.572. 2.C.8. Technical Invariants

5.573. C2-I01 - Roaming does not universally imply one specific session-management architecture.

5.574. C2-I02 - Home-routed and local-breakout session responsibilities must not be conflated.

C2-I03 - Home-routed session breakout features are not automatically equivalent to conventional local breakout.¶

5.575. C2-I04 - The presence of a V-SMF depends upon the applicable architecture and procedure.

C2-I05 - A logical session identifier is not identical to a function-local SM context reference.¶

C2-I06 - Session identity comparisons must respect namespaces and generations.¶

5.576. C2-I07 - A serving-network change does not automatically prove logical session replacement.

C2-I08 - A serving-network change does not automatically guarantee logical session continuity.¶

C2-I09 - Unsupported V-SMF change cannot be presumed seamless.¶

C2-I10 - A new registration does not automatically prove that an earlier PDU Session was preserved.¶

C2-I11 - Network-function instance replacement does not necessarily require a new logical session.¶

5.577. C2-I12 - Network-function replacement does not universally guarantee session preservation.

C2-I13 - Local-context release is distinct from complete PDU Session release where the protocol distinguishes them.¶

5.578. C2-I14 - A home-side status does not automatically establish every visited-side resource state.

C2-I15 - A visited-side acknowledgement does not automatically establish home-side completion.¶

C2-I16 - Control-plane completion is not necessarily user-plane application.¶

C2-I17 - A target resource's presence does not automatically prove service continuity.¶

C2-I18 - Logical session persistence does not automatically establish uninterrupted traffic.¶

C2-I19 - Service continuity does not by itself establish original logical session identity.¶

5.579. C2-I20 - Resource replacement does not automatically constitute a new billable session.

C2-I21 - A source resource's temporary presence is not automatically a cleanup defect.¶

C2-I22 - A source resource's unexpected persistence may remain unresolved without suitable procedure and state evidence.¶

C2-I23 - A local release command does not prove global cleanup.¶

C2-I24 - A lost interoperator response does not establish remote nonapplication.¶

C2-I25 - Request identity alone does not create a global exactly-once guarantee.¶

5.580. C2-I26 - Source-specific revision numbers are not globally comparable without adequate mapping.

C2-I27 - Arrival order does not automatically establish physical event order.¶

C2-I28 - Source timestamp order requires applicable clock and event semantics.¶

C2-I29 - A function's authenticated status may be incomplete or stale.¶

C2-I30 - A status notification must be interpreted under its declared scope.¶

C2-I31 - A source may expose abstract interoperator state without exposing internal resources.¶

5.581. C2-I32 - Hidden state shall not be invented merely to complete a uniform session record.

5.582. C2-I33 - An unknown mandatory state condition cannot be silently treated as compatible.

C2-I34 - A demonstrated mandatory conflict is not merely unresolved.¶

5.583. C2-I35 - Multiple possible resulting states may remain after incomplete remote operations.

C2-I36 - Pairwise resource compatibility does not always establish complete transition compatibility.¶

C2-I37 - Target-state configuration equality does not automatically establish harmless transitional behavior.¶

5.584. C2-I38 - Existing standardized mobility procedures are not newly invented by the reconstruction.

C2-I39 - A continuity conclusion must identify its applicable state and interval.¶

C2-I40 - A historical continuity result need not remain currently applicable after material changes.¶

C2-I41 - Accounting continuity is distinct from logical session continuity.¶

5.585. C2-I42 - Operator-local accounting completion does not necessarily establish interoperator settlement.

C2-I43 - Confidential interoperator mappings remain subject to applicable access and disclosure controls.¶

C2-I44 - A complete local record need not be a complete cross-domain record.¶

C2-I45 - A state reconstruction does not automatically confer authority to modify or release a session.¶

5.586. C2-I46 - An authorized operation may become technically inapplicable following a state change.

C2-I47 - A solver timeout does not establish that no consistent transition exists.¶

C2-I48 - A claim of successful continuity cannot exceed the actual source, operator, protocol, and observation guarantees.¶

5.587. 2.C.9. Embodiment-Specific Mathematical Formulation

The following expressions supplement the Group C common workflow mathematics.¶

They are illustrative and must be interpreted according to the specific deployment and protocol assumptions.¶

5.588. 2.C.9.1. Logical Session and Operator Contexts

Let:¶

[ s ]¶

identify one logical session.¶

Let:¶

[ O={o\_1,o\_2,\\ldots,o\_n} ]¶

identify participating operator contexts.¶

For each operator (o), let:¶

[ K\_o(s,t) ]¶

represent the relevant function-local session state associated with (s).¶

The states need not have identical schemas, versions, or update times.¶

5.589. 2.C.9.2. Architecture-Dependent Responsibility

Let:¶

[ A\_s\\in {\\mathrm{HR},\\mathrm{LBO},\\mathrm{Other},\\mathrm{Unknown}} ]¶

represent the applicable session architecture.¶

Define:¶

[ D(A\_s,s) ]¶

as the responsibility relation identifying applicable network functions and required lifecycle roles.¶

The set is dependent upon the architecture and session procedure.¶

A universal fixed set of H-SMF, V-SMF, and user-plane functions is not assumed.¶

5.590. 2.C.9.3. Interoperator Identity Correspondence

Define:¶

[ I(s,k\_h,k\_v)\\in{T,F,U} ]¶

to indicate whether home-side reference (k\_h) and visited-side reference (k\_v) correspond to logical session (s).¶

The predicate is based upon supported session identity, context mapping, and generation information.¶

Bare numerical equality of (k\_h) and (k\_v) is insufficient.¶

5.591. 2.C.9.4. Transition State Vector

Let:¶

[ X\_s= (L,H,V,R\_h,R\_v,Q,Z) ]¶

where:¶

| x | (L): logical session state; | |---|---| | x | (H): home-side session-management state; | | x | (V): visited-side session-management state; | | x | (R_h): relevant home-side resource state; | | x | (R_v): relevant visited-side resource state; | | x | (Q): required service quality or continuity evidence; | | x | (Z): uncertainty and outstanding operations. |¶

The vector may be adapted for architectures lacking some of these dimensions.¶

5.592. 2.C.9.5. Procedure Applicability

For transition (a), define:¶

\\bigwedge\_{p\\in P(a,A\_s)}p(X\_s), ]¶

where (P(a,A\_s)) contains the mandatory conditions under the applicable architecture.¶

The predicates are three-valued.¶

A mandatory false condition establishes incompatibility.¶

A mandatory unresolved condition prevents unconditional compatibility unless a separate mandatory condition is already false.¶

5.593. 2.C.9.6. Capability-Dependent Transition

Let:¶

[ C\_{\\mathrm{change}} ]¶

represent supported capability for a particular session-management-function change.¶

A continuity candidate requiring that feature cannot be treated as universally applicable when the capability is absent.¶

The resulting procedure may instead require an established release path.¶

5.594. 2.C.9.7. Resource Transition Sequence

Let (R\_0) be the source resource state.¶

Let (f\_a) represent target resource establishment, and (f\_b) represent source resource release.¶

A selected continuity requirement may distinguish:¶

[ f\_b(f\_a(R\_0)) ]¶

from:¶

[ f\_a(f\_b(R\_0)). ]¶

Even if both reach a similar final resource allocation, the intermediate service conditions may differ.¶

The actual permitted order is determined by the relevant standardized procedure.¶

5.595. 2.C.9.8. Unknown Remote Outcome

Suppose operation (a) was submitted but its outcome is unknown.¶

The processor may retain:¶

{X\_{\\mathrm{applied}}, X\_{\\mathrm{not\\ applied}}, X\_{\\mathrm{partial}}, \\ldots} ]¶

subject to the available source evidence.¶

It does not select one state merely because that state was intended.¶

5.596. 2.C.9.9. Session Continuity Predicate

Define:¶

I\_{\\mathrm{identity}} \\land I\_{\\mathrm{procedure}} \\land I\_{\\mathrm{lifecycle}}, ]¶

where the terms describe the applicable identity, procedure, and logical-state requirements.¶

The full predicate depends upon the chosen network architecture.¶

5.597. 2.C.9.10. Service Continuity Predicate

Let:¶

\\bigwedge\_{q\\in Q\_s}q(X\_s) ]¶

where (Q\_s) contains the selected service conditions.¶

Logical session continuity and service continuity are separately evaluated.¶

5.598. 2.C.9.11. Cleanup Predicate

Let:¶

[ R\_{\\mathrm{required}} ]¶

be the set of resources requiring release under the applicable procedure.¶

Then:¶

\\bigwedge\_{r\\in R\_{\\mathrm{required}}} \\operatorname{Released}(r). ]¶

An unknown resource release status yields an unresolved cleanup result unless another mandatory cleanup condition is already demonstrably violated.¶

5.599. 2.C.9.12. Source-Qualified State Versions

Let:¶

[ v\_h ]¶

be a home-side revision and:¶

[ v\_v ]¶

a visited-side revision.¶

The numerical relationship:¶

[ v\_h<v\_v ]¶

does not establish a cross-operator chronological order without additional assumptions connecting the version namespaces.¶

5.600. 2.C.9.13. Time Uncertainty

Let a home-side event have supported occurrence interval:¶

[ I\_h=[h^-,h^+] ]¶

and a visited-side event:¶

[ I\_v=[v^-,v^+]. ]¶

A sufficient condition for establishing the home event occurred before the visited event is:¶

[ h^+<v^-. ]¶

If the intervals overlap, that temporal order may remain unresolved unless an independent causal or protocol relationship establishes it.¶

5.601. 2.C.9.14. Cross-Domain Correspondence Result

A selected transition objective may require:¶

C\_{\\mathrm{logical}} \\land C\_{\\mathrm{responsibility}} \\land C\_{\\mathrm{resource}} \\land C\_{\\mathrm{cleanup}} \\land C\_{\\mathrm{service}}. ]¶

Other scoped objectives may omit some terms.¶

For example, a logical continuity assessment does not necessarily require proof of uninterrupted service.¶

The result must identify the specific predicates evaluated.¶

5.602. 2.C.9.15. Illustration - Two Possible Remote States

Suppose the home side reports that a session is retained.¶

The visited-side resource update request timed out.¶

The visited resource may be applied or unapplied.¶

The processor retains both possible remote conditions until an adequate status or resource observation resolves them.¶

The home-side retained session is not falsely reported as proof that the target user-plane path is active.¶

5.603. 2.C.9.16. Illustration - Scope of Context Release

Suppose a release operation is specifically scoped to one V-SMF context while the H-SMF session remains applicable under the relevant procedure.¶

The resulting state may include:¶

[ V=\\mathrm{Released} ]¶

and:¶

[ H=\\mathrm{Retained}. ]¶

This is not inherently contradictory.¶

The interpretation depends upon the documented operation semantics.¶

5.604. 2.C.10. Implementable Pseudocode - C-ALG-03

5.605. 2.C.10.1. Technical Types

ENUM Verdict:¶

COMPATIBLE INCOMPATIBLE UNRESOLVED¶

ENUM RoamingArchitecture:¶

NON\_ROAMING HOME\_ROUTED LOCAL\_BREAKOUT HOME\_ROUTED\_WITH\_SUPPORTED\_BREAKOUT OTHER\_SUPPORTED UNKNOWN\_ARCHITECTURE¶

ENUM TransitionType:¶

SERVING\_AREA\_CHANGE INTER\_OPERATOR\_MOVE ACCESS\_CHANGE V\_SMF\_INSERTION V\_SMF\_CHANGE V\_SMF\_REMOVAL¶

FUNCTION\_REPLACEMENT RESOURCE\_RELOCATION SESSION\_RELEASE NEW\_SESSION\_ESTABLISHMENT¶

TYPE OperatorContext:¶

operator\_id network\_role function\_references local\_session\_references resource\_references source\_revision\_context exposed\_status visibility\_limitations¶

TYPE TransitionAssessment:¶

logical\_session\_reference architecture source\_context target\_context applicable\_procedure required\_capabilities pending\_operations observed\_resource\_effects cleanup\_requirements continuity\_verdict unresolved\_conditions¶

5.606. 2.C.10.2. Classify the Roaming Architecture

FUNCTION CLASSIFY\_ROAMING\_ARCHITECTURE(¶

session, subscriber\_context, operator\_context, architecture\_sources ):¶

evidence = GET\_APPLICABLE\_ARCHITECTURE\_EVIDENCE(¶

session, operator\_context, architecture\_sources )¶

IF evidence establishes home-routed arrangement:¶

IF supported visited-side breakout features¶

apply to this particular session:¶

RETURN HOME\_ROUTED\_WITH\_SUPPORTED\_BREAKOUT¶

RETURN HOME\_ROUTED¶

IF evidence establishes conventional local breakout:¶

RETURN LOCAL\_BREAKOUT¶

IF evidence establishes non-roaming operation:¶

RETURN NON\_ROAMING¶

IF another defined architecture established:¶

RETURN OTHER\_SUPPORTED¶

RETURN UNKNOWN\_ARCHITECTURE¶

5.607. 2.C.10.3. Construct Responsibility Model

FUNCTION CONSTRUCT\_RESPONSIBILITY\_MODEL(¶

session, architecture, function\_inventory, applicable\_procedures ):¶

model = EMPTY\_RESPONSIBILITY\_MODEL()¶

required\_roles =¶

applicable\_procedures.GET\_ROLES(¶

architecture, session )¶

FOR EACH role IN required\_roles:¶

function = function\_inventory.RESOLVE(¶

role, session )¶

IF function established:¶

ADD FUNCTION\_ROLE\_RELATION(¶

role, function ) TO model¶

ELSE:¶

ADD UNRESOLVED\_ROLE(¶

role ) TO model¶

RETURN model¶

The model does not require functions that are absent from the selected architecture.¶

5.608. 2.C.10.4. Resolve Cross-Operator Session Identity

FUNCTION RESOLVE\_CROSS\_OPERATOR\_SESSION(¶

logical\_session, home\_context, visited\_context, permitted\_mapping\_service ):¶

home\_ref = RESOLVE\_HOME\_LOCAL\_SESSION\_REFERENCE(¶

logical\_session, home\_context )¶

visited\_ref = RESOLVE\_VISITED\_LOCAL\_SESSION\_REFERENCE(¶

logical\_session, visited\_context )¶

mapping = permitted\_mapping\_service.CHECK\_CORRESPONDENCE(¶

logical\_session, home\_ref, visited\_ref )¶

IF mapping conclusively incompatible:¶

RETURN INCOMPATIBLE¶

IF mapping incomplete:¶

RETURN UNRESOLVED¶

RETURN {¶

verdict: COMPATIBLE, logical\_session, home\_ref, visited\_ref, evidence: mapping.evidence }¶

5.609. 2.C.10.5. Resolve the Applicable Mobility Procedure

FUNCTION RESOLVE\_TRANSITION\_PROCEDURE(¶

session, trigger, source\_context, target\_context, procedure\_registry ):¶

procedures = procedure\_registry.FIND\_APPLICABLE(¶

session, trigger, source\_context, target\_context )¶

results = []¶

FOR EACH procedure IN procedures:¶

capability = CHECK\_PARTICIPATING\_FUNCTION\_SUPPORT(¶

procedure )¶

state = CHECK\_PROCEDURE\_STATE\_PRECONDITIONS(¶

procedure, session )¶

ADD {¶

procedure, capability, state } TO results¶

RETURN results¶

An unsupported continuity procedure is not treated as supported merely because a technically desirable outcome exists.¶

5.610. 2.C.10.6. Model Source and Target Resource Dependencies

FUNCTION BUILD\_TRANSITION\_RESOURCE\_MODEL(¶

procedure, session, source\_resources, target\_resources ):¶

model = NEW\_RESOURCE\_TRANSITION\_MODEL()¶

model.source\_dependencies =¶

EXTRACT\_REQUIRED\_SOURCE\_RESOURCES(¶

procedure, source\_resources )¶

model.target\_dependencies =¶

EXTRACT\_REQUIRED\_TARGET\_RESOURCES(¶

procedure, target\_resources )¶

model.ordering\_constraints =¶

EXTRACT\_PROCEDURE\_ORDERING(¶

procedure )¶

model.cleanup\_requirements =¶

EXTRACT\_RELEASE\_REQUIREMENTS(¶

procedure )¶

model.service\_conditions =¶

EXTRACT\_SERVICE\_CONTINUITY\_REQUIREMENTS(¶

procedure )¶

RETURN model¶

5.611. 2.C.10.7. Evaluate Transition Applicability

FUNCTION EVALUATE\_INTEROPERATOR\_TRANSITION(¶

session, procedure, responsibility\_model, state\_model ):¶

identity = CHECK\_LOGICAL\_SESSION\_IDENTITY(¶

session, responsibility\_model )¶

capability = CHECK\_PROCEDURE\_CAPABILITIES(¶

procedure, responsibility\_model )¶

source = CHECK\_SOURCE\_STATE\_PRECONDITIONS(¶

procedure, state\_model )¶

target = CHECK\_TARGET\_STATE\_PRECONDITIONS(¶

procedure, state\_model )¶

dependencies = CHECK\_RESOURCE\_ORDERING\_AND\_EFFECTS(¶

procedure, state\_model )¶

results = [¶

identity, capability, source, target, dependencies ]¶

IF any mandatory result == INCOMPATIBLE:¶

RETURN INCOMPATIBLE¶

IF any mandatory result == UNRESOLVED:¶

RETURN UNRESOLVED¶

RETURN COMPATIBLE¶

5.612. 2.C.10.8. Reconcile Asynchronous Interoperator Operations

FUNCTION RECONCILE\_INTEROPERATOR\_OPERATION(¶

operation, source\_records, destination\_status, resource\_observations ):¶

request = FIND\_ORIGINAL\_REQUEST(¶

operation, source\_records )¶

receiver = INTERPRET\_RECEIVER\_STATUS(¶

destination\_status, operation.receiver\_contract )¶

applied = CHECK\_RELEVANT\_RESOURCE\_STATE(¶

resource\_observations, operation )¶

IF receiver establishes rejection¶

and no contradictory applied effect exists:¶

RETURN RECEIVER\_REJECTED¶

IF applied establishes required state:¶

RETURN APPLIED\_UNDER\_OBSERVATION\_SCOPE¶

IF receiver establishes only acceptance:¶

RETURN ACCEPTED\_APPLICATION\_UNRESOLVED¶

RETURN REMOTE\_OUTCOME\_UNKNOWN¶

A current resource state may establish a target condition without conclusively identifying the operation that caused it.¶

5.613. 2.C.10.9. Distinguish Local Context Release from Full Release

FUNCTION EVALUATE\_RELEASE\_SCOPE(¶

release\_operation, procedure\_contract, home\_state, visited\_state ):¶

release\_scope = procedure\_contract.RESOLVE\_RELEASE\_SCOPE(¶

release\_operation )¶

IF release\_scope == LOCAL\_CONTEXT\_ONLY:¶

local = CHECK\_LOCAL\_CONTEXT\_RELEASE(¶

release\_operation, visited\_state )¶

RETURN {¶

local\_release: local, global\_session\_release: EVALUATE\_SEPARATELY(home\_state) }¶

IF release\_scope == FULL\_SESSION\_RELEASE:¶

RETURN EVALUATE\_ALL\_REQUIRED\_RELEASE\_STATES(¶

home\_state, visited\_state )¶

RETURN UNRESOLVED(¶

"RELEASE\_SCOPE\_NOT\_ESTABLISHED" )¶

5.614. 2.C.10.10. Evaluate Source and Target Resource Cleanup

FUNCTION EVALUATE\_RESOURCE\_CLEANUP(¶

procedure, source\_resources, target\_resources, resource\_status ):¶

required = GET\_REQUIRED\_CLEANUP\_SET(¶

procedure, source\_resources, target\_resources )¶

results = []¶

FOR EACH resource IN required:¶

state = CHECK\_RESOURCE\_RELEASE(¶

resource, resource\_status )¶

ADD {¶

resource, state } TO results¶

RETURN COMBINE\_MANDATORY\_RELEASE\_REQUIREMENTS(¶

results )¶

A resource that is correctly retained under the procedure is not included in the required release set.¶

5.615. 2.C.10.11. Evaluate Logical and Service Continuity

FUNCTION EVALUATE\_SESSION\_CONTINUITY(¶

session, source\_context, target\_context, procedure, observed\_effects ):¶

logical = CHECK\_LOGICAL\_SESSION\_PERSISTENCE(¶

session, procedure, observed\_effects )¶

control = CHECK\_REQUIRED\_CONTROL\_STATE(¶

source\_context, target\_context, observed\_effects )¶

user\_plane = CHECK\_REQUIRED\_USER\_PLANE\_STATE(¶

procedure, observed\_effects )¶

service = CHECK\_SPECIFIED\_SERVICE\_CONTINUITY(¶

procedure, observed\_effects )¶

RETURN {¶

logical\_continuity: logical, control\_state: control, user\_plane\_state: user\_plane, service\_continuity: service }¶

The function intentionally does not reduce every dimension to one boolean.¶

5.616. 2.C.10.12. Reconstruct Final Interoperator State

FUNCTION RECONSTRUCT\_ROAMING\_TRANSITION(¶

logical\_session, mobility\_event, operator\_sources, resource\_sources, procedure\_registry ):¶

session = RESOLVE\_LOGICAL\_SESSION(¶

logical\_session )¶

architecture = CLASSIFY\_ROAMING\_ARCHITECTURE(¶

session, CURRENT\_SUBSCRIBER\_CONTEXT(), operator\_sources, ARCHITECTURE\_SOURCE\_REGISTRY() )¶

responsibilities = CONSTRUCT\_RESPONSIBILITY\_MODEL(¶

session, architecture, NETWORK\_FUNCTION\_INVENTORY(),¶

procedure\_registry )¶

source\_context = LOAD\_SOURCE\_OPERATOR\_CONTEXT(¶

mobility\_event )¶

target\_context = LOAD\_TARGET\_OPERATOR\_CONTEXT(¶

mobility\_event )¶

identity = RESOLVE\_CROSS\_OPERATOR\_SESSION(¶

session, source\_context, target\_context, PERMITTED\_MAPPING\_SERVICE() )¶

procedure\_options = RESOLVE\_TRANSITION\_PROCEDURE(¶

session, mobility\_event, source\_context, target\_context, procedure\_registry )¶

evaluated\_options = []¶

FOR EACH option IN procedure\_options:¶

resource\_model = BUILD\_TRANSITION\_RESOURCE\_MODEL(¶

option.procedure, session, SOURCE\_RESOURCE\_EVIDENCE(), TARGET\_RESOURCE\_EVIDENCE() )¶

feasibility = EVALUATE\_INTEROPERATOR\_TRANSITION(¶

session, option.procedure, responsibilities, resource\_model )¶

ADD {¶

option, feasibility, resource\_model } TO evaluated\_options¶

operation\_results =¶

RECONCILE\_KNOWN\_PERFORMED\_OPERATIONS(¶

mobility\_event )¶

continuity = EVALUATE\_SESSION\_CONTINUITY(¶

session, source\_context, target\_context, SELECT\_APPLICABLE\_PROCEDURE(¶

evaluated\_options ), operation\_results )¶

cleanup = EVALUATE\_RESOURCE\_CLEANUP(¶

SELECT\_APPLICABLE\_PROCEDURE(¶

evaluated\_options ), SOURCE\_RESOURCE\_EVIDENCE(), TARGET\_RESOURCE\_EVIDENCE(), CURRENT\_RESOURCE\_STATUS() )¶

result = BUILD\_VERSIONED\_INTEROPERATOR\_RESULT(¶

session, architecture, identity, responsibilities, evaluated\_options, operation\_results, continuity, cleanup )¶

STORE\_TRANSITION\_RECONSTRUCTION(result)¶

RETURN result¶

The algorithm is a technical state-reconciliation procedure.¶

It does not itself submit or authorize a new roaming or network-session operation.¶

5.617. 2.C.11. Worked Technical Examples

5.618. 2.C.11.1. Example 1 - Home-Routed Session with Different Local References

A roaming subscriber has one logical PDU Session.¶

The visited-side function stores a local SM context reference V-71.¶

The home-side function stores a related session reference H-204.¶

The processor uses the supported home/visited context relationship to associate both references with the logical session.¶

It does not require V-71 and H-204 to be numerically equal.¶

A later status message for V-71 is interpreted within the visited function's namespace.¶

The logical session remains identified separately.¶

5.619. 2.C.11.2. Example 2 - Local Breakout without a Home-Routed SMF Pair

A roaming subscriber uses an LBO PDU Session under the relevant serving-network architecture.¶

The processor does not invent an H-SMF/V-SMF interconnection for the session.¶

It applies the actual serving-network function responsibility model.¶

A home subscriber information source may still provide relevant subscriber context, but its existence does not make the session home-routed.¶

5.620. 2.C.11.3. Example 3 - V-SMF Change Supported

A subscriber moves outside the serving area of the existing V-SMF.¶

The participating functions support the applicable change procedure.¶

The processor identifies the source and target V-SMF references and required transition operations.¶

It obtains the relevant status and resource evidence.¶

Only when the required session identity and lifecycle conditions are established does it report logical continuity.¶

A target V-SMF being available is insufficient by itself.¶

5.621. 2.C.11.4. Example 4 - V-SMF Change Unsupported

A home-routed session encounters a mobility condition requiring a V-SMF change.¶

The applicable home-side function does not support the required change capability.¶

Under the relevant standardized procedure, release rather than seamless continuation is required.¶

The processor classifies the proposed continuity path as technically incompatible.¶

It evaluates the actual release result separately.¶

It does not fabricate a continuity path merely because preserving service would be desirable.¶

5.622. 2.C.11.5. Example 5 - Target Resource Established, Source Still Present

A transition creates the required target user-plane resources.¶

The source user-plane resource remains present temporarily.¶

The processor checks whether the coexistence is permitted by the applicable transition procedure.¶

If temporary coexistence is expected, its presence does not automatically indicate a failure.¶

If source release is required and its status remains unknown after the applicable transition, the cleanup assessment remains unresolved.¶

5.623. 2.C.11.6. Example 6 - Source Released Before Target Becomes Available

A proposed transition requires source traffic support to remain available until a particular target state is established.¶

The source resource is released early.¶

The target resource is not yet ready.¶

The processor identifies the violated transitional service requirement.¶

Even if the target later becomes operational, the interim service interruption remains relevant to the stated continuity objective.¶

5.624. 2.C.11.7. Example 7 - Lost Interoperator Update Response

The visited-side function sends a session update toward the home-side function.¶

The home side processes it.¶

The response is lost.¶

The visited side observes a timeout.¶

The processor records the remote outcome as unknown until sufficient status evidence is available.¶

It does not assume the home update failed.¶

An applicable native status or resource query may subsequently narrow the possible outcomes.¶

5.625. 2.C.11.8. Example 8 - Local Context Release without Full Session Termination

A supported access transition causes a specific visited-side SM context to be released.¶

The corresponding home-side logical session remains applicable under the procedure.¶

The processor records local-context release separately from logical PDU Session release.¶

It does not classify the entire session terminated solely because the visited function completed its local release.¶

5.626. 2.C.11.9. Example 9 - Interoperator Clock Difference

A home function reports an event at 10:00:05 on its local clock.¶

A visited function reports another event at 10:00:03 on its clock.¶

The clocks have a supported uncertainty of several seconds.¶

The processor does not automatically conclude that the visited event physically preceded the home event.¶

It evaluates the time uncertainty intervals and any available protocol causality.¶

5.627. 2.C.11.10. Example 10 - Different Revision Namespaces

The home network reports session revision 15.¶

The visited network reports revision 81.¶

These revisions are local to their sources.¶

The processor does not treat 81 as globally newer than 15.¶

It relates them through supported transition evidence.¶

5.628. 2.C.11.11. Example 11 - Function Replacement with Logical Continuity

A serving-network function is replaced following a maintenance event.¶

The new function reconstructs or obtains the session context under the applicable procedure.¶

The logical session identity remains supported as continuing.¶

The processor records the new function generation without automatically declaring a second session.¶

5.629. 2.C.11.12. Example 12 - Function Replacement Requiring Release

Another deployment does not support the relevant continuity procedure.¶

The previous session must be released and a separate session established if service is to resume.¶

The processor reports logical session replacement where established.¶

Application-level reachability after the replacement does not falsely transform the new session into the old logical session.¶

5.630. 2.C.11.13. Example 13 - Home-Routed Access Transition

A roaming device moves from one supported access type to another while retaining the relevant logical PDU Session under the applicable procedure.¶

The serving access context changes.¶

Certain earlier visited-side resources may be released.¶

The home-side session relationship may persist.¶

The processor reconstructs the transition using actual identity and release semantics.¶

It does not equate local resource release with loss of the entire session.¶

5.631. 2.C.11.14. Example 14 - Application Recovering through a New Session

A mobility event causes the original PDU Session to be released.¶

A new session is established.¶

An application reconnects successfully.¶

The processor may report application service recovery.¶

It separately reports that logical continuity of the original PDU Session was not established.¶

5.632. 2.C.11.15. Example 15 - Logical Session Persists but QoS Changes

A logical session remains active during the roaming transition.¶

The target operator supports a different applicable QoS profile.¶

The processor records logical session continuity separately from the change in service characteristics.¶

It does not infer that the original QoS profile continues unchanged.¶

5.633. 2.C.11.16. Example 16 - Home Status Present, Visited Resource Unknown

The home-side function reports that the logical session remains established.¶

The visited-side resource observer is unavailable.¶

The processor may establish the home-side state while retaining unresolved visited resource state.¶

The complete end-to-end continuity objective is not automatically verified.¶

5.634. 2.C.11.17. Example 17 - Charging Reference Continues across Resource Change

The logical session moves to a new serving resource.¶

A charging context continues under the relevant operator accounting model.¶

The processor associates the new resource with the continuing session and records the accounting correspondence.¶

It does not create a second billable session merely because the serving resource changed.¶

Detailed usage reconciliation belongs to Embodiment 4.C.¶

5.635. 2.C.11.18. Example 18 - Home-Routed Session with Supported Visited Breakout

A deployment supports a specific home-routed roaming arrangement with a visited-side breakout feature.¶

The processor identifies that architecture explicitly.¶

It does not classify the entire session as conventional LBO merely because some traffic can break out locally.¶

It evaluates home and visited responsibility according to the selected feature's actual semantics.¶

5.636. 2.C.11.19. Example 19 - Target Status Conflicts with Resource Evidence

The target operator reports that a session transition completed.¶

A permitted target resource observation indicates that the required forwarding resource is absent.¶

The processor identifies the contradiction.¶

It does not overwrite the observation with the control-plane completion label.¶

The final continuity conclusion depends upon the specified requirements and supporting evidence.¶

5.637. 2.C.11.20. Example 20 - Remote Operator Temporarily Unreachable

The visited network begins a transition.¶

The home-side management endpoint becomes unreachable.¶

The visited network has a confirmed local operation result.¶

The remote result cannot be established.¶

The processor preserves the local result and remote uncertainty.¶

It does not infer that the home-side session was released or preserved solely from the communication failure.¶

5.638. 2.C.12. Specific Design-Around Alternatives and Implementation Pathways

The following alternatives describe distinct architectures for session and responsibility reconstruction.¶

Each includes an operative implementation, limitation, failure behavior, and verification scenario.¶

5.639. C-2-DA-01 - Centralized Interoperator Reconciliation Service

Mechanism: A central service maintains permitted session correspondence and transition¶

evidence from multiple operators.¶

Implementation: It correlates the logical session with operator-local contexts and state¶

observations.¶

Limitation: Data-sharing restrictions may prevent access to complete internal resources.¶

Failure behavior: Missing remote data remains unresolved.¶

Verification: Withhold the visited operator's resource state while supplying home-side status.¶

5.640. C-2-DA-02 - Federated Operator-Local Reconstruction

Mechanism: Each operator reconstructs its own applicable session state and shares a scoped¶

result.¶

Implementation: A cross-domain processor combines the allowed status and correspondence¶

information.¶

Limitation: Abstract results may conceal relevant internal dependencies.¶

Failure behavior: Unsupported detailed claims remain qualified.¶

Verification: Compare a full internal simulator state with the federated result.¶

5.641. C-2-DA-03 - Home-Network-Centric Continuity Reconstruction

Mechanism: The home network performs the principal reconciliation using its session state¶

and available visited-side reports.¶

Implementation: Home-side references form the logical session starting context.¶

Limitation: Home state may not reveal current visited user-plane resources.¶

Failure behavior: Visited-side effects remain unresolved without sufficient evidence.¶

Verification: Retain an H-SMF session while making the target V-UPF unavailable.¶

5.642. C-2-DA-04 - Visited-Network-Centric Transition Reconstruction

Mechanism: The visited network evaluates local serving changes and relevant home-side¶

correspondence.¶

Implementation: The processor begins with the serving function and its transition history.¶

Limitation: Home-side policy and logical session status may be abstracted.¶

Failure behavior: Remote conditions remain qualified.¶

Verification: Complete a visited-side update while delaying home-side state propagation.¶

5.643. C-2-DA-05 - Home-Routed Architecture-Specific Model Mechanism: The processor uses the actual home-routed session-management and user-plane

roles.¶

Implementation: It associates the relevant H-SMF/V-SMF and resource contexts.¶

Limitation: Specific function roles and features depend upon the deployment.¶

Failure behavior: Absent required roles or unsupported procedures prevent an unqualified¶

continuity conclusion.¶

Verification: Perform a home-routed serving-area transition with a pending V-SMF change.¶

5.644. C-2-DA-06 - Local-Breakout Architecture-Specific Model

Mechanism: The processor uses the applicable serving-network session-management model.¶

Implementation: It does not invent a home-routed SMF pair.¶

Limitation: Home subscriber information may still influence the session under existing¶

procedures.¶

Failure behavior: Unavailable governing information remains unresolved.¶

Verification: Compare an LBO session transition with an HR session transition.¶

5.645. C-2-DA-07 - Home-Routed Breakout Feature Model

Mechanism: The system distinguishes a supported visited-side breakout capability within an¶

HR architecture.¶

Implementation: It evaluates the specific operator and function responsibilities required by¶

that feature.¶

Limitation: Feature support is deployment-dependent.¶

Failure behavior: Unsupported breakout assumptions are rejected.¶

Verification: Enable the specific breakout feature in one simulation and omit it in another.¶

5.646. C-2-DA-08 - Standards-Procedure-Driven Responsibility Mapping

Mechanism: The processor obtains responsibility and ordering rules from an implementation¶

of the applicable standards procedure.¶

Implementation: Different procedure types produce different expected roles and cleanup¶

conditions.¶

Limitation: The procedure registry must reflect the actual supported release and feature set.¶

Failure behavior: Unknown capabilities prevent unsupported assertions.¶

Verification: Compare supported and unsupported V-SMF change scenarios.¶

5.647. C-2-DA-09 - Operator-Local Reference Mapping

Mechanism: Each operator maintains mappings between local session contexts and the¶

shared logical session relationship.¶

Implementation: References are qualified by operator namespace and function generation.¶

Limitation: A cross-operator reference may be absent.¶

Failure behavior: Numeric equality is not used as a replacement for mapping evidence.¶

Verification: Reuse one local context identifier in two different operators.¶

5.648. C-2-DA-10 - Privacy-Minimized Session Correspondence

Mechanism: Operators expose only the attributes necessary to establish an approved¶

continuity assessment.¶

Implementation: Internal identifiers can remain within the controlling operator.¶

Limitation: Some resource-level conclusions may be inaccessible.¶

Failure behavior: Limited visibility is recorded rather than hidden.¶

Verification: Produce a correct scoped continuity result without sharing raw subscriber¶

identifiers.¶

5.649. C-2-DA-11 - Event-Sourced Cross-Operator State Reconstruction

Mechanism: The processor reconstructs transitions from source-qualified events.¶

Implementation: It applies supported event order and source generations.¶

Limitation: Missing events can prevent unique reconstruction.¶

Failure behavior: Several possible states may remain.¶

Verification: Remove a required target-state notification.¶

5.650. C-2-DA-12 - Snapshot-and-Delta Reconciliation Mechanism: Operator snapshots are combined with subsequent qualified changes.

Implementation: The processor uses per-source revision and coverage information.¶

Limitation: Independent operator revisions are not globally ordered.¶

Failure behavior: Missing deltas produce unresolved state.¶

Verification: Introduce a gap in visited-side update history.¶

5.651. C-2-DA-13 - Relational Session Correspondence Repository

Mechanism: Session, operator, function, and resource relationships are stored through¶

structured tables.¶

Implementation: Time-qualified joins reconstruct the participating contexts.¶

Limitation: A database join does not prove remote resource application.¶

Failure behavior: Missing state sources remain unresolved.¶

Verification: Compare database reconstruction with controlled resource ground truth.¶

5.652. C-2-DA-14 - Graph-Based Responsibility Reconstruction

Mechanism: A graph represents session-to-function, session-to-resource, and operator¶

responsibility relationships.¶

Implementation: Transition changes update relevant edges with source and state¶

qualifications.¶

Limitation: A graph edge may be stale or merely intended.¶

Failure behavior: Resource-state observations remain independently required.¶

Verification: Retain an obsolete visited function edge during transition.¶

5.653. C-2-DA-15 - Constraint-Based Multi-Domain State Solver

Mechanism: A solver reconstructs states compatible with operator evidence and procedure¶

requirements.¶

Implementation: Unknown remote outcomes are represented as variables and constraints.¶

Limitation: Incomplete models can admit several states.¶

Failure behavior: Solver timeout is not treated as proof of infeasibility.¶

Verification: Create two possible target-resource outcomes with identical home-side¶

evidence.¶

5.654. C-2-DA-16 - State-Version-Aware Cross-Domain Processing

Mechanism: Source-specific versions are retained without assuming one global clock or¶

counter.¶

Implementation: The processor uses explicitly supported cross-domain dependencies.¶

Limitation: Some events may remain unordered.¶

Failure behavior: Ordering uncertainty is preserved.¶

Verification: Supply home revision 9 and visited revision 100 with no cross-source ordering¶

relation.¶

5.655. C-2-DA-17 - Interval-Based Event-Time Reconstruction

Mechanism: Operator timestamps are represented with uncertainty intervals.¶

Implementation: The processor establishes temporal order only where the intervals or causal¶

evidence permit it.¶

Limitation: Large uncertainty intervals may leave order unresolved.¶

Failure behavior: No invented time order is used.¶

Verification: Offset operator clocks while preserving known event causality.¶

5.656. C-2-DA-18 - Causal Message-Dependency Reconstruction

Mechanism: Request, response, and status relationships establish selected event orderings.¶

Implementation: The processor reconstructs dependencies even when physical clocks differ.¶

Limitation: Message causality does not order unrelated events.¶

Failure behavior: Unrelated events remain partially ordered.¶

Verification: Reorder independent notifications while preserving request-response¶

relationships.¶

5.657. C-2-DA-19 - Native Nsmf_PDUSession Status Reconciliation

Mechanism: The processor uses supported session-management service operations and their¶

status semantics.¶

Implementation: Create, update, release, retrieve, and notification evidence are interpreted¶

according to the applicable interface.¶

Limitation: Not every operation provides full user-plane proof.¶

Failure behavior: Missing resource effects remain qualified.¶

Verification: Observe a successful SM context update with a delayed user-plane effect.¶

5.658. C-2-DA-20 - Lost-Response Remote Outcome Reconstruction

Mechanism: A lost interoperator response is reconciled using supported status and resource¶

observations.¶

Implementation: The original operation parameters and receiver contract are retained.¶

Limitation: Some remote functions may not provide adequate historical status.¶

Failure behavior: Outcome remains unknown where necessary.¶

Verification: Apply the remote update and drop its acknowledgement.¶

5.659. C-2-DA-21 - Receiver-Native Idempotency and Retry Handling

Mechanism: Repeated requests are interpreted under the receiving interface's actual¶

idempotency or retry semantics.¶

Implementation: Original request identity and parameters are compared.¶

Limitation: The guarantee may be limited in scope or duration.¶

Failure behavior: Unsupported blind retries are not treated as safe.¶

Verification: Repeat a request after a timeout, then change its parameters.¶

5.660. C-2-DA-22 - Resource-State-Based Session Transition Verification

Mechanism: User-plane observations are used to determine whether the required target¶

resource state exists.¶

Implementation: The processor associates the observation with its session and function¶

generation.¶

Limitation: Resource equality does not establish causal attribution or full service health.¶

Failure behavior: Unknown actor and service effects remain separate.¶

Verification: Have an independent controller produce the same target resource state.¶

5.661. C-2-DA-23 - Transitional Source-and-Target Resource Coexistence

Mechanism: The model represents old and new resources at the same time where the¶

procedure permits them.¶

Implementation: Resource retention and release requirements are tracked separately.¶

Limitation: The permitted coexistence period and conditions are procedure-specific.¶

Failure behavior: Unexpected residual resources trigger evaluation.¶

Verification: Retain both source and target paths during a controlled transition.¶

5.662. C-2-DA-24 - Dependency-Directed Resource Release Mechanism: Source cleanup depends upon the required target state or other specified

procedure conditions.¶

Implementation: The processor evaluates resource sequencing and interim service¶

requirements.¶

Limitation: A correct final state does not prove harmless intermediate states.¶

Failure behavior: Early release is identified where it violates a mandatory requirement.¶

Verification: Compare activation-before-release with release-before-activation.¶

5.663. C-2-DA-25 - Local-Context Release Versus Full-Release Distinction

Mechanism: Release operations are classified by their actual documented scope.¶

Implementation: The processor separately evaluates V-SMF or intermediate-context release¶

and complete logical session termination.¶

Limitation: The appropriate scope is procedure-dependent.¶

Failure behavior: Ambiguous release semantics remain unresolved.¶

Verification: Release only the visited-side context while preserving the home-side session¶

under a supported procedure.¶

5.664. C-2-DA-26 - Access-Transition Session Correspondence

Mechanism: The processor evaluates session continuity across applicable access-type¶

changes.¶

Implementation: It records source and target access resources and required session¶

procedures.¶

Limitation: Continuity depends upon supported access and network functions.¶

Failure behavior: Successful registration alone is insufficient.¶

Verification: Move a logical PDU Session between supported access contexts and inspect¶

the resulting resources.¶

5.665. C-2-DA-27 - Function-Generation-Aware Continuity

Mechanism: Function instance generations are separated from logical session identity.¶

Implementation: The processor tracks session-context transfer or reconstruction across¶

function replacement.¶

Limitation: Not every function replacement preserves the session.¶

Failure behavior: Unsupported replacement is classified according to the actual resulting¶

state.¶

Verification: Restart a V-SMF simulator while preserving one session and releasing another.¶

5.666. C-2-DA-28 - Session Replacement Versus Continuity Classifier

Mechanism: The processor determines whether the new service context is the original¶

logical session or a separately established one.¶

Implementation: It evaluates session identity, procedure, resource, and temporal evidence.¶

Limitation: Application service continuity alone may be insufficient.¶

Failure behavior: Unsupported identity continuity remains unresolved.¶

Verification: Release one PDU Session, establish another, and preserve application¶

reachability.¶

5.667. C-2-DA-29 - QoS-Scoped Continuity Evaluation

Mechanism: The processor separately evaluates logical continuity and required QoS state.¶

Implementation: It obtains the applicable home/visited service conditions and target¶

observations.¶

Limitation: Network operators may support different QoS treatment.¶

Failure behavior: Unsupported equivalence of profiles is not assumed.¶

Verification: Retain session identity while reducing the target QoS profile.¶

5.668. C-2-DA-30 - Slice- and DNN-Specific Correspondence

Mechanism: Roaming transition applicability is evaluated against the actual DNN and slice¶

context.¶

Implementation: The processor uses supported mappings and service requirements.¶

Limitation: Human-readable labels do not prove semantic equivalence.¶

Failure behavior: Incompatible or unknown mappings are qualified.¶

Verification: Attempt transition into an operator context lacking the required service¶

mapping.¶

5.669. C-2-DA-31 - Partial Operator-Outage Reconstruction

Mechanism: The processor reconstructs the known local state when one operator is¶

unreachable.¶

Implementation: It retains the remote state as potentially active, released, or otherwise¶

unresolved according to available evidence.¶

Limitation: Complete reconstruction may be impossible without remote information.¶

Failure behavior: No global completion is asserted.¶

Verification: Disconnect the home-side status service during a visited-side transition.¶

5.670. C-2-DA-32 - Residual Context and Resource Cleanup Monitoring

Mechanism: Previously associated functions and resources are checked after transition.¶

Implementation: Required cleanup targets are derived from the applicable procedure.¶

Limitation: Temporary retention can be legitimate.¶

Failure behavior: A resource is marked defective only under the selected cleanup¶

requirements.¶

Verification: Preserve one old resource beyond the specified cleanup condition.¶

5.671. C-2-DA-33 - Accounting-Reference Continuity

Mechanism: Earlier and later serving resources are associated with the relevant charging¶

context.¶

Implementation: The processor maintains references without conflating resource changes¶

with session recreation.¶

Limitation: Full charging reconciliation requires additional usage evidence.¶

Failure behavior: Unknown accounting correspondence is recorded.¶

Verification: Relocate a user-plane resource while preserving logical session and accounting¶

context.¶

5.672. C-2-DA-34 - Read-Only Independent Transition Verifier

Mechanism: An independent monitoring component evaluates interoperator state without¶

initiating network changes.¶

Implementation: It compares permitted status records and resource observations.¶

Limitation: Independence of processor does not guarantee independence or completeness of¶

data.¶

Failure behavior: Shared evidence ancestry and hidden states are identified.¶

Verification: Feed the verifier duplicated status originating from one remote source.¶

5.673. C-2-DA-35 - Integrity-Protected Interoperator Evidence

Mechanism: Status or correspondence records are authenticated or integrity-protected under¶

an existing interoperator mechanism.¶

Implementation: The processor validates provenance and separately evaluates freshness,¶

scope, and resource applicability.¶

Limitation: Authentication does not establish complete remote state.¶

Failure behavior: Authentic but stale status is not treated as current proof.¶

Verification: Replay an earlier signed completion status after a later function change.¶

5.674. C-2-DA-36 - Optional Hardware Observation and Hybrid State Optimization

Mechanism: A deployment may incorporate suitable device-adjacent measurements or an¶

optional optimization solver for resource transition planning.¶

Implementation: Hardware observations contribute their limited resource evidence;¶

candidate transition plans remain subject to mandatory architecture and procedure constraints.¶

Limitation: Neither a hardware observation nor an optimizer supplies unsupported session¶

identity or authorization.¶

Failure behavior: Incomplete measurements and solver unknown outcomes remain¶

qualified.¶

Verification: Compare optimizer candidates with a controlled reference transition model and¶

verify that a hardware link-state result does not automatically prove session continuity.¶

5.675. 2.C.13. Specific Technical Design-Around Correspondence

The implementation alternatives illustrate different ways to reconstruct a roaming session without imposing one universal controller or record format.¶

A central service may maintain cross-operator correspondence.¶

A federated design may permit operators to retain their internal session state and exchange only qualified results.¶

A home-network-centric design may rely upon home-side session continuity and limited visited status.¶

A visited-network-centric design may emphasize serving-resource transitions and abstract home information.¶

A relational implementation may store time-qualified mappings.¶

A graph implementation may represent function and resource dependencies.¶

A constraint solver may represent multiple possible states when a remote operation result is unknown.¶

A source history may be replayed.¶

A snapshot may be combined with later session and resource updates.¶

Different supported mobility procedures may identify different responsibility models.¶

The central technical relationship is not ownership of a particular 3GPP protocol.¶

It is the evidence-qualified reconciliation of distributed session identities, function¶

responsibilities, resource effects, continuity requirements, and cleanup obligations under the actual roaming architecture.¶

The following exclusions are particularly important for accurate claims:¶

1. A standard V-SMF/H-SMF operation is not individually new. 2. Local context release does not automatically mean full PDU Session release. 3. Target registration is not automatically proof of earlier session continuity. 4. Home-side status cannot automatically establish all visited-side resource effects. 5. A successful transition request does not necessarily establish service continuity. 6. A new function instance does not automatically mean a new logical session. 7. An unchanged logical session does not automatically imply unchanged QoS. 8. Source and target resource coexistence is not necessarily an error. 9. Independent operator version numbers do not establish global chronology. 10. The system cannot infer hidden operator-internal state from an abstract boundary record. 11. A source status record can be authentic while remaining stale or limited. 12. A technically consistent reconstruction does not authorize further network effectuation.¶

The alternatives may support different dependent limitations.¶

They do not establish unrestricted legal equivalence or guaranteed protection against every design-around.¶

5.676. 2.C.14. PHOSITA Reference Implementation Architecture

A practical reference implementation may be constructed using simulated operator domains and existing standardized procedure models.¶

The environment may include:¶

Home operator simulator: Maintains applicable subscriber, H-SMF, and home-side¶

resource state.¶

Visited operator simulator A: Maintains the original serving-network context.¶

Visited operator simulator B: Maintains a target serving-network context for selected¶

mobility scenarios.¶

Logical session registry: Retains session identity independent of function instance and¶

resource instance.¶

Session-management function simulator: Produces existing create, update, release,¶

retrieve, and status behaviors under defined contracts.¶

User-plane function simulator: Represents relevant source and target forwarding resources.¶

Roaming architecture registry: Distinguishes HR, LBO, and selected supported variations.¶

Responsibility mapping service: Maps session roles to actual participating functions.¶

Mobility event generator: Produces serving-area changes, access changes, function¶

replacement, and operator transitions.¶

Interoperator message channel: Supports request/response delivery, delayed status,¶

duplicate delivery, and loss.¶

Resource-state observer: Provides selected independent observations of user-plane¶

resources.¶

Service continuity probe: Simulates required reachability and QoS observations.¶

Source history repository: Retains qualified events and local revisions.¶

Cleanup monitor: Tracks which resource release obligations are established.¶

State reconstruction processor: Combines available evidence into qualified transition¶

results.¶

Fault-injection service: Creates function crashes, remote outages, response loss, and delayed¶

cleanup.¶

Test oracle: Retains actual simulated session and resource state independently from the¶

reconstruction.¶

The system may run on a single workstation with separate software processes representing operators.¶

The reference implementation need not connect to a live telecommunications operator.¶

It should not claim production roaming interoperability merely from simulation tests.¶

5.677. 2.C.15. Detailed PHOSITA Implementation Procedure

Phase 1 - Define the Logical Session Identity¶

Implement a session identity that includes the required namespace and generation.¶

Do not use a bare local SM context identifier as a globally unique session key.¶

Phase 2 - Define Operator Contexts¶

Create a home operator, one visited operator, and a second target visited or serving context.¶

Phase 3 - Define Roaming Architectures¶

Implement separate responsibility models for home-routed and local-breakout operation.¶

Phase 4 - Define the Relevant Network Functions¶

Represent applicable H-SMF, V-SMF, SMF, and user-plane roles.¶

Do not insert roles that are absent from the selected architecture.¶

Phase 5 - Define Source-Specific Session References¶

Assign different local references and function generations to the participating contexts.¶

Phase 6 - Implement Identity Correspondence¶

Create an explicit mapping between function-local records and logical sessions.¶

Phase 7 - Define the Mobility Procedure Model¶

Represent the selected procedures and their capability preconditions.¶

Phase 8 - Implement Supported and Unsupported Continuity Scenarios¶

Provide one case where function change is supported and another where the applicable procedure requires release.¶

Phase 9 - Define Resource Transition Dependencies¶

Represent target establishment, transitional coexistence, and source cleanup according to the selected procedure.¶

Phase 10 - Implement Independent Control-Plane State¶

A session-management record should be able to change before or after an associated resource observation.¶

Phase 11 - Implement User-Plane State¶

Create source and target user-plane resources with independent state.¶

Phase 12 - Implement Service Observations¶

Use a separate service probe to test whether logical continuity also satisfies required service conditions.¶

Phase 13 - Implement Request and Response Tracking¶

Represent submitted, accepted, rejected, applied, and unknown operation outcomes.¶

Phase 14 - Inject Lost Responses¶

Make a remote operation succeed while its response is dropped.¶

Phase 15 - Implement Status Reconciliation¶

Use documented or simulated status queries to clarify supported remote outcomes.¶

Phase 16 - Implement Independent Operator Revisions¶

Use unrelated version namespaces for home and visited state.¶

Phase 17 - Inject Clock Offset¶

Create events whose timestamps do not reflect their physical ordering without correction.¶

Phase 18 - Implement Source-Qualified Event Ordering¶

Preserve request-response dependencies and local source sequence rules.¶

Phase 19 - Simulate V-SMF Change¶

Model both supported change and unsupported change/release behavior.¶

Phase 20 - Simulate Access Change¶

Represent applicable source and target access resources while retaining the logical session where the procedure supports continuity.¶

Phase 21 - Implement Local Context Release¶

Release only the specified visited-side context in a controlled case.¶

Phase 22 - Implement Full Session Release¶

Create a distinct procedure requiring complete logical session release.¶

Phase 23 - Implement Target Resource Delay¶

Delay activation of the target user-plane path after the control-plane operation is accepted.¶

Phase 24 - Implement Source Resource Coexistence¶

Retain old and new resources during a permitted transition interval.¶

Phase 25 - Implement Premature Source Release¶

Release the source before a required target condition and measure the resulting continuity violation.¶

Phase 26 - Implement Operator Failure¶

Temporarily disconnect one operator's status interface.¶

Phase 27 - Implement Function Replacement¶

Replace an SMF instance while distinguishing logical session continuity from new session establishment.¶

Phase 28 - Implement HR Breakout Variation¶

Represent a specifically supported visited breakout arrangement without confusing it with conventional LBO.¶

Phase 29 - Implement Cleanup Reconciliation¶

Track each resource that must be released according to the actual procedure.¶

Phase 30 - Implement Accounting Correspondence References¶

Associate source and target resources with the applicable session accounting context.¶

Phase 31 - Implement State-Envelope Reconstruction¶

Retain multiple possible remote states when status cannot be established.¶

Phase 32 - Implement Event Corrections¶

Amend a prior status and recompute affected assessments.¶

Phase 33 - Implement Privacy-Minimized Federation¶

Allow operator-local state to remain hidden while exposing a qualified boundary result.¶

Phase 34 - Compare Alternative Representations¶

Implement at least two of relational, graph, event-sourced, or constraint-based reconstruction.¶

Phase 35 - Implement Automated Tests¶

Exercise the defined transition, identity, operation, resource, and cleanup scenarios.¶

Phase 36 - Record Actual Results¶

Record false continuity conclusions, unresolved states, source coverage, reconstruction time, and measured resource use.¶

No throughput, availability, or processing improvement shall be claimed until supported by executed measurements.¶

5.678. 2.C.16. Failure and Adversarial Conditions F1 - Wrong roaming architecture selected: Responsibility model corrected or left

unresolved.¶

5.679. F2 - LBO session falsely assigned an H-SMF/V-SMF pair: Architecture mismatch

detected.¶

5.680. F3 - HR breakout variation treated as conventional LBO: Procedure distinction

retained.¶

F4 - Function-local identifier reused: Namespace and generation mapping required.¶

5.681. F5 - Home and visited references lack supported correspondence: Logical identity

unresolved.¶

F6 - Supported V-SMF change: Actual continuity procedure evaluated.¶

F7 - Unsupported V-SMF change: Required release path recognized.¶

F8 - Target function registered without session context: No inferred continuity.¶

F9 - Old function replaced: Logical and function identities separated.¶

F10 - Function replacement requires release: No fabricated session persistence.¶

F11 - Target resource application delayed: Acceptance not treated as completed effect.¶

F12 - Home-side state active, target user-plane unknown: Partial result retained.¶

F13 - Visited-side status complete, home-side unknown: Remote state qualified.¶

F14 - Source release occurs too early: Transitional requirement violation identified.¶

F15 - Source and target overlap is permitted: No false cleanup defect.¶

F16 - Source resource remains beyond required cleanup: Residual state evaluated.¶

F17 - Local-context release mistaken for full session termination: Scope corrected.¶

F18 - Full session release mistaken for local-only cleanup: Procedure mismatch detected.¶

F19 - Interoperator operation response lost: Remote outcome not assumed failed.¶

F20 - Retry occurs while original request pending: Receiver contract applied.¶

F21 - Duplicate status notification: No duplicate transition inferred.¶

F22 - Out-of-order state revisions: Source-specific ordering respected.¶

F23 - Operator clocks disagree: Uncertainty represented.¶

F24 - Home/visited revision counters are incomparable: No invented global ordering.¶

F25 - Resource observation contradicts completion status: Contradiction retained.¶

F26 - QoS changes despite logical session continuity: Service dimension evaluated¶

separately.¶

F27 - DNN or slice mapping unsupported: Target compatibility not assumed.¶

5.682. F28 - Application remains reachable through new session: Logical replacement

distinguished.¶

F29 - Logical session persists during application outage: Service continuity not falsely¶

established.¶

F30 - Remote operator unreachable: Unknown remote state retained.¶

F31 - Local database contains stale resource reference: Current resource generation¶

checked.¶

F32 - Resource exists but is not carrying required traffic: Actual service effect¶

distinguished.¶

F33 - Local cleanup complete, remote cleanup unknown: Partial closure recorded.¶

F34 - Source status signed but stale: Contextual freshness evaluated.¶

F35 - Interoperator mapping disclosure restricted: Privacy scope respected.¶

F36 - Accounting record references old user-plane resource: Session correspondence¶

evaluated.¶

F37 - Delayed charging report arrives after resource migration: Measurement interval¶

interpreted separately.¶

F38 - Procedure model missing one optional capability: Actual requirement assessed.¶

F39 - Procedure model missing a mandatory capability: Transition not falsely approved.¶

F40 - Transition solver times out: Unknown, not automatically impossible.¶

F41 - Session continuity evidence incomplete: No fabricated successful outcome.¶

F42 - Technical compatibility established but operation unauthorized: No automatic¶

effectuation.¶

5.683. F43 - Resource change occurs after a prior assessment: Current applicability

reevaluated.¶

F44 - Handover indication corrected after transition: Dependent history revised.¶

F45 - Target access session uses a distinct resource generation: Identity and resource¶

correspondence separated.¶

F46 - A release notification describes only its declared local scope: No unsupported¶

global release finding.¶

5.684. 2.C.17. Representative Proposed Test Suite

The following 95 test cases are proposed for an implementable laboratory reference model. They are not described as completed or passed.¶

5.685. Test

5.686. Controlled scenario Expected technical behavior

5.687. ID

C2- T01 C2- T02 C2- T03 C2- T04 C2- T05 C2- T06 C2- T07 C2- T08 C2- T09¶

One valid HR session Correct architecture and roles¶

No invented home-routed One valid LBO session¶

function pair¶

HR session with supported visited breakout Separate feature classification¶

Roaming architecture unknown No guessed function roles¶

Local references differ across operators Correct mapping¶

Identical local references in unrelated operators No false session equality¶

Function generation changes Scoped references distinguished¶

Home mapping lacks visited correspondence Unresolved identity¶

Cross-operator mapping confirmed Supported identity association¶

C2-¶

Mapping contradicted by subscriber generation Incompatibility detected T10¶

C2- T11 C2- T12¶

Serving-area change with supported V-SMF transition¶

V-SMF change unsupported at H-SMF¶

Procedure evaluated¶

Release requirement recognized¶

C2-¶

V-SMF insertion supported Required roles evaluated T13¶

C2- T14 C2- T15 C2- T16 C2- T17¶

V-SMF removal under supported procedure¶

Function change without complete context transfer New function successfully assumes relevant session¶

Function replacement requires session release¶

Continuity scope evaluated¶

Unresolved continuity¶

Logical continuity evaluated¶

Replacement classified¶

C2- Successful UE registration without session¶

No false persistence¶

| T18 | continuity | |---|---| | C2- | Successful registration with supported session |¶

Session evidence required T19 transition¶

C2-¶

Access type changes under supported procedure Access resources distinguished T20¶

C2- T21 C2- T22¶

Access change releases only source V-SMF context¶

Full PDU Session release¶

No global release inference¶

Full scope evaluated¶

C2- T23 C2- T24 C2- T25 C2- T26¶

Local SM context release¶

Release operation scope unavailable¶

Home session present, visited state absent¶

Visited session present, home state absent¶

Local scope evaluated¶

Unresolved release meaning¶

Partial state¶

C2-¶

Home and visited report consistent states Qualified correspondence T27¶

C2- T28 C2- T29¶

Operator reports contradict one another¶

Remote status reports complete but target resource absent¶

Conflict preserved¶

Contradiction detected¶

C2-¶

Control plane accepted, target resource pending No false application T30¶

C2-¶

Target resource applied Required resource state evaluated T31¶

C2- Source and target both active under permitted¶

No false duplication¶

| T32 | transition | |---|---| | C2- | Source and target overlap beyond required |¶

Residual state assessed T33 conditions¶

C2-¶

Source released after valid target establishment Ordering requirement evaluated T34¶

C2- T35 C2- T36 C2- T37 C2- T38 C2- T39 C2- T40 C2- T41 C2- T42 C2- T43¶

Source released before required target effect¶

Target path appears but service fails¶

Service works through a newly established session¶

Logical session persists but QoS reduced¶

Target QoS matches required state¶

Target QoS mapping unsupported¶

Target DNN unavailable¶

Target slice mapping unavailable¶

HR status update response lost¶

Transitional failure¶

Service continuity separate¶

Logical replacement distinguished¶

Service change recorded¶

Scoped QoS result¶

No false equivalence¶

Procedure precondition evaluated¶

Applicable condition unresolved¶

Remote outcome uncertainty¶

C2- T44 C2- T45 C2- T46 C2- T47 C2- T48 C2- T49 C2- T50 C2- T51 C2- T52 C2- T53 C2- T54 C2- T55 C2- T56 C2- T57 C2- T58 C2- T59 C2- T60¶

Remote operation applied despite timeout No false nonapplication¶

Remote operation conclusively rejected Rejection established¶

Native status query resolves uncertainty State envelope narrowed¶

Status history expired Unknown retained¶

Request retried within supported contract Retry semantics respected¶

Request parameters changed on retry No false identity equivalence¶

Duplicate remote notification delivered No duplicate state transition¶

Old notification arrives after new status Revision semantics used¶

Source generation resets Scoped event identity¶

Home revision 8, visited revision 99 No numerical global order¶

Independent operator clocks offset Temporal uncertainty¶

Causal request-response order available Supported partial order¶

Two unrelated events without causal relation No fabricated ordering¶

One operator temporarily unreachable Local and remote states separated¶

Remote operator reconnects and supplies history Assessment updated¶

Missing remote history cannot be retrieved Unresolved condition preserved¶

Source function crashes after request acceptance Reconstruct operation lifecycle¶

C2-¶

Source function replaced Function generation separated T61¶

C2- T62 C2- T63¶

Target function replaced during transition¶

Old function-local context remains stale¶

Resource/context generation checked¶

Residual status assessed¶

C2-¶

Old resource legitimately retained temporarily Permitted coexistence T64¶

C2- T65 C2- T66¶

Old resource not released when required¶

All required old resources released¶

Cleanup failure or unresolved status¶

Cleanup established¶

C2- T67 C2- T68¶

Only some required resources released¶

Required release evidence missing¶

Partial cleanup¶

Cleanup unresolved¶

C2-¶

Local release complete, remote release pending Distinct lifecycle stages T69¶

C2-¶

Accounting reference persists across mobility Correct continuity relationship T70¶

C2-¶

New resource uses old charging context No invented duplicate session T71¶

C2- T72 C2- T73 C2- T74¶

Separate new session receives different charging context¶

Delayed usage report refers to earlier path¶

Abstract federation result lacks internal resource data¶

Distinct accounting relation¶

Measurement-time correspondence¶

Scope-limited conclusion¶

C2-¶

Authentic remote status is stale Freshness checked T76¶

C2-¶

Signed status references prior function generation Generation mismatch detected T77¶

C2- T78 C2- T79 C2- T80 C2- T81 C2- T82 C2- T83 C2- T84 C2- T85¶

Device-adjacent link state healthy, service down Cross-layer distinction¶

Read-only verifier uses same remote source twice No false independent¶

confirmation Reference-consistent Event-sourced history complete¶

reconstruction¶

Event-sourced history has missing status Unresolved state¶

Snapshot/delta generations mismatch Reconstruction qualified¶

Relational and graph models share constraints Corresponding verdicts¶

Constraint solver yields two possible remote¶

No false uniqueness states¶

Constraint solver times out Unresolved, not impossible¶

C2-¶

Procedure capability changes Affected transition reevaluated T86¶

| C2- | Subscriber governing condition changes mid- | |---|---| | T87 | transition |¶

C2-¶

Material topology change follows completion T88¶

Preconditions reassessed¶

Current applicability rechecked¶

C2- T89 C2- T90¶

Historical transition result remains correct under¶

History preserved old state¶

Source status corrected after transition Dependent results revised¶

C2- Unknown mandatory identity but confirmed user-¶

No full logical continuity¶

| T91 | plane path | |---|---| | C2- | Logical identity established but user-plane |¶

Dimensions separated¶

| T92 | unknown | |---|---| | C2- | All required logical, control, resource conditions |¶

Scoped continuity supported T93 established¶

C2-¶

Technical transition feasible but not authorized No automatic execution T94¶

C2- T95¶

Final interoperator result retained with unresolved¶

Reconstructible output conditions¶

5.688. 2.C.17.1. Proposed Test Evidence

An executed test should retain:¶

1. Logical session identifier and namespace. 2. Subscriber or service context. 3. Home and visited operator references. 4. Roaming architecture classification. 5. Function roles and instance generations. 6. Local session and SM context references. 7. Cross-operator identity mapping evidence. 8. Original mobility or serving-network trigger. 9. Applicable standardized procedure. 10. Required capability and feature support. 11. Source and target session states. 12. Source and target user-plane resource states. 13. Operation requests and original parameters. 14. Transport and receiver acknowledgements. 15. Remote status queries and notifications. 16. Source timestamps and uncertainty. 17. Source-specific revision information. 18. Expected and observed service conditions. 19. Source-resource retention and cleanup requirements. 20. Actual simulated underlying state. 21. Expected and reconstructed continuity conclusions. 22. Relevant charging references. 23. Privacy and disclosure restrictions. 24. Unresolved evidence and model assumptions. 25. Reconstruction-processing time and memory use.¶

The test harness should maintain ground-truth state independently from the reconstruction engine.¶

The results should separately report logical continuity, control-plane agreement, resourcestate agreement, service continuity, and cleanup completeness.¶

Passing one category does not establish every other category.¶

5.689. 2.C.18. Standards and Established Technology Correspondence

2.C.18.1. 3GPP TS 23.501¶

3GPP TS 23.501 provides 5G system architecture and session-management concepts, including roaming arrangements and related network-function responsibilities.¶

The present embodiment uses those established architectures as reference environments.¶

It does not newly invent home-routed roaming, local breakout, H-SMF, V-SMF, or the applicable interoperator reference points.¶

2.C.18.2. 3GPP TS 23.502¶

3GPP TS 23.502 specifies the relevant session establishment, modification, release, and mobility procedures.¶

Certain supported home-routed scenarios include insertion, change, or removal of V-SMF functions.¶

The actual procedure and feature support determine whether continuity is available or release is required.¶

The present embodiment evaluates the technical correspondence of the resulting states.¶

2.C.18.3. 3GPP TS 29.502¶

3GPP TS 29.502 defines Nsmf\_PDUSession service operations.¶

Applicable operations include creation, update, release, retrieval, and notifications concerning session contexts or PDU Sessions.¶

Their semantics differ by operation and resource scope.¶

The embodiment uses these semantics when reconstructing local versus global session state.¶

2.C.18.4. 3GPP TS 29.244¶

PFCP, specified in 3GPP TS 29.244, provides relevant control of user-plane resources through applicable session procedures.¶

Where user-plane observations are available, the processor may use them to evaluate resource-state correspondence.¶

A control-plane message does not automatically establish all resulting service behavior.¶

2.C.18.5. 3GPP TS 23.548¶

Applicable edge-computing and session-breakout features may affect the architecture and responsibility relationships of selected roaming sessions.¶

The processor distinguishes those specific features from conventional LBO.¶

The actual supported feature set governs the assessment.¶

5.690. 2.C.18.6. Existing Roaming Agreements and Operator Procedures

Roaming agreements and operator deployments may determine applicable function selection and interoperator behavior.¶

The present embodiment does not replace those arrangements.¶

It uses the relevant technical responsibilities as inputs to reconstruction.¶

5.691. 2.C.18.7. Other Telecommunications Environments

The principles may be adapted to earlier-generation mobile core networks, fixed-mobile convergence, non-3GPP access, private mobile networks, hybrid satellite-terrestrial networks, and other communication systems.¶

The particular subscriber, session, and network-function semantics must be adapted to the chosen technology.¶

No assertion is made that one 5G PDU Session procedure applies unchanged to every such environment.¶

5.692. 2.C.19. Specific Claim-Supporting Relationships

5.693. Relationship 1 - Architecture-qualified responsibility mapping: Determining the

applicable home and visited function responsibilities before evaluating a roaming session state.¶

Relationship 2 - Cross-namespace session identity: Relating function-local contexts to¶

one logical session using supported identity, namespace, and generation information.¶

Relationship 3 - Capability-dependent continuity evaluation: Identifying whether a¶

particular function or access transition supports logical session persistence under the applicable procedure.¶

Relationship 4 - Multi-dimensional transition reconstruction: Separately reconstructing¶

logical, home control, visited control, user-plane, and service states.¶

Relationship 5 - Local versus global release interpretation: Distinguishing a local SM¶

context release from full PDU Session termination under the applicable operation semantics.¶

5.694. Relationship 6 - Asynchronous remote-outcome reconciliation: Retaining unknown

remote operation outcomes until sufficient status or resource evidence becomes available.¶

5.695. Relationship 7 - Source/target transitional resource correspondence: Evaluating

temporary coexistence, activation order, and cleanup of resources.¶

Relationship 8 - Source-qualified cross-operator chronology: Avoiding unsupported¶

comparisons between independent revision namespaces and clocks.¶

Relationship 9 - Abstract federation: Reconciling cross-operator state using limited¶

permitted status information while preserving hidden-state uncertainty.¶

Relationship 10 - Logical continuity versus service continuity: Determining whether a¶

preserved session identity also satisfies specified service properties.¶

Relationship 11 - Residual resource cleanup: Identifying resources that must be released¶

under the supported procedure and evaluating their actual status.¶

Relationship 12 - Revision-aware transition reconstruction: Updating a historical or¶

current continuity assessment when later source corrections or resource evidence change the relevant facts.¶

These are proposed claim-building relationships.¶

They do not establish that the standardized mobility operations or their generic monitoring mechanisms are individually novel.¶

The described mechanisms require operationally precise conditions, evidence sources and specific state semantics. They do not automatically imply equivalent behavior in a different deployment.¶

5.696. 2.C.20. Relation to the Foundational Shared Technical Foundation

That earlier portfolio includes telecommunications, network governance, cross-domain statedependent operation, and protected execution-finality subject matter.¶

The present embodiment does not recast previously disclosed execution-authority or protected effectuation mechanisms as new simply because they appear in a roaming-session context.¶

Its proposed incremental technical focus is the reconstruction of distributed session¶

responsibility and operational continuity across participating operator boundaries.¶

Particular areas for prior-disclosure comparison include:¶

(a) architecture-specific home and visited network responsibility mapping; (b) function-local context identity correspondence; (c) capability-dependent distinction between supported continuity and required release; (d) separation of local-context and full-session release;¶

(e) source/target user-plane resource transition and cleanup reconstruction;¶

(f) remote operation uncertainty following incomplete interoperator communication;¶

(g) partial-order and source-generation interpretation across independently maintained domains;¶

(h) abstract state correspondence under privacy or disclosure limitations;¶

(i) independent evaluation of logical persistence and service continuity; and¶

(j) revision of continuity assessments after newly available remote state evidence.¶

The exact incremental subject matter must be checked against the earlier as-filed disclosures and relevant 3GPP and other public technical literature.¶

This text is an illustrative technical disclosure. Separate formal disclosures and external references follow their applicable processes.¶

5.697. 2.C.21. Particular Technical Effects

Depending upon the actual architecture and evidence available, the embodiment may provide:¶

(a) improved consistency of home and visited session-state reconstruction; (b) reduced confusion between home-routed and local-breakout responsibility models; (c) improved association of function-local references with logical session identity; (d) more accurate evaluation of V-SMF change and release conditions; (e) reduced unsupported continuity conclusions after serving-network changes; (f) improved distinction between local-context release and full session release; (g) better handling of unknown remote operation outcomes; (h) improved visibility into control-plane and user-plane state discrepancies; (i) more accurate treatment of source and target resource coexistence; (j) improved detection of incomplete cleanup; (k) better separation of logical continuity from service continuity; (l) more reliable historical reconstruction under clock and revision uncertainty; (m) better handling of network-function replacement;¶

(n) reduced unsupported assumptions about confidential operator-internal state;¶

(o) compatibility with centralized and federated reconciliation systems;¶

(p) improved preservation of accounting-context relationships after resource transitions; and¶

(q) additional technical evidence for subsequent operator or network-management decisions.¶

These are possible technical effects.¶

No specific improvement in handover interruption time, service availability, operator cost, message count, or resource utilization is asserted without executed and documented measurements.¶

5.698. 2.C.22. Non-Limiting Implementation Character

The present embodiment may be implemented using software, firmware, networkmanagement functions, session-management systems, user-plane controllers, operator repositories, mobility services, resource observers, and combinations thereof.¶

It may operate within one mobile operator or across cooperating operators.¶

It may use a home-routed architecture, local breakout, a supported specialized breakout arrangement, or another applicable telecommunications model.¶

Not every session requires an H-SMF/V-SMF function pair.¶

Not every mobility event permits seamless logical session continuity.¶

Not every function replacement requires release.¶

The actual architecture and procedure determine the applicable conditions.¶

A processor may receive complete internal state or only abstract boundary-level information.¶

It may use event histories, versioned snapshots, graphs, relational records, or constraint-based state reconstruction.¶

A user-plane resource may be replaced while logical session identity persists.¶

The logical session may persist while service quality changes.¶

A service may recover through a different logical session.¶

Source and target resources may coexist temporarily.¶

Remote release and cleanup may remain unresolved.¶

The processor must accurately represent these possibilities.¶

The embodiment does not claim universal global atomicity across operators, exactly-once remote operation application, automatic preservation of every PDU Session, or complete visibility into private operator networks.¶

Any consequential network operation remains governed by the independently applicable standardized procedures and authorization or protected effectuation mechanisms.¶

All architectures, algorithms, data structures, numerical examples, and test scenarios are nonlimiting illustrations of the supported technical relationships.¶

5.699. 2.C.23. Conclusion

The central technical subject of Embodiment 2.C is evidence-qualified reconstruction of logical session continuity and distributed network-function responsibility during interoperator roaming and related serving-context transitions.¶

The embodiment distinguishes:¶

1. Home-routed from local-breakout architecture. 2. Home-side from visited-side session-management responsibilities. 3. Logical session identity from local SM context identity. 4. Function replacement from logical session replacement. 5. Supported session continuity from release-required transitions. 6. Local context release from complete PDU Session release. 7. Control-plane acceptance from observed user-plane application. 8. Target-resource readiness from source-resource cleanup. 9. Logical continuity from actual service continuity. 10. Local operator completion from remote operator completion. 11. Source-specific versions from global chronology. 12. Technical transition compatibility from execution authorization.¶

The system identifies applicable architecture and procedure rules, associates the relevant home and visited states, reconstructs transition effects, evaluates resource continuity, and retains unresolved conditions when required remote evidence is unavailable.¶

5.700. This completes Embodiment 2.C without repeating the established 3GPP roaming

procedures, Group C Common Workflow C-CW-01, Embodiment 1.C's SIM-related identity analysis, or the foundational protected execution-finality architecture.¶

5.701. EMBODIMENT 3.C - CONCURRENT PROGRAMMABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SESSION MODIFICATION, RESOURCE-

5.702. RESERVATION CORRESPONDENCE, AND USAGE-QUOTA STATE RECONSTRUCTION

5.703. 3.C.1. Embodiment Identification and Technical Scope

Invention Group: C - Programmable Telecommunications Session Lifecycle and Cross-¶

Operator Operational-State Consistency.¶

Embodiment Number: 3.C - Third Embodiment of GROUP C.¶

Technical Title: Systems and Methods for Reconciling Concurrent Programmable Session¶

Operations, Versioned Service Durations, Shared Resource Reservations, and Asynchronous Usage Measurements Across Distributed Telecommunications Functions.¶

Common Workflow: C-CW-01.¶

Principal Workflow Variation: C-V3 - Concurrent Programmable Session Updates and¶

Usage-Quota State Reconciliation.¶

Embodiment Algorithm: C-ALG-04.¶

Specific Alternative Implementations: C-3-DA-01 through C-3-DA-36.¶

Common Workflow Relationships: C-CW-01.09-C-CW-01.28, C-CW-01.30-C-CW-¶

01.31, and C-CW-01.33-C-CW-01.38.¶

| x | 1.C: SIM-related trust-state changes during active-session continuity. | |---|---| | x | 2.C: Interoperator roaming transition and distributed session-state responsibility. | | x | 4.C: Service effect, network usage, and charging-record correspondence. | | x | 5.C: Purpose-scoped consent-state changes during active telecommunications service. | | x | 6.C: Partial operator failure, session release, and deferred settlement reconstruction. |¶

3.C.1.1. General Technical Subject¶

The present embodiment describes a telecommunications session-state reconstruction system for environments in which multiple application programming interfaces, network controllers, subscriber-service functions, resource managers, or accounting systems can observe or request changes affecting the same programmable service session or overlapping network resources.¶

A programmable session may expose an application-facing identifier and provide operations for creation, status retrieval, extension, modification, and deletion.¶

The underlying network may implement the session through one or more policy rules, trafficflow associations, QoS allocations, user-plane resources, or additional network-specific mechanisms.¶

Several changes may occur concurrently or in an order that is not immediately visible to every participating component.¶

For example, one application may request an extension of a service session while another component initiates deletion. A network controller may terminate the session while the first extension response remains in transit. A resource manager may report an updated allocation¶

while an accounting processor has not yet received the usage report associated with the preceding allocation.¶

The present embodiment reconstructs the technical relationship among:¶

1. The application-facing logical session. 2. The versioned state of the session before an operation. 3. Multiple overlapping session-operation requests. 4. The actual operation and retry contracts. 5. The effective session duration or other service parameter. 6. Resource reservations and resource allocations associated with the session. 7. Resource changes shared with other sessions. 8. Usage measurements and their source semantics. 9. Previously accounted quantities. 10. Delayed, duplicated, corrected, or missing usage reports. 11. Session expiry, extension, deletion, and network termination. 12. Residual reservations or resources after session closure. 13. The state that can be established from available evidence. 14. Conditions that remain unresolved. 15. The technical consequences of later corrections or state updates.¶

The system distinguishes a request for additional resources or duration from the actual granting, installation, consumption, or release of those resources.¶

It also distinguishes a usage measurement from a reservation, a quota grant, a source counter, a financial charge, and a final settlement record.¶

These quantities and state representations are not automatically interchangeable.¶

3.C.1.2. Principal Technical Distinction¶

The principal technical subject is concurrency-aware correspondence across¶

programmable session state and measured resource use.¶

The processor answers five different questions:¶

5.705. Question A - Which operation was requested?

The processor identifies the original request, target session, requested transformation, source, and applicable state requirements.¶

5.706. Question B - Which operation actually took effect?

It distinguishes submission, receiver acceptance, established application, rejection, partial effect, and unknown outcome.¶

5.707. Question C - What is the session's currently supportable service state?

It reconstructs the effective session duration, expiry, status, and applicable resource relationships from source-qualified evidence.¶

5.708. Question D - Which reserved or allocated quantities remain attributable to the session?

It distinguishes outstanding reservations, installed resources, consumed resources, and released resources.¶

5.709. Question E - What usage can be established without double counting?

It reconciles source-specific counters, increments, report intervals, generation changes, and overlapping or duplicate reports.¶

A successful answer to one question does not automatically resolve the others.¶

3.C.1.3. Distinction from Generic Quota Enforcement¶

Existing systems already provide quota authorization, credit reservation, metering, charging controls, usage thresholds, and restrictions after quota exhaustion.¶

The present embodiment does not claim those functions merely because several components share a resource budget.¶

In particular, it does not introduce a new protected quota-granting authority or recreate the previously disclosed VI-CJT, Execution Handle, protected enforcement domain, or execution-finality mechanisms.¶

Its technical focus is reconstructing what the existing session and accounting systems actually did when their operations and reports overlap.¶

For example, it may establish that a previously granted reservation was partly consumed and partly released.¶

That reconstruction does not itself authorize more consumption.¶

Similarly, it may establish that two extension requests were processed against different session versions.¶

That does not mean the processor independently grants either extension.¶

3.C.1.4. Distinction from Existing Programmable API Operations¶

The creation, extension, deletion, and status-retrieval operations of existing programmablenetwork APIs remain established mechanisms.¶

The embodiment uses their actual request and response semantics.¶

It does not redefine the CAMARA Quality on Demand API or assume that every provider exposes an unstandardized general-purpose session-edit interface.¶

Where a standard API supports only extending duration and deleting a session, the implementation uses those supported operations.¶

More general QoS modification, reservation adjustment, or resource relocation may be performed through separate established operator interfaces when applicable.¶

5.710. 3.C.2. Particular Technical Problem Space

5.711. 3.C.2.1. Concurrent Extension Requests Can Be Misinterpreted

Two applications may request an extension to the same session before either receives the other's response.¶

One request may be processed first.¶

The second request may then be evaluated against the already extended session state.¶

Alternatively, the receiver may reject a conflicting request or apply another supported concurrency rule.¶

The processor cannot assume that the final duration equals the initial duration plus the arithmetic sum of all submitted extension quantities.¶

5.712. 3.C.2.2. Request Arrival Order Is Not Necessarily Application Order

An API gateway may receive requests A and B in one order.¶

A downstream network controller may apply their consequences in another order, subject to its actual interface contract.¶

The processor distinguishes local gateway arrival from receiver processing and applied-state ordering.¶

5.713. 3.C.2.3. Extension Duration May Be Capped

A programmable QoS session can have a maximum permitted overall duration under an applicable profile.¶

The receiving implementation may cap the granted overall duration even where a requester asks for a larger extension.¶

A reconstruction engine must use the actual granted result and the applicable profile semantics rather than assume the full requested extension was applied.¶

5.714. 3.C.2.4. Session Expiry Can Race with Extension

An extension request may be transmitted before a session's scheduled expiry.¶

The request may reach the receiver after the session is no longer extendable.¶

Conversely, an extension may be accepted and applied before expiry even though the response arrives afterward.¶

The processor cannot classify the outcome solely from local request time or response arrival time.¶

5.715. 3.C.2.5. Deletion Can Race with Extension

A session deletion may be initiated while an extension request is pending.¶

Depending upon the receiver's procedure, the extension may be applied, rejected, superseded, or left unresolved to an external observer.¶

An earlier extension acknowledgement does not automatically establish that the session remains available after a later deletion.¶

5.716. 3.C.2.6. Network-Initiated Termination May Precede Resource Cleanup

The API-facing session may become unavailable because the network can no longer provide the requested service.¶

A provider may retain related session records or resources for a defined interval to support status retrieval or cleanup.¶

The processor must distinguish service unavailability from completed resource deletion.¶

It shall apply the actual provider contract rather than a universal cleanup delay.¶

5.717. 3.C.2.7. A Client Correlation Reference Is Not Necessarily an Idempotency Key

A request may contain a correlation header used for tracing.¶

That header does not automatically guarantee that the receiver will suppress duplicate execution.¶

The processor uses documented idempotency semantics when available.¶

Otherwise, a lost response may leave the request's remote outcome unresolved.¶

5.718. 3.C.2.8. Identical Requests May Have Different Results

Two requests with identical parameters may be evaluated at different session revisions.¶

The first may extend the session.¶

The second may fail because the session expired or reached the maximum permitted duration.¶

Request-body equality does not establish outcome equality.¶

5.719. 3.C.2.9. Different Requests May Produce the Same Final Value

Two independent operations may each attempt to set or establish an equivalent service state.¶

Observing the final value does not by itself establish which operation caused the change.¶

The processor distinguishes state equality from operation attribution.¶

5.720. 3.C.2.10. Several API Sessions May Depend on Shared Resources

Two application-facing sessions may rely upon one underlying network capacity pool, traffic class, slice resource, or other allocatable system.¶

Their session identifiers are different.¶

Their resource effects may nevertheless overlap.¶

The processor must associate resources with the correct sessions and allocation scopes.¶

5.721. 3.C.2.11. Resource Reservation Is Not Resource Installation

A reservation manager may record capacity reserved for a session.¶

The corresponding network enforcement or forwarding configuration may not yet be installed.¶

The processor maintains separate reservation and applied-resource states.¶

5.722. 3.C.2.12. Resource Installation Is Not Actual Usage

A configured QoS allocation may exist while the application sends no traffic.¶

A provisioned resource does not prove that the corresponding reserved amount was consumed.¶

The processor distinguishes provisioned capacity, measured traffic, and accounted consumption.¶

5.723. 3.C.2.13. Reserved Amounts and Consumed Amounts May Overlap

A usage-credit system may grant a quantity that is then consumed over time.¶

The reserved balance may be reduced as consumption is reported.¶

Adding the original reservation to the consumed quantity can double count the same underlying units if the accounting model treats consumption as drawing against the grant.¶

The processor must apply the relevant accounting semantics.¶

5.724. 3.C.2.14. Reservations May Be Scoped to Different Resources

A time quota, data-volume quota, and bandwidth reservation have different units and semantics.¶

They cannot be added into one undifferentiated quantity.¶

Even two volume grants may belong to different rating groups, services, or accounting epochs.¶

The processor qualifies quantities by scope, unit, and measurement model.¶

5.725. 3.C.2.15. Quota Grants Can Be Superseded or Adjusted

An accounting function may modify a previously granted quota or issue an additional grant under the existing charging interface.¶

The processor determines whether a new quantity replaces, supplements, or otherwise relates to an earlier quantity.¶

It does not interpret every new grant as an unconditional additive increment.¶

5.726. 3.C.2.16. Thresholds and Quotas Have Different Meanings

A reporting threshold can trigger a measurement report.¶

A quota may affect permitted forwarding or usage under the applicable network function and operator policy.¶

A threshold crossing is not automatically quota exhaustion.¶

The processor distinguishes reporting conditions from limits and granted quantities.¶

5.727. 3.C.2.17. Usage Counters May Be Cumulative

A network function may report a cumulative quantity measured since a defined reference point.¶

Two cumulative reports cannot simply be added as independent increments.¶

The processor determines whether the second report supersedes or extends the first.¶

5.728. 3.C.2.18. Usage Reports May Contain Independent Increments

Another source may report the traffic measured within a specific interval.¶

These interval deltas can sometimes be aggregated, provided the intervals, measurement populations, and record identities do not introduce overlap or duplication.¶

The processor does not assume every reported value is cumulative.¶

5.729. 3.C.2.19. Usage Reports May Be Replayed

A charging or network function may resend the same report after a communications failure.¶

Without record identity, the accounting processor may count the same usage twice.¶

The processor uses source-qualified report identity and source semantics to distinguish retransmissions.¶

5.730. 3.C.2.20. Different Usage Reports May Cover Overlapping Traffic

Two reports may describe overlapping measurement intervals or the same traffic under different counters.¶

Some reports may legitimately represent different rating or service dimensions.¶

Others may be alternative measurements of the same usage.¶

The processor requires a defined measurement-partition or accounting model before aggregating them.¶

5.731. 3.C.2.21. Counters May Reset or Wrap

A network function may restart, causing its counters to reset.¶

A bounded counter may wrap.¶

A new measurement rule may start a new counter generation.¶

Simple subtraction between values from incompatible generations can create incorrect usage figures.¶

5.732. 3.C.2.22. Resource Relocation May Change Measurement Source

During a session modification, traffic may move from one user-plane function to another.¶

Both functions may produce usage reports for different portions of the session.¶

The processor must determine whether the reported traffic intervals overlap or leave a gap.¶

It cannot assume that the new function's counter continues numerically from the old function's counter.¶

5.733. 3.C.2.23. Usage Records May Arrive after Session Deletion

The API-facing service session may already be deleted.¶

The underlying network may subsequently deliver a valid usage report describing traffic from an earlier period.¶

The processor associates the record with the earlier session interval rather than treating its arrival as evidence that the session is still active.¶

5.734. 3.C.2.24. Reservation Release May Occur before Final Usage Arrives

A resource manager may release the unused portion of an allocation.¶

The final usage report may remain pending.¶

The processor must represent resource cleanup and accounting finalization separately.¶

5.735. 3.C.2.25. Concurrent Reservations May Refer to the Same Capacity

Two controllers may submit reservations for a shared resource pool.¶

The reservation system may grant one, both, or a reduced amount according to its native resource-allocation rules.¶

The reconstruction engine does not grant capacity itself.¶

It determines the supported result of those existing reservation operations.¶

5.736. 3.C.2.26. Application Session Identity and Network Resource Identity Differ

A programmable API may expose a QoS session identifier.¶

The underlying network may use different policy, flow, or user-plane resource identifiers.¶

The processor must maintain supported mappings.¶

It must not assume that a CAMARA QoS session identifier is identical to a 3GPP PDU Session identifier or PFCP session identifier.¶

5.737. 3.C.2.27. Flow Identity Can Change

An application endpoint's IP address or port may change.¶

An address may later be reused by another device or service.¶

A session resource mapping based only on an old IP address can misattribute current traffic.¶

The processor evaluates flow identity and applicable time.¶

5.738. 3.C.2.28. Subscriber and Service Context Can Change during Concurrent Updates

A subscriber may change serving network, profile, or applicable service conditions while an extension is pending.¶

The processor must determine which state version governed the operation when it was processed.¶

It does not assume that a request remains technically applicable indefinitely.¶

5.739. 3.C.2.29. API Availability State May Differ from Observed Network Behavior

An API can report that the requested QoS session is available.¶

A service probe may nevertheless observe inadequate performance.¶

The API status describes the specified API-level lifecycle; it is not an unconditional guarantee that every traffic sample meets its latency or throughput target.¶

The processor reports these observations separately.¶

5.740. 3.C.2.30. A Late Status Event May Describe an Earlier State

A notification may report that a session was unavailable at an earlier event time.¶

A later query may return the current state.¶

The processor must use source event and revision semantics to avoid overwriting a newer supported state with an obsolete notification.¶

5.741. 3.C.2.31. The Same Resource Can Serve Different Accounting Populations

One user-plane resource may handle several traffic flows or rating groups.¶

The resource's total byte counter may not equal the usage attributable to one application session.¶

The processor requires an appropriate flow or usage-reporting-rule association.¶

5.742. 3.C.2.32. Accounting Records May Be Corrected

A metering system may issue a correction or replacement report.¶

The processor must identify whether the new record supersedes an earlier measurement or represents additional usage.¶

It does not blindly append every correction to the consumed total.¶

5.743. 3.C.2.33. A Reconciliation Failure Is Not Proof of Quota Violation

A missing usage report can prevent an accounting balance from being established.¶

That is not automatically proof that the user exceeded a quota.¶

Similarly, an inconsistent reservation record does not necessarily mean that the underlying service consumed unauthorized resources.¶

The processor retains the appropriate distinction.¶

5.744. 3.C.2.34. An Established Quota Violation Does Not Resolve Session Lifecycle

A measured usage limit may be exceeded under an applicable model.¶

That finding does not, by itself, establish that the corresponding session has already been terminated or its network resources released.¶

The processor separately observes the resulting operational state.¶

5.745. 3.C.2.35. Accounted Usage Does Not Necessarily Equal Billed Usage

A network usage measurement may contribute to charging.¶

The final billed amount may depend on rating, discounts, accounting corrections, or other existing commercial rules.¶

The present embodiment reconstructs technical usage and quota state.¶

Detailed charging and financial records belong primarily to Embodiment 4.C.¶

5.746. 3.C.2.36. A Technical Reconstruction Does Not Independently Authorize Additional Resource Use

The system may establish a remaining reserved quantity or available resource state.¶

That does not grant an application permission to consume more resources.¶

The established resource or charging authority remains responsible for permitted use.¶

5.747. 3.C.3. Specific Technical Contribution Sought

A representative implementation provides a versioned session-operation and usage-state¶

reconciliation procedure configured to:¶

1. Identify the logical or API-facing session and its generation. 2. Identify underlying network and accounting correspondence. 3. Collect overlapping operation requests and their original parameters. 4. Preserve operation-specific receiver and retry semantics. 5. Determine supported ordering and concurrency relationships. 6. Establish the relevant session state before each operation where possible. 7. Interpret session extensions relative to the receiver's duration and expiry rules. 8. Identify status-dependent extension or deletion conflicts. 9. Distinguish requested, granted, and observed session properties. 10. Record network-initiated termination separately from client deletion. 11. Determine whether residual resources remain associated with an unavailable session. 12. Associate shared resource allocations with the correct logical sessions. 13. Reconstruct reservation grants, adjustments, and releases. 14. Identify quota and threshold types according to their source meaning. 15. Associate usage reports with the appropriate session, flow, resource, and accounting scope.¶

16. Detect duplicate, replacement, cumulative, and incremental reports. 17. Interpret counter resets, source generations, and relocation. 18. Determine whether usage reports overlap or leave unobserved intervals. 19. Apply only justified aggregation and reconciliation rules. 20. Retain several possible states where a remote outcome is unknown. 21. Identify contradictions among API, resource, and usage-state evidence. 22. Reevaluate dependent states after late or corrected records. 23. Distinguish session closure from release of remaining resources. 24. Preserve final reporting and settlement obligations without treating them as active session operation. 25. Provide a technically qualified result suitable for independently governed further procedures.¶

The procedure does not depend upon one specific API version, charging vendor, subscriber database, or user-plane technology.¶

Its correctness is limited by the actual source, interface, resource, and accounting guarantees.¶

5.748. 3.C.4. Representative System Components

5.749. 3.C.4.1. Programmable Session Identity Resolver

Associates an application-facing session identifier with the relevant API provider, subscriber or device context, service scope, and session generation.¶

Where available, it also associates the session with underlying network resource references.¶

5.750. 3.C.4.2. Session Operation Intake

Receives or retrieves create, extend, modify, delete, expiration, or network-termination events.¶

It preserves the original operation type, parameters, and source.¶

5.751. 3.C.4.3. Concurrent Operation Correlator

Identifies operations whose applicable processing intervals or target resources overlap.¶

It records known ordering relationships and unresolved concurrency.¶

5.752. 3.C.4.4. API Contract Interpreter

Determines the actual state-dependent behavior of the targeted API.¶

For example, an implementation may require an available QoS session for extension and apply a profile maximum duration.¶

The interpreter does not impose an invented extension rule upon an interface with different semantics.¶

5.753. 3.C.4.5. Session Revision Resolver

Obtains the supported current or historical session state, including status, effective duration, expiry, and applicable version information.¶

It avoids treating an unrelated gateway revision as a definitive receiver-side session generation.¶

5.754. 3.C.4.6. Operation Status Reconciler

Distinguishes submission, acceptance, applied state, rejection, and unknown outcome.¶

It uses native status or retrieval facilities where available.¶

5.755. 3.C.4.7. Session Expiry and Termination Evaluator

Identifies scheduled expiry, client-requested deletion, network-initiated termination, and any provider-defined resource cleanup behavior.¶

It distinguishes an unavailable API session from completed underlying resource release.¶

5.756. 3.C.4.8. Resource Correspondence Repository

Maps logical sessions to the relevant resource pools, allocations, policy rules, and user-plane reporting contexts.¶

A shared resource may have relationships with multiple sessions.¶

5.757. 3.C.4.9. Reservation State Collector

Obtains the applicable resource or usage-reservation grants from existing controlling functions.¶

It records reservation identity, scope, units, grant generation, and release state.¶

5.758. 3.C.4.10. Quota and Threshold Semantics Evaluator

Determines whether a source value represents a granted quota, reporting threshold, remaining allowance, cumulative consumption, reservation, or another defined quantity.¶

The evaluator does not create a new quota-granting authority.¶

5.759. 3.C.4.11. Usage Report Collector

Obtains applicable traffic-usage reports from network or charging sources.¶

It retains report identity, source generation, measured interval, counter rules, resource context, and delivery time.¶

5.760. 3.C.4.12. Usage Lineage Evaluator

Determines whether records are independent, derived, duplicated, corrected, or otherwise related.¶

It prevents unsupported addition of correlated measurements.¶

5.761. 3.C.4.13. Counter Generation Reconciler

Identifies counter resets, rollover, source replacement, and reporting-rule changes.¶

It evaluates whether cumulative counter subtraction is valid.¶

5.762. 3.C.4.14. Temporal Coverage Evaluator

Determines which usage intervals are adequately represented.¶

It distinguishes overlapping measurement windows from missing intervals.¶

5.763. 3.C.4.15. Accounting State Reconstructor

Combines compatible reservation, measurement, and accounting information under the applicable accounting model.¶

It retains unresolved quantities where input semantics or outcomes are insufficient.¶

5.764. 3.C.4.16. Resource Cleanup Evaluator

Identifies resources or reservations whose release is required after session expiry or deletion.¶

It checks actual release evidence under the relevant provider or network interface.¶

5.765. 3.C.4.17. Reconciliation Revision Manager

Maintains dependency relationships among operations, usage reports, reservations, and calculated balances.¶

Later corrections may trigger selective reassessment.¶

5.766. 3.C.4.18. Evidence and State Repository

Retains source-qualified information needed to reproduce the reconstruction.¶

This repository need not be a protected execution-finality ledger.¶

5.767. 3.C.4.19. Optional Independent Effectuation Interface

Provides verified technical state information to an existing separately authorized session or resource-control system.¶

It does not itself issue a new quota or execution capability.¶

5.768. 3.C.5. Necessary Embodiment-Specific Technical Interpretations

The Group C common definitions remain applicable. The following descriptions are limited to this embodiment.¶

3.C.5.1. Session Operation Concurrency¶

A condition in which two or more session operations have overlapping possible processing or applicability intervals and their relative effective ordering is not fully established or is material to the resulting state.¶

3.C.5.2. Effective Session Revision¶

The source-qualified state of a session under the receiver's actual lifecycle semantics, including relevant duration, expiry, status, and resource correspondence.¶

It need not be represented by one globally monotonic integer.¶

3.C.5.3. Reservation Correspondence¶

The supported relationship between a reservation grant and the session, resource scope, usage population, and accounting epoch to which it applies.¶

3.C.5.4. Usage Report Correspondence¶

The association of a measurement report with the relevant source, reporting rule, session, resource, interval, quantity semantics, and accounting scope.¶

3.C.5.5. Reconciliation Epoch¶

An explicitly scoped interval or generation over which a set of reservation and usage records can be meaningfully reconciled.¶

The epoch may correspond to a session, reporting rule, charging period, or another sourcedefined boundary.¶

3.C.5.6. Outstanding Usage State¶

Usage or accounting information whose existence or amount may be established only partially because required reports, processing acknowledgements, or compatible measurements remain unavailable.¶

3.C.5.7. Reservation Residual¶

The portion of an established reservation that remains outstanding under the applicable reservation and accounting model.¶

It is not automatically equal to the original grant minus every observed traffic counter.¶

3.C.5.8. Reconciliation Revision¶

A versioned determination of session and usage state based upon the applicable operation, resource, and measurement evidence.¶

5.769. 3.C.6. Representative Data Structures

5.770. 3.C.6.1. Programmable Session Context

ProgrammableSessionContext:¶

api\_session\_id api\_provider\_namespace session\_generation api\_contract\_version client\_or\_consumer\_reference subscriber\_or\_device\_context flow\_descriptor\_reference qos\_profile\_reference requested\_duration granted\_duration started\_at scheduled\_expiry observed\_api\_status observed\_network\_status underlying\_resource\_references state\_revision source\_evidence unresolved\_conditions¶

An API session identifier is not automatically a PDU Session or PFCP session identifier.¶

5.771. 3.C.6.2. Concurrent Session Operation

SessionOperation:¶

operation\_id api\_session\_reference initiating\_consumer operation\_type original\_request\_parameters request\_correlation\_reference idempotency\_contract\_reference¶

request\_submission\_interval receiver\_processing\_reference expected\_state\_version\_if\_supported observed\_previous\_state receiver\_response granted\_result\_if\_known observed\_effective\_state operation\_verdict unresolved\_conditions¶

5.772. 3.C.6.3. Operation Conflict Record

OperationConflict:¶

conflict\_id first\_operation\_id second\_operation\_id shared\_session\_or\_resource\_scope known\_order\_constraints possible\_effective\_orders overlapping\_preconditions receiver\_conflict\_semantics established\_conflict possible\_resulting\_states missing\_evidence¶

5.773. 3.C.6.4. Resource Allocation Record

SessionResourceAllocation:¶

allocation\_id resource\_pool\_id resource\_generation associated\_session\_references allocation\_type quantity\_and\_units requested\_state granted\_state installed\_resource\_state observed\_resource\_use release\_state allocation\_epoch source\_evidence¶

5.774. 3.C.6.5. Reservation State Record

ReservationRecord:¶

reservation\_id accounting\_or\_resource\_scope associated\_session\_references grant\_source grant\_generation¶

quantity units initial\_grant adjustment\_semantics currently\_reserved\_quantity consumption\_correspondence release\_or\_expiry\_status source\_revision unknown\_outcomes¶

5.775. 3.C.6.6. Usage Measurement Record

UsageMeasurement:¶

report\_id source\_function source\_generation pfcp\_session\_or\_network\_reference reporting\_rule\_reference measurement\_population associated\_api\_session\_if\_supported resource\_or\_flow\_reference measurement\_type value units counter\_or\_delta\_semantics measurement\_interval event\_time\_context delivery\_time counter\_generation trigger\_type original\_report\_reference correction\_or\_supersession\_reference evidence\_quality¶

5.776. 3.C.6.7. Usage Reconciliation State

UsageReconciliationState:¶

reconciliation\_scope accounting\_epoch valid\_reservation\_records established\_usage\_increments established\_cumulative\_positions overlapping\_measurement\_records duplicate\_or\_superseded\_reports incomplete\_measurement\_intervals unknown\_counter\_generations released\_reservations accounted\_consumption residual\_reservation\_if\_determinable contradictions¶

reconciliation\_verdict¶

5.777. 3.C.6.8. Session and Quota Reconstruction Result

SessionQuotaReconstruction:¶

reconstruction\_id logical\_session\_reference session\_status\_and\_revision concurrent\_operation\_set established\_operation\_outcomes potentially\_applied\_operations effective\_duration\_or\_possible\_durations resource\_allocation\_correspondence reservation\_state measured\_usage\_state accounting\_state outstanding\_resource\_cleanup unresolved\_evidence provenance\_references reconstruction\_revision¶

5.778. 3.C.7. Detailed Operational Procedure

The following 44 stages elaborate the Group C common workflow for concurrent programmable-session operations and usage reconciliation.¶

5.779. 3.C-01 - Identify the Session

The processor obtains the application-facing or operator-facing session reference and resolves its namespace, generation, client scope, and applicable API contract.¶

Output: Qualified session identity.¶

5.780. 3.C-02 - Resolve Underlying Resource Correspondence

The system obtains supported mappings to network flow, QoS, policy, or resource contexts.¶

It records absent or unknown mappings.¶

Output: Session resource references.¶

5.781. 3.C-03 - Establish the Initial Effective Session State

The processor obtains the applicable status, duration, expiry, and service parameters.¶

The resulting state is qualified by source and revision.¶

Output: Initial session reconstruction.¶

5.782. 3.C-04 - Identify Relevant Reservation and Accounting Scopes

The system determines whether resource reservations or usage grants are associated with the session.¶

It distinguishes their units, accounting epochs, and resource scope.¶

Output: Resource and accounting context.¶

5.783. 3.C-05 - Acquire the Concurrent Operation Set

The processor obtains the relevant create, extend, modify, delete, expiry, and termination events.¶

Output: Operation collection.¶

5.784. 3.C-06 - Qualify Original Request Identity

Each operation is associated with its original request, parameters, issuer, target, and receiver contract.¶

Output: Qualified operation identity.¶

5.785. 3.C-07 - Identify Retries and Duplicate Deliveries

The processor determines whether repeated observations describe one submitted operation, a receiver-supported retry, or independent requests.¶

Output: Duplicate/retry classification.¶

5.786. 3.C-08 - Identify Possible Operation Overlap

The processor evaluates submission intervals, receiver processing evidence, and state dependencies.¶

Output: Concurrent operation relationships.¶

5.787. 3.C-09 - Establish Supported Ordering Constraints

The system reconstructs known request, acceptance, application, and state-revision orderings.¶

Where the records do not establish an order, multiple possibilities remain.¶

Output: Partial operation order.¶

5.788. 3.C-10 - Determine the Applicable API Semantics

The processor identifies duration limits, allowable session status, modification rules, deletion semantics, and error behavior.¶

Output: Operation contract.¶

5.789. 3.C-11 - Evaluate Extension Starting-State Conditions

For each extension, the processor determines whether the required prior session status can be established.¶

Output: Extension applicability.¶

5.790. 3.C-12 - Evaluate Duration Computation

The processor distinguishes requested additional duration, actual granted overall duration, and profile-specific caps.¶

It uses the receiver's defined semantics.¶

Output: Duration candidate result.¶

5.791. 3.C-13 - Evaluate Session Expiry Interaction

The processor determines whether the session expired before, during, or after relevant operation processing.¶

Output: Expiry correspondence.¶

5.792. 3.C-14 - Evaluate Deletion or Termination Interaction

The system determines whether an extension, modification, or reservation operation overlaps a client deletion or network-initiated termination.¶

Output: Lifecycle conflict assessment.¶

5.793. 3.C-15 - Identify Receiver Responses

The processor obtains success, conflict, rejection, or other supported response information.¶

A local timeout remains distinct from remote rejection.¶

Output: Receiver lifecycle evidence.¶

5.794. 3.C-16 - Reconcile Unknown Remote Operation Outcomes

Where response or application information is incomplete, the processor uses supported status retrieval and state observations.¶

Output: Qualified operation outcomes.¶

5.795. 3.C-17 - Reconstruct Possible Effective Session Revisions

The system determines the session states compatible with established operations and unknown outcomes.¶

Output: Session-state envelope.¶

5.796. 3.C-18 - Identify Session-to-Resource Dependencies

The processor obtains which resources or pools support the relevant session state.¶

Output: Resource dependency model.¶

5.797. 3.C-19 - Identify Shared Resources

The system determines whether several sessions or flows reference the same allocatable resource.¶

Output: Shared-resource relationships.¶

5.798. 3.C-20 - Retrieve Reservation Grants

The processor obtains available reservation and quota-grant records from existing controlling functions.¶

Output: Grant collection.¶

5.799. 3.C-21 - Qualify Grant Semantics

The processor distinguishes initial grants, additional grants, replacement grants, renewals, and adjustments.¶

Output: Reservation transition model.¶

5.800. 3.C-22 - Identify Reporting Thresholds Separately

The system distinguishes quota amounts from thresholds used to trigger usage reports.¶

Output: Threshold/quota classification.¶

5.801. 3.C-23 - Associate Reservations with Session and Resource Scope

The processor checks which reservations apply to which sessions, flows, services, or accounting epochs.¶

Output: Reservation correspondence.¶

5.802. 3.C-24 - Retrieve Resource Application Evidence

The processor obtains relevant installed or observed network-resource state.¶

It separates reservation acceptance from resource application.¶

Output: Resource effect assessment.¶

5.803. 3.C-25 - Acquire Usage Reports

The processor collects usage records from applicable network or charging sources.¶

Output: Source-qualified usage collection.¶

5.804. 3.C-26 - Identify Measurement Types and Units

Each record is classified as cumulative, incremental, time-based, volume-based, event-based, or another supported measurement type.¶

Output: Measurement semantics.¶

5.805. 3.C-27 - Identify Report Duplicates and Corrections

The processor relates retransmissions and correction records to their original reports.¶

Output: Report lineage assessment.¶

5.806. 3.C-28 - Reconcile Counter Generations

The system identifies compatible counter sequences, resets, wrap behavior, and reporting-rule changes.¶

Output: Counter correspondence.¶

5.807. 3.C-29 - Reconcile Usage Time Windows

The processor determines which intervals are covered, overlapping, or missing.¶

Output: Temporal coverage model.¶

5.808. 3.C-30 - Reconcile Resource Relocation Effects

Where a session's traffic moved between resources, the processor associates the corresponding source measurements without assuming continuous numeric counters.¶

Output: Multi-resource usage context.¶

5.809. 3.C-31 - Derive Supported Usage Increments

The processor calculates increments only from compatible, nonduplicated measurements under the selected reporting semantics.¶

Output: Established usage quantities.¶

5.810. 3.C-32 - Distinguish Consumed and Reserved Quantities

The system applies the actual grant and reservation accounting model.¶

It does not double count quantities representing the same underlying resource allowance.¶

Output: Reservation/consumption correspondence.¶

5.811. 3.C-33 - Evaluate Residual Reservations

The processor identifies reservations established as outstanding, released, expired, or unresolved.¶

Output: Residual reservation assessment.¶

5.812. 3.C-34 - Evaluate Shared-Resource Accounting

Where multiple sessions share a resource, the processor determines whether the available records support a session-specific partition or only a pool-level total.¶

Output: Attribution scope.¶

5.813. 3.C-35 - Reconcile Session Closure with Resources

The system checks session expiry, deletion, or network termination against relevant resourcerelease status.¶

Output: Session/resource closure assessment.¶

5.814. 3.C-36 - Reconcile Late Usage Reports

Usage reported after session closure is associated with its underlying measurement interval and valid session generation.¶

Output: Late-report correspondence.¶

5.815. 3.C-37 - Identify Outstanding Accounting Records

The processor determines which required usage, reservation, or charging records remain pending.¶

Output: Accounting completeness assessment.¶

5.816. 3.C-38 - Evaluate Mandatory State Constraints

The processor checks session, resource, reservation, and usage consistency requirements under the selected model.¶

Output: Consistency findings.¶

5.817. 3.C-39 - Classify the Reconstruction

The system identifies established, incompatible, or unresolved state relationships.¶

It does not collapse every dimension into one status.¶

Output: Multidimensional reconstruction verdict.¶

5.818. 3.C-40 - Determine Additional Evidence Requirements

The processor identifies state queries, operation receipts, source report generations, or measurement records needed to resolve material uncertainty.¶

Output: Missing-evidence requirements.¶

5.819. 3.C-41 - Process Material Late or Corrected Evidence

The system updates affected session, reservation, and usage assessments.¶

It does not rewrite historical facts without preserving their original interpretation.¶

Output: Revised evidence set.¶

5.820. 3.C-42 - Recalculate Dependent State Only

Where dependency coverage is adequate, the processor reevaluates the affected calculations and state relationships.¶

Otherwise, it performs broader reconstruction.¶

Output: Revised reconciliation state.¶

5.821. 3.C-43 - Preserve the Reconstructible History

The processor stores original operations, receiver evidence, duration revisions, allocation mappings, reservation adjustments, source-qualified usage reports, and unresolved conditions.¶

Output: Versioned reconstruction history.¶

5.822. 3.C-44 - Produce the Session and Usage Correspondence Result

The system reports the effective or possible session state, operation outcomes, resource allocations, reservations, measured usage, and outstanding cleanup or accounting conditions.¶

The result does not independently grant resource usage or authorize subsequent network operations.¶

Output: C-V3 session-usage reconstruction.¶

5.823. 3.C.8. Technical Invariants

C3-I01 - A submitted extension is not necessarily an applied extension.¶

C3-I02 - Two submitted extension amounts are not automatically additive.¶

5.824. C3-I03 - A granted overall duration may differ from the requested additional duration.

5.825. C3-I04 - An applicable profile maximum must be interpreted under the receiver's actual contract.

C3-I05 - A session's expiry can conflict with a pending extension.¶

C3-I06 - Extension eligibility is determined by the relevant session status and API semantics.¶

C3-I07 - Deletion and extension may be concurrent or differently ordered at receiver and gateway.¶

C3-I08 - Gateway arrival order does not necessarily establish applied-state order.¶

5.826. C3-I09 - A request correlation identifier is not automatically an idempotency guarantee.

C3-I10 - A timeout does not establish remote nonapplication.¶

C3-I11 - Identical requests do not necessarily have identical outcomes.¶

C3-I12 - A current session value does not necessarily identify the operation that caused it.¶

C3-I13 - An API-facing QoS session is not automatically a PDU Session.¶

C3-I14 - A PFCP session identifier is not automatically an application-facing session identifier.¶

C3-I15 - A flow identifier must be interpreted within its relevant time and resource context.¶

C3-I16 - A resource allocation is not automatically actual usage.¶

C3-I17 - A reservation grant is not proof that the resource was installed.¶

5.827. C3-I18 - A provisioned resource is not proof that its entire reserved amount was consumed.

C3-I19 - A reporting threshold is distinct from a usage quota.¶

C3-I20 - A quota threshold event does not automatically establish complete session release.¶

5.828. C3-I21 - Reservation and consumption may overlap according to their accounting semantics.

C3-I22 - Different units cannot be combined without a valid transformation.¶

C3-I23 - Different accounting or rating scopes cannot automatically be aggregated.¶

C3-I24 - A duplicate usage report is not new usage.¶

C3-I25 - A correction report is not necessarily an additional increment.¶

C3-I26 - A cumulative report is not automatically an interval delta.¶

C3-I27 - Cumulative subtraction requires compatible source and counter generations.¶

C3-I28 - Counter reset and rollover must be handled under their actual contracts.¶

C3-I29 - Matching report values do not automatically establish duplicate identity.¶

5.829. C3-I30 - Overlapping measurement intervals do not automatically represent independent usage.

C3-I31 - Two user-plane resources may measure different portions of one session.¶

C3-I32 - Resource relocation does not guarantee numeric counter continuity.¶

C3-I33 - A shared resource's total usage is not automatically attributable to one API session.¶

C3-I34 - Resource-pool correspondence does not itself establish a valid accounting partition.¶

C3-I35 - Report arrival time is not necessarily measurement occurrence time.¶

C3-I36 - A late report does not automatically indicate that a deleted session continued operating.¶

C3-I37 - Session unavailability is not necessarily completed resource cleanup.¶

C3-I38 - A session expiry is not automatically final charging settlement.¶

C3-I39 - Residual reservations can remain after a session is unavailable.¶

C3-I40 - Resource cleanup and usage-record completeness are separate.¶

C3-I41 - A missing usage report does not establish zero consumption.¶

C3-I42 - Missing accounting evidence is not automatically a quota violation.¶

C3-I43 - An established quota-related condition does not prove that an enforcement consequence was applied.¶

C3-I44 - An authentic report can be incomplete, stale, or semantically incompatible.¶

5.830. C3-I45 - Source-scoped revisions must not be globally ordered without supporting evidence.

5.831. C3-I46 - Multiple possible resulting states must be preserved where a material operation outcome is unknown.

5.832. C3-I47 - A mandatory false condition establishes inconsistency even when other conditions are unresolved.

C3-I48 - A bounded reconciliation timeout does not prove no consistent state exists.¶

C3-I49 - The ability to reconstruct remaining reserved quantity is not authority to grant or consume that quantity.¶

C3-I50 - Technical reconciliation does not replace protected execution-finality or existing charging control.¶

C3-I51 - A corrected historical record may require recalculation without retroactively changing past physical effects.¶

C3-I52 - No reconciliation claim exceeds the source, API, resource, and accounting guarantees actually available.¶

5.833. 3.C.9. Embodiment-Specific Mathematical Formulation

The following expressions are illustrative and supplement C-CW-01.¶

5.834. 3.C.9.1. Session State Representation

Let a programmable session be represented by:¶

[ S=(i,g,z,d,e,p,r) ]¶

where:¶

| x | (i): logical session identity; | |---|---| | x | (g): session generation or qualified revision; | | x | (z): lifecycle status; | | x | (d): granted duration; |¶

| x | (e): scheduled expiry; | |---|---| | x | (p): applicable service profile; | | x | (r): associated resource state. |¶

The values need not come from one atomic source.¶

5.835. 3.C.9.2. Concurrent Operations

Let:¶

[ O={o\_1,o\_2,\\ldots,o\_n} ]¶

be the relevant session operations.¶

The supported ordering is a partial order:¶

[ \\prec;\\subseteq O\\times O. ]¶

If neither (o\_i\\prec o\_j) nor (o\_j\\prec o\_i) is established, the processor retains possible orderings where their difference is material.¶

5.836. 3.C.9.3. Extension under a Defined Duration Model

For a receiver whose extension semantics add requested duration (\\delta) to the existing overall duration (d), subject to maximum (D\_{\\max}), a simplified candidate is:¶

[ d'=\\min(d+\\delta,D\_{\\max}). ]¶

This applies only if the receiver's required eligibility and state conditions are satisfied.¶

It describes a granted overall duration, not a new session lasting (d') seconds from the extension request time.¶

The actual returned duration, startedAt, and expiresAt have the meanings defined by the applicable API version.¶

5.837. 3.C.9.4. Noncommutative Session Operations

Let (f\_{\\mathrm{extend}}) represent a permitted extension and (f\_{\\mathrm{delete}}) represent deletion.¶

In general:¶

[ f\_{\\mathrm{delete}} \\circ f\_{\\mathrm{extend}}(S) ]¶

need not have the same operational history or intermediate effects as:¶

[ f\_{\\mathrm{extend}} \\circ f\_{\\mathrm{delete}}(S). ]¶

In the second sequence, extension may be invalid if deletion has already made the session ineligible.¶

Therefore, unordered requests cannot be assumed to commute.¶

5.838. 3.C.9.5. Possible Resulting Session States

For evidence (E) and the applicable operation model (M), define:¶

[ \\mathcal S(E,M)= {S''\\text{ is compatible with established operation and state evidence}}. ]¶

This set may contain several possible durations, expiry times, or status values.¶

A singleton result requires sufficient evidence to eliminate the alternatives under the model.¶

5.839. 3.C.9.6. Reservation and Consumption

Let:¶

| x | (G): granted quota under one accounting scope; | |---|---| | x | (C): usage established as consumed against that grant; | | x | (R): remaining available grant under that accounting model. |¶

For a simple nonoverlapping grant ledger:¶

[ R=G-C. ]¶

The expression is valid only where the ledger defines those quantities compatibly and there are no unresolved replacements, reservations, corrections, or overlapping grant scopes.¶

A more general state may be represented by:¶

[ R=\\operatorname{Reconcile}(G,C,A,L,M), ]¶

where (A) denotes adjustments, (L) denotes releases, and (M) denotes the accounting contract.¶

5.840. 3.C.9.7. Independent Reservation Scope

For session (s), resource pool (p), and accounting epoch (k), write:¶

[ R\_{s,p,k}. ]¶

Quantities from different (p) or (k) are not automatically interchangeable.¶

5.841. 3.C.9.8. Cumulative Counter Derivation

For compatible counter values (c\_1,c\_2) within the same counter generation:¶

[ \\Delta c=c\_2-c\_1. ]¶

A source reset, rollover, or measurement-rule change may invalidate the subtraction.¶

5.842. 3.C.9.9. Incremental Usage Aggregation

If usage increments (u\_i) describe mutually nonoverlapping partitions of the relevant traffic population:¶

[ U=\\sum\_i u\_i. ]¶

The nonoverlap and compatible-scope assumptions are essential.¶

Repeated or derived reports must not be added again.¶

5.843. 3.C.9.10. Measurement Coverage

Let (I\_s) be the interval for which usage must be reconciled, and let (I\_i) be the valid interval covered by report (i).¶

A complete interval-based reconstruction may require:¶

[ I\_s\\subseteq\\bigcup\_i I\_i ]¶

together with an adequate nonduplication or partition rule.¶

Temporal union alone is insufficient where reports measure incompatible traffic populations.¶

5.844. 3.C.9.11. Shared-Resource Attribution

Let (U\_p) be measured usage for a shared resource pool (p), and (u\_s) the usage attributable to session (s).¶

Without a complete supported partition:¶

[ \\sum\_{s\\in S\_p}u\_s=U\_p ]¶

cannot automatically be asserted.¶

Some traffic may be unassigned, multiply classified, or outside the relevant accounting population.¶

5.845. 3.C.9.12. Extension-State Applicability

For candidate extension (o), define:¶

[ F(o,S)= C\_{\\mathrm{identity}} \\land C\_{\\mathrm{status}} \\land C\_{\\mathrm{duration}} \\land C\_{\\mathrm{receiver}} ]¶

under the applicable API contract.¶

Each predicate is evaluated in three-valued logic.¶

This is a technical feasibility predicate, not a quota authorization or permission-to-act predicate.¶

5.846. 3.C.9.13. Reconciliation Constraints

A reconstruction may be considered established under a selected scope only where the required operation, session, resource, and accounting predicates are adequately supported:¶

C\_{\\mathrm{operation}} \\land C\_{\\mathrm{session}} \\land C\_{\\mathrm{resource}} \\land C\_{\\mathrm{usage}}. ]¶

A narrower objective may include only a subset.¶

For example, establishing the API session's expiry does not require proving final billed charges.¶

5.847. 3.C.9.14. Corrections and Revisions

Let a usage reconstruction at revision (v) be (U^{(v)}).¶

After new or corrected evidence (\\Delta E):¶

\\operatorname{Reconcile}(U^{(v)},\\Delta E,M). ]¶

The operator Reconcile must account for replacement, duplicate, incremental, and cumulative semantics.¶

It is not necessarily ordinary addition.¶

5.848. 3.C.9.15. Worked Duration Example

Assume a session began at 12:00 with an overall duration of 3,600 seconds and a profile maximum of 7,200 seconds.¶

An eligible extension requests 5,000 additional seconds.¶

Under the illustrative capped-addition contract:¶

[ d'=\\min(3600+5000,7200)=7200. ]¶

If that result is granted, the scheduled expiry becomes 14:00, based on the original 12:00 start.¶

It does not become 14:00 plus another 7,200 seconds.¶

5.849. 3.C.9.16. Worked Counter Example

A compatible cumulative counter reports 420 MB and later 570 MB.¶

The corresponding measured increment is:¶

[ 570-420=150\\ \\mathrm{MB}. ]¶

If the 420 MB report is retransmitted, it contributes no additional usage.¶

If the second report belongs to a restarted counter generation, the subtraction is not valid without further information.¶

5.850. 3.C.10. Implementable Pseudocode - C-ALG-04

5.851. 3.C.10.1. Core Types

ENUM Verdict:¶

COMPATIBLE INCOMPATIBLE UNRESOLVED¶

ENUM OperationKind:¶

CREATE EXTEND MODIFY DELETE EXPIRE NETWORK\_TERMINATE¶

ENUM OperationOutcome:¶

APPLIED\_ESTABLISHED REJECTED\_ESTABLISHED PARTIALLY\_APPLIED ACCEPTED\_EFFECT\_UNKNOWN OUTCOME\_UNKNOWN¶

ENUM UsageSemantics:¶

CUMULATIVE INTERVAL\_INCREMENT EVENT\_COUNT TIME\_MEASUREMENT REPLACEMENT\_CORRECTION UNKNOWN\_SEMANTICS¶

TYPE Reconstruction:¶

session\_identity effective\_session\_state concurrent\_operations operation\_results resource\_correspondence reservation\_state usage\_state residual\_cleanup unresolved\_conditions¶

5.852. 3.C.10.2. Establish Session Context

FUNCTION LOAD\_PROGRAMMABLE\_SESSION\_CONTEXT(¶

session\_reference, api\_source, resource\_registry ):¶

api\_state = api\_source.GET\_SUPPORTED\_SESSION\_STATE(¶

session\_reference )¶

identity = QUALIFY\_SESSION\_IDENTITY(¶

session\_reference, api\_state )¶

resources = resource\_registry.RESOLVE\_ASSOCIATIONS(¶

identity )¶

RETURN BUILD\_QUALIFIED\_CONTEXT(¶

identity, api\_state, resources )¶

5.853. 3.C.10.3. Collect Concurrent Operations

FUNCTION COLLECT\_SESSION\_OPERATIONS(¶

session\_context, request\_history, receiver\_history ):¶

requests = request\_history.FIND\_RELEVANT(¶

session\_context )¶

operations = []¶

FOR EACH request IN requests:¶

receiver = FIND\_RECEIVER\_EVIDENCE(¶

request, receiver\_history )¶

identity = CLASSIFY\_RETRY\_AND\_DUPLICATE(¶

request, receiver )¶

ADD BUILD\_OPERATION\_RECORD(¶

request, identity, receiver ) TO operations¶

RETURN BUILD\_SUPPORTED\_PARTIAL\_ORDER(¶

operations )¶

5.854. 3.C.10.4. Evaluate Extension Semantics

FUNCTION EVALUATE\_EXTENSION(¶

session\_state, request, api\_contract ):¶

IF session\_state.status conclusively violates required extension status:¶

RETURN INCOMPATIBLE¶

IF required status is unknown:¶

RETURN UNRESOLVED¶

IF requested duration violates¶

the API input contract:¶

RETURN INCOMPATIBLE candidate = api\_contract.CALCULATE\_EXTENSION(¶

current\_duration = session\_state.duration, requested\_additional\_duration =¶

request.requested\_additional\_duration, profile\_maximum =¶

session\_state.profile\_maximum )¶

RETURN {¶

technical\_candidate: candidate, receiver\_application\_required: true, verdict: COMPATIBLE }¶

This calculates a candidate under a defined contract. It does not assert that the receiver granted it.¶

5.855. 3.C.10.5. Reconstruct Concurrent Effects

FUNCTION RECONSTRUCT\_OPERATION\_EFFECTS(¶

session\_context, operation\_partial\_order, receiver\_status, state\_observations ):¶

possible\_states =¶

INITIAL\_STATE\_ENVELOPE(session\_context)¶

FOR EACH supported operation ordering¶

RELEVANT\_TO\_FINAL\_STATE:¶

outcome = SIMULATE\_CONTRACT\_COMPATIBLE\_EFFECTS(¶

operation\_partial\_order, receiver\_status, state\_observations )¶

ADD outcome TO possible\_states¶

possible\_states = FILTER\_BY\_ESTABLISHED\_EVIDENCE(¶

possible\_states, receiver\_status, state\_observations )¶

IF possible\_states contradictory:¶

RETURN UNRESOLVED(¶

"CONFLICTING\_OPERATION\_OR\_STATE\_EVIDENCE" )¶

RETURN possible\_states¶

A practical implementation may use symbolic constraints rather than enumerating every ordering.¶

5.856. 3.C.10.6. Reconcile Resource Reservations

FUNCTION RECONCILE\_RESERVATIONS(¶

session\_context, reservation\_records, resource\_contracts ):¶

groups = GROUP\_BY\_COMPATIBLE\_SCOPE(¶

reservation\_records, keys = [¶

resource\_pool, accounting\_epoch,¶

quantity\_unit, reservation\_generation ] )¶

results = []¶

FOR EACH group IN groups:¶

contract = resource\_contracts.RESOLVE(group)¶

result = APPLY\_DOCUMENTED\_GRANT\_SEMANTICS(¶

group, contract )¶

ADD result TO results¶

RETURN results¶

A new grant is added, replaced, or otherwise processed only as specified by the actual contract.¶

5.857. 3.C.10.7. Qualify Usage Reports

FUNCTION QUALIFY\_USAGE\_REPORT(¶

report, reporting\_contract, session\_resource\_mapping ):¶

source = CHECK\_SOURCE\_AND\_GENERATION(report)¶

mapping = CHECK\_SESSION\_AND\_RESOURCE\_SCOPE(¶

report, session\_resource\_mapping )¶

semantics = INTERPRET\_REPORT\_MEANING(¶

report, reporting\_contract )¶

interval = CHECK\_MEASUREMENT\_INTERVAL(report)¶

lineage = CHECK\_DUPLICATE\_OR\_CORRECTION(¶

report )¶

RETURN COMBINE\_SOURCE\_QUALIFICATIONS(¶

source, mapping, semantics, interval, lineage )¶

5.858. 3.C.10.8. Derive Usage without Double Counting

FUNCTION DERIVE\_SUPPORTED\_USAGE(¶

qualified\_reports, accounting\_scope ):¶

reports = FILTER\_APPLICABLE\_REPORTS(¶

qualified\_reports, accounting\_scope )¶

REMOVE\_ESTABLISHED\_DUPLICATE\_CONTRIBUTIONS(¶

reports )¶

APPLY\_ESTABLISHED\_CORRECTIONS(¶

reports )¶

counter\_groups = GROUP\_BY\_COUNTER\_GENERATION(¶

reports )¶

increments = []¶

FOR EACH group IN counter\_groups:¶

IF group uses cumulative semantics:¶

ADD DERIVE\_VALID\_COUNTER\_DIFFERENCES(¶

group ) TO increments¶

ELSE IF group uses interval increments:¶

ADD NONOVERLAPPING\_VALID\_INCREMENTS(¶

group ) TO increments¶

ELSE:¶

MARK\_UNRESOLVED(group)¶

RETURN AGGREGATE\_ONLY\_COMPATIBLE\_PARTITIONS(¶

increments )¶

5.859. 3.C.10.9. Evaluate Shared-Resource Attribution

FUNCTION EVALUATE\_SHARED\_RESOURCE\_USAGE(¶

pool, session\_mappings, usage\_reports ):¶

partitions = RESOLVE\_SUPPORTED\_TRAFFIC\_PARTITIONS(¶

pool, session\_mappings )¶

IF partitions incomplete:¶

RETURN {¶

pool\_usage: RECONCILE\_POOL\_TOTAL(¶

usage\_reports ), per\_session\_usage: UNRESOLVED }¶

RETURN RECONCILE\_SESSION\_SPECIFIC\_USAGE(¶

partitions, usage\_reports )¶

5.860. 3.C.10.10. Reconcile Session Closure

FUNCTION RECONCILE\_SESSION\_CLOSURE(¶

session\_context, operation\_results, resource\_state, accounting\_state ):¶

logical = EVALUATE\_API\_SESSION\_TERMINATION(¶

session\_context, operation\_results )¶

cleanup = EVALUATE\_REQUIRED\_RESOURCE\_RELEASE(¶

resource\_state )¶

reservation = EVALUATE\_RESERVATION\_RELEASE(¶

resource\_state )¶

usage = EVALUATE\_REQUIRED\_USAGE\_COVERAGE(¶

accounting\_state )¶

RETURN {¶

logical\_termination: logical, resource\_cleanup: cleanup, reservation\_release: reservation, usage\_completion: usage }¶

5.861. 3.C.10.11. Recalculate after Late Corrections

FUNCTION PROCESS\_LATE\_USAGE\_OR\_OPERATION\_EVIDENCE(¶

new\_evidence, dependency\_index ):¶

affected = dependency\_index.FIND\_AFFECTED(¶

new\_evidence )¶

IF dependency coverage insufficient:¶

affected = EXPAND\_RECONCILIATION\_SCOPE()¶

FOR EACH state IN affected:¶

revised = RECONSTRUCT\_FROM\_QUALIFIED\_RECORDS(¶

state, new\_evidence )¶

STORE\_RECONCILIATION\_REVISION(¶

state, revised )¶

RETURN affected¶

5.862. 3.C.10.12. Complete Embodiment Algorithm

FUNCTION RECONSTRUCT\_CONCURRENT\_SESSION\_AND\_USAGE(¶

session\_reference ):¶

session = LOAD\_PROGRAMMABLE\_SESSION\_CONTEXT(¶

session\_reference, API\_PROVIDER(), RESOURCE\_REGISTRY() )¶

operations = COLLECT\_SESSION\_OPERATIONS(¶

session, REQUEST\_HISTORY(), RECEIVER\_HISTORY() )¶

session\_states = RECONSTRUCT\_OPERATION\_EFFECTS(¶

session, operations, RECEIVER\_STATUS(), SESSION\_STATE\_OBSERVATIONS() )¶

reservations = RECONCILE\_RESERVATIONS(¶

session, RESERVATION\_RECORDS(), RESOURCE\_CONTRACTS() )¶

reports = QUALIFY\_ALL\_USAGE\_REPORTS(¶

session, USAGE\_REPORT\_REPOSITORY() )¶

usage = DERIVE\_SUPPORTED\_USAGE(¶

reports, APPLICABLE\_ACCOUNTING\_SCOPE() )¶

shared\_usage = EVALUATE\_ALL\_SHARED\_RESOURCES(¶

session, usage )¶

closure = RECONCILE\_SESSION\_CLOSURE(¶

session, operations, RESOURCE\_STATE(), usage )¶

result = BUILD\_MULTIDIMENSIONAL\_RECONSTRUCTION(¶

session, session\_states, operations,¶

reservations, usage, shared\_usage, closure )¶

STORE\_VERSIONED\_RECONSTRUCTION(result)¶

RETURN result¶

No step in this algorithm independently issues a quota, authorizes increased consumption, or grants authority to execute a network operation.¶

5.863. 3.C.11. Worked Technical Examples

5.864. 3.C.11.1. Example 1 - Two Concurrent Extensions with a Maximum Duration

A QoS session has an effective duration of 3,600 seconds.¶

The profile maximum is 7,200 seconds.¶

Two independent clients submit extensions of 2,400 seconds each.¶

If the receiver processes both sequentially under a capped-addition model, the possible granted overall durations are 6,000 and then 7,200 seconds.¶

The final duration is not 8,400 seconds.¶

However, if the receiver rejects one request because of status, conflict, or another documented requirement, the final duration may differ.¶

The processor therefore uses actual operation outcomes and session state rather than summing requests.¶

5.865. 3.C.11.2. Example 2 - Extension and Deletion Race

A session is AVAILABLE.¶

Application A submits an extension.¶

Application B submits deletion.¶

The extension response is delayed.¶

The deletion completes.¶

The processor does not report the session currently available merely because the extension was once accepted.¶

The result reflects the supported order, actual current state, and any unresolved resource cleanup.¶

5.866. 3.C.11.3. Example 3 - Extension Request Near Expiry

A session is scheduled to expire at 12:00.¶

An application sends an extension at 11:59:59.¶

The receiver does not process it until after the session becomes unavailable.¶

The API contract prohibits extension in that state.¶

The processor classifies the attempted extension according to receiver processing and response semantics.¶

The application-side transmission before expiry does not establish a successful extension.¶

5.867. 3.C.11.4. Example 4 - Successful Extension with Lost Response

A duration extension is applied remotely.¶

The response is lost.¶

The client sees a timeout.¶

A later session query returns the updated granted duration and expiry.¶

The processor can establish the updated session state.¶

It does not necessarily establish the original operation's causal attribution unless the request or receiver history supports it.¶

5.868. 3.C.11.5. Example 5 - Duplicate Correlation Header

A client sends one request twice, using the same tracing header.¶

The provider does not document that header as an idempotency key.¶

The processor does not assume the second request was suppressed.¶

It reconciles the actual receiver records and final session state.¶

5.869. 3.C.11.6. Example 6 - Status REQUESTED versus AVAILABLE

A QoS session creation response reports REQUESTED.¶

A later notification reports AVAILABLE.¶

The processor distinguishes the requested service state from the subsequent networkavailability state.¶

If an extension operation requires AVAILABLE, the processor does not assume that the initial REQUESTED state satisfies that requirement.¶

5.870. 3.C.11.7. Example 7 - Network Termination with Residual Resources

A provider reports that the requested QoS session became UNAVAILABLE due to network termination.¶

The provider's defined cleanup behavior permits some resources or records to remain for a subsequent interval.¶

The processor reports service unavailability separately from final resource release.¶

It does not automatically classify the remaining resource as an unauthorized allocation.¶

5.871. 3.C.11.8. Example 8 - Reservation versus Consumption

A session is associated with an illustrative volume grant of 500 MB.¶

The network reports 180 MB of compatible measured consumption.¶

Under a defined grant accounting model:¶

[ 500-180=320\\ \\mathrm{MB}. ]¶

The remaining 320 MB is an accounting result, not a newly created permission to transmit.¶

The calculation also depends upon whether earlier or outstanding measurements exist.¶

5.872. 3.C.11.9. Example 9 - Cumulative Counter Reports

A compatible counter reports 200 MB, 350 MB, and 410 MB.¶

The increments between observations are 150 MB and 60 MB.¶

The cumulative reports must not be summed to obtain 960 MB of new usage.¶

The processor uses the correct counter semantics.¶

5.873. 3.C.11.10. Example 10 - Duplicate Usage Report

The network reports 150 MB for one identified measurement interval.¶

The report is retransmitted after a timeout.¶

The processor establishes that both deliveries describe the same source report.¶

It contributes the measured usage once.¶

5.874. 3.C.11.11. Example 11 - Correction Replaces Earlier Usage

An earlier report states 80 MB for one interval.¶

A later source correction states 75 MB for the same interval and explicitly supersedes the earlier report.¶

The corrected interval contributes 75 MB, not 155 MB.¶

The processor retains the revision history.¶

5.875. 3.C.11.12. Example 12 - Counter Reset after UPF Restart

A counter reports 900 MB.¶

The UPF restarts.¶

The next counter reports 40 MB in a new source generation.¶

The processor does not calculate negative 860 MB.¶

It seeks sufficient interval or generation evidence to reconstruct the relevant usage.¶

5.876. 3.C.11.13. Example 13 - Shared Resource, Unknown Session Partition

Two API sessions use a resource pool.¶

A pool-level counter reports 1,000 MB.¶

No compatible flow-specific counters are available.¶

The processor can establish the pool-level usage under the source contract.¶

It cannot automatically assign 500 MB to each session.¶

Per-session attribution remains unresolved.¶

5.877. 3.C.11.14. Example 14 - Shared Resource with Known Partition

Two sessions use a shared resource.¶

The reporting rules adequately identify distinct nonoverlapping traffic populations.¶

One reports 400 MB, the other 600 MB.¶

The processor may reconcile both session values with the 1,000 MB pool total if the source measurement semantics support that equality.¶

The comparison is a consistency check, not proof that every unmeasured traffic category is absent.¶

5.878. 3.C.11.15. Example 15 - PFCP Threshold and Quota

A reporting rule contains a volume threshold and a separate volume quota.¶

The threshold is reached and a usage report is emitted.¶

The processor does not classify the event as quota exhaustion solely from threshold crossing.¶

It evaluates the actual quota and reporting trigger conditions.¶

5.879. 3.C.11.16. Example 16 - Session Relocation with Two Reporting Functions

A session's traffic moves from UPF-A to UPF-B.¶

UPF-A reports traffic for the earlier interval.¶

UPF-B reports traffic for the later interval.¶

The processor associates both with the applicable session and avoids assuming continuous numerical counters.¶

It checks for possible traffic overlap or gaps around relocation.¶

5.880. 3.C.11.17. Example 17 - Deleted Session with Late Report

A QoS session is deleted at 14:00.¶

A usage report arrives at 14:05 and describes traffic measured from 13:55 to 14:00.¶

The processor does not infer continued session operation until 14:05.¶

It uses measurement time and session correspondence.¶

5.881. 3.C.11.18. Example 18 - Reservation Released with Usage Pending

A resource reservation is released.¶

A final usage record is pending.¶

The processor may report:¶

| api_session_state | = UNAVAILABLE | |---|---| | resource_state | = RELEASED | | reservation_state | = RELEASED |¶

measured\_usage = PARTIAL final\_accounting = UNRESOLVED¶

These state dimensions are not inherently contradictory.¶

5.882. 3.C.11.19. Example 19 - Different Measurement Units

A time quota is expressed in seconds.¶

A usage report describes traffic in megabytes.¶

The processor cannot subtract the megabyte value from the time quota without a defined conversion model, which generally would not represent the same quantity.¶

It retains separate accounting dimensions.¶

5.883. 3.C.11.20. Example 20 - Concurrent Session Update and Subscriber Change

A session extension is pending when the applicable subscriber service condition changes.¶

The processor identifies the relevant state revisions and receiver processing context.¶

It does not assume that the earlier extension request remains technically applicable under the changed conditions.¶

It also does not infer that the extension was rejected without evidence.¶

5.884. 3.C.11.21. Example 21 - Pool Reservation and Independent Allocation

Two sessions request resources from the same pool.¶

One request is granted.¶

The other remains pending.¶

The processor distinguishes established reserved quantities from requested quantities.¶

It cannot treat the pending request as a completed reservation merely because the pool had sufficient capacity when both requests were first submitted.¶

5.885. 3.C.11.22. Example 22 - Resource Cleanup after Network Termination

A QoS session becomes unavailable.¶

The API provider retains the resource for a documented status-observation or cleanup interval.¶

A new request for the same device and flow may encounter a session conflict until the old resource is removed.¶

The processor distinguishes a conflict with a residual resource from a claim that the previous QoS remains available.¶

5.886. 3.C.12. Specific Design-Around Alternatives and Implementation Pathways

The following 36 alternatives provide technically different implementations. Their applicability depends upon the actual API, resource, and reporting contracts.¶

5.887. C-3-DA-01 - Centralized Session Reconciliation Mechanism: One service receives session, reservation, and usage records.

Implementation: It reconstructs state from source-qualified histories.¶

Limitation: Centralization does not guarantee complete source coverage.¶

Failure behavior: Missing remote outcomes remain unresolved.¶

Test: Drop a network update response while preserving the later state record.¶

5.888. C-3-DA-02 - Federated Source-Local Reconciliation Mechanism: API provider, resource manager, and accounting functions each reconstruct

their local state.¶

Implementation: A coordinator compares qualified results.¶

Limitation: Detailed internal records may be hidden.¶

Failure behavior: Unexposed correspondence remains unresolved.¶

Test: Supply resource-level totals without session-specific flow information.¶

5.889. C-3-DA-03 - Event-Sourced Session Operation Reconstruction

Mechanism: Every relevant request and lifecycle event is retained in a replayable event¶

history.¶

Implementation: The processor applies source-qualified order constraints.¶

Limitation: Event-history gaps can prevent unique state reconstruction.¶

Failure behavior: Missing event outcomes remain possible states.¶

Test: Omit one extension result from the event history.¶

5.890. C-3-DA-04 - Snapshot-and-Delta Reconstruction

Mechanism: A recorded session state is updated using later qualified deltas.¶

Implementation: The processor checks revisions and missing update ranges.¶

Limitation: A stale snapshot may omit a prior extension.¶

Failure behavior: Version mismatch triggers reconstruction.¶

Test: Recover a session from a snapshot missing the latest duration revision.¶

5.891. C-3-DA-05 - Database Transaction-Based Session Serialization

Mechanism: An internal session store serializes supported updates.¶

Implementation: The processor uses transaction results and revision records.¶

Limitation: Database serializability does not guarantee network resource effects.¶

Failure behavior: Downstream resource state remains separately evaluated.¶

Test: Commit an API duration update while delaying the network change.¶

5.892. C-3-DA-06 - Receiver-Native Conditional Update

Mechanism: A session receiver supports conditional revision-based operations.¶

Implementation: The request is processed only when the expected state matches.¶

Limitation: The condition may cover only one resource.¶

Failure behavior: Revision mismatch causes reassessment.¶

Test: Change the session state immediately before a conditional update.¶

5.893. C-3-DA-07 - Optimistic Concurrency Reconstruction

Mechanism: The system retains versions read and used by competing requesters.¶

Implementation: It identifies whether a request relied on an obsolete session revision.¶

Limitation: The actual receiver must provide adequate version information.¶

Failure behavior: Unknown versions remain unresolved.¶

Test: Submit two extensions based on the same earlier state.¶

5.894. C-3-DA-08 - Partial-Order Operation Modeling

Mechanism: Concurrent operations are represented by supported order constraints.¶

Implementation: The processor evaluates distinct effective sequences where relevant.¶

Limitation: The possible-order space may grow rapidly.¶

Failure behavior: Bounded search exhaustion produces unresolved output.¶

Test: Reorder extension, deletion, and expiration events.¶

5.895. C-3-DA-09 - Symbolic State-Envelope Reconstruction Mechanism: Unknown operation outcomes are encoded as constraints.

Implementation: A solver determines compatible resulting session states.¶

Limitation: Model completeness limits correctness.¶

Failure behavior: Solver unknown is not infeasibility.¶

Test: Analyze a lost response with two possible final expiry times.¶

5.896. C-3-DA-10 - API-Contract-Specific Duration Interpreter Mechanism: A versioned API adapter interprets extension semantics.

Implementation: It evaluates status eligibility, granted duration, and maximum profile¶

duration.¶

Limitation: Rules may differ by API version and provider implementation.¶

Failure behavior: Unsupported generic arithmetic is avoided.¶

Test: Request an extension beyond the defined maximum.¶

5.897. C-3-DA-11 - Expiry-Aware Session Reconciliation Mechanism: The processor associates operations with the session's effective expiry state.

Implementation: It evaluates whether processing occurred before the session became¶

ineligible.¶

Limitation: Exact processing time may be unavailable.¶

Failure behavior: Outcome uncertainty remains.¶

Test: Send an extension immediately before expiration.¶

5.898. C-3-DA-12 - Delete-versus-Extend Conflict Reconstruction

Mechanism: Session deletion and extension are evaluated as potentially noncommutative¶

operations.¶

Implementation: The processor reconstructs known or possible application orders.¶

Limitation: Some receiver outcomes may remain unavailable.¶

Failure behavior: A former extension success does not override later established deletion.¶

Test: Race an extension with a delete operation.¶

5.899. C-3-DA-13 - Native Session Query Reconciliation Mechanism: The processor retrieves the current API session state.

Implementation: It compares the returned duration, expiry, and status with previous¶

requests.¶

Limitation: A current read may not establish historical causal attribution.¶

Failure behavior: Request attribution remains qualified.¶

Test: Obtain a new expiry without a corresponding request receipt.¶

5.900. C-3-DA-14 - Provider Notification and Polling Combination Mechanism: Status events are reconciled with session retrieval.

Implementation: Notifications establish supported transitions and polling supplies current¶

state.¶

Limitation: Both may have reporting gaps or shared source dependencies.¶

Failure behavior: Inconsistent reports remain explicit.¶

Test: Deliver a delayed UNAVAILABLE notification after a newer query.¶

5.901. C-3-DA-15 - Session-Generation-Aware Resource Mapping

Mechanism: API session identity is distinguished from resource instance identity.¶

Implementation: The processor maintains mappings with effective intervals and generations.¶

Limitation: Some providers may expose no internal resource references.¶

Failure behavior: Missing mappings are not invented.¶

Test: Reuse an IP address for a different session.¶

5.902. C-3-DA-16 - Shared Resource-Pool Reconciliation

Mechanism: Several sessions are associated with one allocation pool.¶

Implementation: Pool and per-session states are represented separately.¶

Limitation: Pool measurements may not support session attribution.¶

Failure behavior: Per-session usage remains unresolved without adequate partition¶

evidence.¶

Test: Provide one pool counter and several sessions.¶

5.903. C-3-DA-17 - Reservation Ledger Reconstruction Mechanism: Existing reservation grant and release records are reconciled.

Implementation: The processor applies the actual grant adjustment semantics.¶

Limitation: A reservation ledger may not reflect actual traffic consumption.¶

Failure behavior: Usage remains a separate dimension.¶

Test: Grant 500 units and consume only 180.¶

5.904. C-3-DA-18 - Replacement-versus-Additive Grant Interpretation

Mechanism: Each grant is classified according to whether it replaces or supplements earlier¶

state.¶

Implementation: Source-defined grant generation and adjustment rules determine the¶

resulting quantity.¶

Limitation: Missing adjustment semantics can prevent reconciliation.¶

Failure behavior: No arbitrary addition occurs.¶

Test: Supply a replacement grant and verify that it does not double the allowance.¶

5.905. C-3-DA-19 - PFCP Usage Reporting Rule Mapping

Mechanism: Usage reports are associated with appropriate reporting-rule references.¶

Implementation: The processor interprets measured quantity, trigger, and rule scope.¶

Limitation: The same traffic may be observed by several rules.¶

Failure behavior: Reports are not aggregated without justified accounting scope.¶

Test: Configure two URRs observing overlapping traffic.¶

5.906. C-3-DA-20 - Reporting Threshold-versus-Quota Differentiation

Mechanism: Thresholds and enforced quotas are represented separately.¶

Implementation: The processor interprets PFCP reporting triggers and quota fields under¶

their actual definitions.¶

Limitation: Policy-specific forwarding behavior may not be fully observable.¶

Failure behavior: A threshold report is not automatically labeled quota exhaustion.¶

Test: Trigger a threshold report before the quota is reached.¶

5.907. C-3-DA-21 - Cumulative Counter Reconstruction Mechanism: Compatible cumulative counter positions are used to derive increments.

Implementation: Generation, ordering, and reset semantics are checked before subtraction.¶

Limitation: Missing earlier positions can leave usage unknown.¶

Failure behavior: Invalid negative differences are not reported as actual negative traffic.¶

Test: Restart a UPF between counter samples.¶

5.908. C-3-DA-22 - Interval-Based Usage Aggregation Mechanism: Independent interval increments are combined under a defined partition model.

Implementation: Coverage and overlap are evaluated.¶

Limitation: Overlapping interval totals may not be decomposable.¶

Failure behavior: Ambiguous overlaps remain unresolved.¶

Test: Supply partially overlapping interval records.¶

5.909. C-3-DA-23 - Report Identity and Deduplication Mechanism: Source-qualified report references distinguish retransmissions.

Implementation: Repeated delivery of one report contributes once.¶

Limitation: Stable report identity may be unavailable.¶

Failure behavior: Exact deduplication is not claimed without adequate evidence.¶

Test: Deliver one report several times with different transport references.¶

5.910. C-3-DA-24 - Correction and Supersession Processing

Mechanism: A corrected usage report replaces a specific earlier measurement.¶

Implementation: The dependency index identifies affected aggregates.¶

Limitation: Corrections may arrive after preliminary accounting.¶

Failure behavior: Historical and revised totals are preserved.¶

Test: Replace an 80 MB interval report with a corrected 75 MB record.¶

5.911. C-3-DA-25 - Multi-UPF Relocation Usage Reconciliation

Mechanism: Session traffic measurements are combined across source and target UPFs¶

where appropriate.¶

Implementation: Resource generations and nonoverlapping traffic intervals are reconciled.¶

Limitation: Handover overlap may cause duplicated measurements.¶

Failure behavior: Unresolvable overlap is reported.¶

Test: Move traffic between two UPFs and generate reports covering the transition.¶

5.912. C-3-DA-26 - Flow-Qualified Session Attribution

Mechanism: Usage is attributed using a supported flow identity and time interval.¶

Implementation: The processor checks endpoint, protocol, and flow-generation¶

correspondence.¶

Limitation: Address reuse or network translation may complicate mapping.¶

Failure behavior: Ambiguous attribution remains unresolved.¶

Test: Reuse the same IP address after an earlier session ends.¶

5.913. C-3-DA-27 - Quota-Epoch-Aware Reconciliation Mechanism: Grants and measurements are partitioned by source-defined accounting epochs.

Implementation: The processor prevents incompatible epoch totals from being conflated.¶

Limitation: Epoch rollover may be incompletely observed.¶

Failure behavior: Missing boundaries produce unresolved totals.¶

Test: Apply a quota renewal between two usage reports.¶

5.914. C-3-DA-28 - Multi-Unit Reconciliation Mechanism: Time, volume, and event usage are processed as separate dimensions.

Implementation: Only technically justified conversions are performed.¶

Limitation: No universal conversion exists between seconds and bytes.¶

Failure behavior: Invalid arithmetic is rejected.¶

Test: Submit a time grant and a volume report.¶

5.915. C-3-DA-29 - Late-Report Session Closure

Mechanism: Valid usage reports may be associated with a session after its API-facing¶

termination.¶

Implementation: Measurement intervals and session generation determine attribution.¶

Limitation: Final report coverage may remain incomplete.¶

Failure behavior: Accounting remains pending.¶

Test: Deliver final usage several minutes after deletion.¶

5.916. C-3-DA-30 - Residual Resource and Reservation Cleanup

Mechanism: Unavailable sessions are evaluated for remaining allocations and reservation¶

state.¶

Implementation: The processor uses provider-specific cleanup semantics.¶

Limitation: Resource retention may be legitimate for a period.¶

Failure behavior: No universal cleanup deadline is imposed.¶

Test: Retain a terminated QoS session record under a documented delayed-deletion behavior.¶

5.917. C-3-DA-31 - Asynchronous Charging-Record Reconciliation

Mechanism: Technical usage and charging updates are correlated without equating them.¶

Implementation: Measurement, reporting, and charging stages are maintained separately.¶

Limitation: Final billing may use additional rating rules.¶

Failure behavior: Missing financial settlement is not equated with active network use.¶

Test: Complete resource cleanup before final charging acknowledgement.¶

5.918. C-3-DA-32 - Read-Only Independent Consistency Monitor

Mechanism: A separate processor reconstructs session and usage state from existing sources.¶

Implementation: It can identify discrepancies without initiating resource changes.¶

Limitation: Independent processing does not guarantee independent evidence.¶

Failure behavior: Shared source ancestry and coverage limitations are recorded.¶

Test: Give the monitor two reports derived from one counter.¶

5.919. C-3-DA-33 - Incremental Dependency-Based Reassessment

Mechanism: A late report or session update triggers reevaluation of affected state¶

calculations.¶

Implementation: A dependency index links records to calculated quantities.¶

Limitation: An incomplete index can miss affected aggregates.¶

Failure behavior: Broader reconstruction is used when necessary.¶

Test: Correct one usage interval and compare incremental with full recomputation.¶

5.920. C-3-DA-34 - Crash-Resilient Reconciliation

Mechanism: The processor persists operation, counter, and accounting frontier state.¶

Implementation: A successor resumes or reconstructs from source history.¶

Limitation: Missing source history can prevent exact recovery.¶

Failure behavior: Gaps remain explicit.¶

Test: Crash after processing a usage report but before checkpoint completion.¶

5.921. C-3-DA-35 - Integrity-Protected Reconciliation Evidence

Mechanism: Operation and usage records may be authenticated or integrity-protected.¶

Implementation: Provenance verification is separated from semantic compatibility and¶

completeness.¶

Limitation: A valid signature does not prove a report is nonduplicated or complete.¶

Failure behavior: Authentic but conflicting records remain subject to reconciliation.¶

Test: Replay a correctly authenticated old usage report.¶

5.922. C-3-DA-36 - Optional Advanced Timing and Constraint Optimization

Mechanism: Suitable timing information or an optimization solver may assist in¶

reconstructing concurrent operations and resource constraints.¶

Implementation: Candidate states are checked against the actual API and accounting¶

contracts.¶

Limitation: No universal computational speedup or global time-ordering guarantee is¶

presumed.¶

Failure behavior: Unknown ordering and solver exhaustion remain unresolved.¶

Test: Compare constrained solutions against exhaustive reference traces for small scenarios.¶

5.923. 3.C.13. Technical Design-Around Correspondence

The disclosed implementation alternatives are not restricted to one programming interface or one form of storage.¶

A provider may serialize all duration updates through a transactional session database.¶

Another provider may process operations asynchronously and expose status retrieval.¶

A third may employ event sourcing.¶

A resource manager may maintain reservations through a conventional ledger.¶

A network function may report usage through cumulative counters or interval deltas.¶

A charging function may use a different accounting epoch from the API-facing session.¶

A federated deployment may disclose only a limited session or usage state.¶

A read-only monitor may reconstruct these relationships without issuing any new network operation.¶

The distinct technical difficulties remain:¶

| x | reconstructing concurrent noncommutative operations; | |---|---| | x | identifying the receiver-side state under which each operation was evaluated; | | x | distinguishing requested from granted duration; | | x | relating API session revisions to resource allocations; | | x | interpreting reservation and quota adjustment semantics; | | x | preventing duplicate and overlapping usage aggregation; | | x | separating resource release from final accounting; and | | x | preserving unresolved outcomes without inventing success or failure. |¶

These are not all solved by a generic transaction log, quota counter, or idempotency key.¶

A database can establish its own local transaction order but may not observe the remote resource effect.¶

A usage counter can measure traffic under its reporting rule but may not identify the application-facing session without an adequate mapping.¶

An API status can establish the provider-defined session condition but may not prove every service performance outcome.¶

The proposed common technical relationship is the reconstruction of mutually consistent¶

session, operation, reservation, resource, and usage states using their actual sourcespecific semantics and dependency relationships.¶

5.924. 3.C.14. PHOSITA Reference Implementation Architecture

A practical reference system can be implemented with conventional software components.¶

Programmable API simulator: Exposes supported QoS session create, retrieve, extend, and¶

delete operations.¶

API contract library: Defines permissible session states, duration caps, error semantics, and¶

notification behavior.¶

Session state store: Maintains the authoritative state for the simulated API provider.¶

Concurrent request generator: Creates overlapping operations from separate application¶

clients.¶

Request history service: Stores original request identities, parameters, and response states.¶

Network operation simulator: Represents downstream applied resource changes.¶

Shared capacity-pool simulator: Allocates capacity among multiple sessions under a¶

defined reservation contract.¶

Reservation ledger simulator: Records initial grants, replacements, increments, and¶

releases.¶

Usage-reporting function A: Produces cumulative counters.¶

Usage-reporting function B: Produces interval increments.¶

PFCP-style URR simulator: Produces reporting triggers and quota/threshold conditions.¶

Accounting processor: Associates grants, usage, and accounting epochs.¶

Status notification publisher: Produces session availability or termination events.¶

Counter-generation manager: Supports resets, rollovers, and resource replacement.¶

Fault-injection service: Causes timeouts, duplicate deliveries, partial processing, delayed¶

usage, and source crashes.¶

Reconstruction engine: Produces the supported multi-dimensional state.¶

Test oracle: Maintains actual simulated session, resource, reservation, and usage values¶

independently from the reconstruction.¶

The components may execute on one workstation and use synthetic network traffic or deterministic event traces.¶

No live telecommunications provider integration is required for initial feasibility testing.¶

5.925. 3.C.15. Detailed PHOSITA Implementation Procedure

Phase 1 - Define Session Identity¶

Implement an API-facing session identifier, namespace, generation, flow reference, and underlying resource mapping.¶

Phase 2 - Implement the API Contract¶

Define create, retrieve, extend, and delete behavior using a selected documented API version.¶

Phase 3 - Define Duration Semantics¶

Represent requested duration, granted overall duration, start time, and scheduled expiry separately.¶

Phase 4 - Implement Status Transitions¶

Support REQUESTED, AVAILABLE, UNAVAILABLE, and the applicable status information.¶

Phase 5 - Implement Concurrent Clients¶

Create at least two independent session-operation issuers.¶

Phase 6 - Implement Overlapping Extensions¶

Submit two extension requests before either request has conclusively completed.¶

Phase 7 - Implement Extension versus Deletion¶

Race the two operations and retain the actual receiver outcome.¶

Phase 8 - Implement Expiry versus Extension¶

Process one extension at the expiry boundary under the applicable contract.¶

Phase 9 - Implement Duration Caps¶

Return the granted duration when the requested extension exceeds the profile maximum.¶

Phase 10 - Implement Response Loss¶

Make an extension or deletion succeed remotely while its response is lost.¶

Phase 11 - Implement Current Session Retrieval¶

Use supported status retrieval to reconcile the remote state.¶

Phase 12 - Implement a Shared Resource Pool¶

Allow two or more API sessions to depend upon the same resource pool.¶

Phase 13 - Implement Reservation Grants¶

Store initial grants with explicit units, source scope, and epoch.¶

Phase 14 - Implement Grant Replacement and Supplementation¶

Represent those two semantics separately.¶

Phase 15 - Implement PFCP-Style Reporting Rules¶

Create usage measurement, thresholds, quotas, and reporting triggers as separately defined constructs.¶

Phase 16 - Implement Cumulative Usage¶

Generate counter positions under an established source generation.¶

Phase 17 - Implement Interval Usage¶

Generate nonoverlapping increments with defined interval boundaries.¶

Phase 18 - Implement Duplicate Reports¶

Deliver the same source report more than once.¶

Phase 19 - Implement Corrected Reports¶

Supersede an earlier report with a source-defined correction.¶

Phase 20 - Implement Counter Reset¶

Restart a reporting source while preserving its previous generation in history.¶

Phase 21 - Implement Counter Wrap¶

Use a defined modulus and reporting contract.¶

Phase 22 - Implement Flow Mapping¶

Associate reports with the correct traffic populations and sessions.¶

Phase 23 - Implement Overlapping Measurements¶

Create reports measuring overlapping intervals or traffic.¶

Phase 24 - Implement Multi-Resource Relocation¶

Move a simulated session's traffic from one resource to another.¶

Phase 25 - Implement Reservation Release¶

Release a reservation while retaining actual usage already measured.¶

Phase 26 - Implement Network Termination¶

Make the API-facing session unavailable while resource cleanup occurs separately.¶

Phase 27 - Implement Delayed Usage after Deletion¶

Generate a final measurement before deletion and deliver it afterward.¶

Phase 28 - Implement Accounting Epoch Change¶

Renew or adjust grants across an epoch boundary.¶

Phase 29 - Implement Reconciliation State Envelopes¶

Retain multiple possible states for unresolved remote operations.¶

Phase 30 - Implement Contradiction Detection¶

Create inconsistent session and resource reports.¶

Phase 31 - Implement Dependency-Based Revision¶

Correct one source report and recompute affected balances.¶

Phase 32 - Implement Crash Recovery¶

Restart the reconciliation processor after partial event processing.¶

Phase 33 - Implement Read-Only Mode¶

Ensure the reconstruction engine does not grant quota or submit network resource changes.¶

Phase 34 - Implement Scope-Limited Operator Output¶

Expose only the state needed by the requesting component.¶

Phase 35 - Execute the Proposed Test Suite¶

Compare reconstructed results against independent simulator ground truth.¶

Phase 36 - Record Measured Results¶

Document correctness, false attribution, usage double counting, coverage gaps, unresolved outcomes, execution time, and memory use.¶

The procedure provides an implementation plan. It does not constitute a claim that the laboratory tests have already been executed.¶

5.926. 3.C.16. Failure and Adversarial Conditions

F01 - Two extensions submitted concurrently: Effective receiver outcome reconstructed.¶

F02 - Extension requests exceed profile maximum: Granted duration interpreted¶

correctly.¶

F03 - Extension arrives after expiry: Status-dependent contract respected.¶

F04 - Deletion overlaps extension: No invented commutativity.¶

5.927. F05 - Network terminates session during pending extension: Termination state

reconciled.¶

F06 - Extension response lost after application: Remote state remains separate from local¶

timeout.¶

F07 - Correlation header reused: No unsupported idempotency inference.¶

F08 - API returns an outdated session snapshot: Revision applicability checked.¶

F09 - Delayed UNAVAILABLE notification: Historical event separated from current¶

state.¶

F10 - Session ID reused in another namespace: Identity separated.¶

F11 - Flow IP address changes: Mapping interval evaluated.¶

F12 - IP address reused by another device: No unsupported traffic attribution.¶

F13 - Reservation grant accepted but resource not installed: Distinct states retained.¶

F14 - Resource installed but no traffic used: Reservation not equated with consumption.¶

F15 - Shared pool assigned to several sessions: Pool and session balances separated.¶

F16 - Pool total lacks per-session partition: Attribution unresolved.¶

F17 - Initial grant followed by replacement: No automatic addition.¶

F18 - Initial grant followed by valid supplement: Contract-specific addition.¶

F19 - Quota threshold reached: Reporting trigger distinguished from quota exhaustion.¶

F20 - Volume quota exhausted under existing source semantics: Consequence evaluated¶

separately.¶

F21 - Usage report duplicated: One measurement contribution.¶

F22 - Report corrected: Superseded amount excluded.¶

F23 - Cumulative reports incorrectly summed: Invalid aggregation detected.¶

F24 - Incremental report overlaps earlier interval: Overlap evaluated.¶

F25 - Counter restarts: Counter-generation boundary applied.¶

F26 - Counter wraps: Defined modulus required.¶

F27 - Reporting rule changes mid-session: Measurement semantics reevaluated.¶

F28 - Source UPF replaced: New source generation used.¶

F29 - Traffic relocates between UPFs: Measurement gap and overlap assessed.¶

F30 - Late usage report after deletion: Measurement time respected.¶

F31 - Reservation released before usage report: Accounting remains distinct from¶

cleanup.¶

5.928. F32 - Session unavailable but resource remains temporarily: Provider cleanup

semantics applied.¶

F33 - Session deleted but reservation release unknown: Partial closure retained.¶

F34 - Account usage report lacks units: No unsupported arithmetic.¶

F35 - Time quota compared with byte usage: Dimensional mismatch detected.¶

F36 - Charging epoch changes: Grant/usage scopes separated.¶

F37 - Subscriber profile changes while update pending: Applicability reassessed.¶

F38 - Roaming changes underlying resource mapping: Source generation and session¶

continuity evaluated.¶

F39 - Authenticated old report replayed: Authenticity not mistaken for freshness.¶

F40 - Several reports derive from the same original counter: Evidence lineage retained.¶

F41 - Missing interval measurements: No fabricated zero usage.¶

5.929. F42 - API state and observed network QoS disagree: Scope-specific discrepancy

retained.¶

F43 - Reconciliation solver exceeds search budget: Unknown, not impossible.¶

F44 - Reconciliation processor crashes: Reconstructible history used.¶

F45 - Late correction changes previous balance: Versioned result recomputed.¶

F46 - Technically available quota but no authorization: No grant or effectuation by the¶

reconstruction engine.¶

5.930. 3.C.17. Representative Proposed Verification Test Suite

The following 100 tests are proposed. They are not claimed as executed, passed, or independently validated.¶

5.931. Test

5.932. Controlled scenario Expected technical result ID

C3- Session identity and state Valid API session creation¶

| T001 | reconstructed | |---|---| | C3- | Not treated as already |¶

T002 API session REQUESTED¶

AVAILABLE C3- Supported status transition T003 API session becomes AVAILABLE¶

recorded¶

C3- T004 API session becomes UNAVAILABLE¶

C3-¶

Session identifier reused in another namespace T005¶

Unavailability correctly classified¶

Distinct instances¶

C3- T006 API session mapped to separate network resource Correct identity distinction¶

C3- T007 Missing underlying resource mapping Limited reconstruction¶

C3- T008 One valid session extension Actual granted duration¶

C3- T009 Extension capped by profile maximum Correct capped duration C3- Contract-specific T010 Extension rejected because session unavailable¶

incompatibility C3- Receiver-side outcome¶

Extension near expiry¶

| T011 | interpreted | |---|---| | C3- | Correct cumulative result |¶

T012 Two extensions in known sequential order¶

under contract¶

C3- T013 Two extensions with unknown order Possible states retained¶

C3- T014 Two extensions with one rejection C3- T015 Extension followed by deletion¶

C3- T016 Deletion followed by extension¶

No automatic addition¶

Current state reflects supported deletion¶

Status conflict evaluated¶

C3- T017 Network termination during extension C3- T018 Extension response lost¶

Partial order reconciled¶

Remote outcome not assumed failed¶

C3- T019 Later status query resolves lost response State envelope narrowed¶

C3- T020 Current session state cannot identify actor Attribution remains qualified¶

C3-¶

Duplicate correlation header No invented idempotency T021¶

C3- T022 Receiver-native idempotency supported¶

C3-¶

Same request identifier with changed payload T023¶

Defined deduplication¶

Conflict evaluated¶

C3- T024 Retry after receiver history expired C3- T025 Old status event arrives after current query¶

Outcome unresolved¶

Stale event does not regress state¶

C3- T026 Duplicate QoS status notification One logical event¶

C3- T027 Session starts later than requested C3- T028 Expiry changed by successful extension¶

Actual start state used¶

Correct expiry reconstruction¶

C3- T029 Profile maximum changes mid-session¶

| C3- | Session deleted but API resource retained | |---|---| | T030 | temporarily |¶

C3-¶

Resource pool contains one session T031¶

Relevant version evaluated¶

Cleanup state distinct¶

Correct resource association¶

C3- T032 Resource pool shared by two sessions C3- T033 Resource pool total without per-session counters¶

Shared scope recognized¶

Per-session usage unresolved¶

C3- T034 Distinct flow counters identify each session C3- T035 Flow IP address reused later¶

Supported partition¶

Generation-qualified attribution¶

C3- T036 Flow port changes mid-session Flow correspondence updated¶

C3- T037 Reservation request submitted Not automatically granted¶

C3-¶

| T038 Reservation granted | Granted state established | |---|---| | C3- | Resource state remains |¶

T039 Grant accepted but resource not installed¶

separate C3- Zero not inferred without T040 Resource installed but no usage measured¶

coverage¶

C3-¶

Initial reservation of 500 units Correct grant scope T041 C3- Remaining amount under¶

180 units measured against compatible grant¶

| T042 | model | |---|---| | C3- | Old grant not automatically |¶

T043 Grant replacement record¶

added C3- Added under supported T044 Additional grant record¶

contract¶

C3- T045 Reservation partial release C3- T046 Reservation expiry¶

Residual grant evaluated¶

Expiry separate from measured usage¶

C3- T047 Overlapping reservation scopes No unsupported summation¶

C3- T048 Different rating-group grants Scopes separated¶

C3- T049 Different resource generations C3- T050 Quota reporting threshold reached¶

Grants not conflated¶

Reporting vs enforcement differentiated¶

C3-¶

Volume quota reached under existing URR Source semantics applied T051¶

C3- T052 Time quota and volume quota coexist¶

C3- T053 Cumulative usage reports C3- T054 Incremental usage reports¶

Independent quantities¶

Difference calculation¶

Valid interval aggregation¶

C3- T055 Duplicate cumulative report No new usage counted¶

C3- T056 Duplicate interval report No double counting¶

C3- T057 Same value from different independent intervals¶

C3- T058 Correction supersedes earlier report C3- T059 Correction arrives after preliminary total¶

Not falsely deduplicated¶

Replacement rather than addition¶

Revision recorded¶

C3- T060 Counter resets after UPF restart¶

C3-¶

Counter wraps under known modulus T061¶

Generation handling¶

Correct wrap interpretation¶

C3- T062 Counter wrap semantics unknown Usage unresolved¶

C3- T063 Negative difference from unrelated generations C3- T064 Two URRs observe overlapping traffic¶

Invalid subtraction rejected¶

No unsupported combined total¶

C3- T065 Two URRs observe independent populations¶

| C3- | Usage reports overlap in time but not traffic | |---|---| | T066 | population |¶

Valid aggregation if supported¶

Semantics evaluated¶

C3- T067 Usage reports overlap in both time and population No double count¶

C3- T068 Reporting rule changed between samples Context transition recorded¶

C3- T069 Usage interval gap Incomplete coverage¶

C3- T070 Missing report arrives later¶

C3-¶

Report delivery after deletion T071¶

Coverage revised¶

Historical measurement retained¶

C3- T072 Report time incorrectly used as measurement time Misclassification prevented¶

C3- T073 UPF-A to UPF-B relocation C3- T074 UPF measurement intervals overlap at relocation¶

Source transition evaluated¶

Overlap qualified¶

C3- T075 UPF measurement intervals leave gap Gap recorded¶

C3- T076 New UPF counter starts at zero No false usage reduction¶

C3- T077 Shared pool measurement includes unrelated traffic No full per-session attribution¶

C3- T078 Resource allocation differs from reservation C3- T079 API status AVAILABLE but service probe fails¶

C3- T080 Network termination without immediate deletion¶

Independent states¶

Status and service effect separated¶

Residual state retained¶

C3-¶

Client delete operation completes Defined API closure assessed T081¶

C3- T082 Delete response lost but session absent C3- T083 Delete accepted but underlying resource remains¶

State reconciled¶

Cleanup unresolved¶

C3- T084 Resource cleanup complete but final usage absent C3- T085 Resource and reservation released¶

Accounting pending¶

Closure dimensions established¶

C3- T086 Final charging acknowledgement pending Usage/settlement distinction¶

C3- T087 Subscription changes during pending extension C3- T088 Roaming changes resource mapping¶

State applicability reevaluated¶

Session continuity maintained if supported¶

C3- T089 Counter source becomes temporarily unavailable Unknown consumption¶

C3- T090 Authenticated stale usage report Authenticity vs applicability¶

C3-¶

Event-sourced reconstruction with complete records Correct replay T091¶

C3- T092 Event-source history missing operation result Possible outcomes retained¶

C3-¶

Snapshot stale relative to receiver revision Reconstruction corrected T093¶

C3- Equivalent mandatory T094 Relational and graph implementations¶

constraints¶

C3- T095 Constraint solver finds two valid states No false uniqueness C3- Unresolved rather than T096 Constraint solver times out¶

impossible C3- No duplicate contribution after T097 Processor crashes after one report counted¶

recovery C3- Dependent revisions T098 Late usage correction impacts several balances¶

recomputed¶

C3-¶

| T099 | Technically reconstructed unused quota | No automatic new permission | |---|---|---| | C3- | Final result includes operation, session, resource, | Complete scoped | | T100 | reservation, and usage dimensions | reconstruction |¶

5.933. 3.C.17.1. Test Fixture Requirements

For each executed test, retain:¶

1. Session and API contract version. 2. Original requests and operation identities. 3. Source and receiver event histories. 4. Effective duration and expiry state. 5. Actual simulated operation order. 6. Resource allocations and shared-pool relationships. 7. Reservation grant and adjustment records. 8. Reporting-rule and quota definitions. 9. Usage report identifiers. 10. Counter source and generation.¶

11. Measurement intervals and units. 12. Duplicate and correction relationships. 13. Actual simulated traffic and usage. 14. Expected and reconstructed balances. 15. Outstanding cleanup. 16. Missing evidence and unresolved outcomes. 17. Historical and revised reconstructions. 18. Processing and memory measurements.¶

Testing should separately measure operation-state reconstruction, report deduplication, accounting correctness, resource attribution, cleanup completeness, and computational overhead.¶

Success in one category does not establish correctness in every other category.¶

5.934. 3.C.18. Established Technical Standards and Reference Interfaces

5.935. 3.C.18.1. CAMARA Quality on Demand

CAMARA Quality on Demand provides an application-facing mechanism for requesting QoS-related service treatment.¶

The API includes session creation, retrieval, extension, deletion, and status reporting in supported versions.¶

The QoS session's status and duration are governed by the API contract and provider implementation.¶

The present embodiment may use these existing operations as the external interface for its reference environment.¶

It does not claim those API operations individually as new.¶

Reference:¶

https://github.com/camaraproject/QualityOnDemand¶

3.C.18.2. 3GPP TS 29.244¶

3GPP TS 29.244 defines the PFCP protocol and relevant Usage Reporting Rules.¶

Measurement methods, reporting triggers, thresholds, quotas, and usage reports are interpreted according to their defined roles.¶

The embodiment may consume source-qualified reports produced through those mechanisms.¶

It does not redefine the existing user-plane quota and reporting features.¶

3.C.18.3. 3GPP TS 23.502¶

3GPP TS 23.502 provides the broader session-management and policy-related procedures under which certain network resources may be established, modified, or released.¶

The embodiment may relate the application-facing session to applicable network functions through implementation-specific supported correspondence.¶

It does not assume a one-to-one relationship between an application-facing QoS session and a PDU Session.¶

5.936. 3.C.18.4. 3GPP Charging Specifications

Relevant 3GPP charging specifications define existing charging interactions, usage reporting, quota grants, and accounting processes.¶

A deployment must interpret charging amounts under its actual source contracts.¶

The present embodiment reconstructs relationships among technical usage and resource states.¶

The full service-effect and charging-record correspondence is developed separately in Embodiment 4.C.¶

5.937. 3.C.18.5. Ordinary Database and Distributed Processing Technologies

An implementation may use standard database transactions, versioned records, event sourcing, distributed queues, stream processing, and state-reconstruction algorithms.¶

These technologies are established prior art.¶

The embodiment's technical evaluation concerns how their outputs are associated with the relevant programmable session and network-resource semantics.¶

5.938. 3.C.19. Specific Claim-Supporting Relationships

Subject to substantive prior-art analysis, the following technical relationships may provide support for later claims.¶

Relationship 1 - Concurrent session-operation reconstruction: Associating multiple¶

overlapping programmable session operations with their actual receiver-state and ordering evidence.¶

Relationship 2 - Version-qualified duration reconstruction: Reconstructing effective¶

session duration under state-dependent extension and profile-maximum rules.¶

5.939. Relationship 3 - Noncommutative lifecycle evaluation: Distinguishing extension,

expiration, deletion, and network termination when their possible orders produce different outcomes.¶

Relationship 4 - API-to-resource correspondence: Mapping an application-facing service¶

session to relevant underlying resource allocations without treating identifiers as interchangeable.¶

Relationship 5 - Reservation versus application: Distinguishing granted reservation state¶

from actually installed network-resource state.¶

Relationship 6 - Scope-qualified reservation reconstruction: Associating grants and¶

adjustments with sessions, resource pools, and accounting epochs.¶

Relationship 7 - Threshold versus quota interpretation: Reconstructing reporting and¶

quota state without conflating trigger and limit semantics.¶

Relationship 8 - Usage report lineage: Identifying duplicate, corrected, cumulative, and¶

incremental reports through source-qualified correspondence.¶

Relationship 9 - Cross-resource usage continuity: Reconciling reports produced before¶

and after resource relocation.¶

Relationship 10 - Shared-resource attribution limits: Preserving pool-level totals when¶

per-session usage cannot be established.¶

Relationship 11 - Closure with outstanding accounting: Distinguishing API session¶

termination, resource cleanup, reservation release, and final usage coverage.¶

Relationship 12 - Revision-aware reconciliation: Recomputing affected session and¶

quota-state results following new operation or usage evidence.¶

These relationships are not assertions that generic quota control, usage counting, idempotency, or session extension are individually patentable.¶

Their possible significance depends upon the exact cooperation of the claimed mechanisms and comparison with established standards and earlier disclosures.¶

5.940. 3.C.20. Relationship to the Foundational Shared Technical Foundation

Earlier family disclosures also address protected quota state, virtual identity, jurisdictional compliance binding, execution-finality, and operation-specific authority.¶

This embodiment does not newly claim the underlying protected quota enforcement, cryptographic capability, or execution-time authorization mechanism.¶

Its additional drafting focus is the evidence-based technical reconstruction of concurrent¶

session modifications and usage records associated with separately maintained resource and accounting states.¶

The particularly relevant subject matter for later comparison includes:¶

(a) operation ordering under concurrent session changes; (b) effective duration reconstruction using receiver-defined semantics; (c) API-to-resource state mappings; (d) reservation and installed-resource distinction; (e) usage report identity and correction relationships; (f) counter-generation and interval correspondence; (g) shared-resource usage attribution; (h) late-report handling after resource cleanup; and (i) revision of reconstructed state after new source evidence.¶

The exact extent to which these relationships are already disclosed by the earlier as-filed applications must be determined from their original documents.¶

5.941. 3.C.21. Particular Technical Effects

Depending upon actual implementation, the embodiment may provide:¶

(a) more accurate reconstruction of overlapping session extension outcomes; (b) improved detection of extension/deletion concurrency conflicts; (c) reduced incorrect addition of requested duration amounts; (d) improved identification of status-dependent extension eligibility; (e) more accurate separation of API session and network-resource state; (f) better reconstruction of reservations and granted resource amounts;¶

(g) improved handling of shared resource pools;¶

(h) reduced double counting of duplicate usage reports;¶

(i) improved interpretation of cumulative and interval measurements;¶

(j) better treatment of counter resets and resource relocation;¶

(k) improved distinction between threshold reporting and quota exhaustion;¶

(l) more accurate handling of corrections and delayed reports;¶

(m) reduced unsupported per-session attribution of shared-pool usage;¶

(n) improved recognition of incomplete cleanup;¶

(o) clearer separation of technical usage from final charging settlement;¶

(p) compatibility with existing 3GPP and CAMARA mechanisms; and¶

(q) more reconstructible evidence for independent network-management decisions.¶

These are possible technical effects.¶

No specific reduction in overcharging, failed QoS operations, utilization, latency, or accounting errors is asserted without laboratory measurements or production evidence.¶

5.942. 3.C.22. Non-Limiting Implementation Character

The embodiment may be implemented in software, firmware, telecommunications controllers, programmable network exposure systems, session-management services, userplane resource managers, usage-reporting processors, charging systems, and combinations thereof.¶

It may use relational databases, event streams, state machines, graph models, constraint solvers, or conventional workflow engines.¶

It may operate within a single operator or across cooperating providers.¶

A programmable session may have one resource or several resources.¶

Several sessions may share a resource pool.¶

Usage may be reported cumulatively or incrementally.¶

A report may be corrected or retransmitted.¶

A reservation may be replaced, adjusted, consumed, or released.¶

A session may expire while a modification is pending.¶

An API may show the session unavailable while resources remain temporarily present.¶

A usage report may arrive after the session ends.¶

The processor must interpret these events according to the actual source and receiver contracts.¶

No particular API provider, protocol release, database, AI model, cryptographic primitive, or programming language is mandatory to every implementation.¶

The reconstruction result is evidence concerning existing state.¶

It is not itself a new permission, quota grant, protected capability, or authorization for network effectuation.¶

5.943. 3.C.23. Conclusion

The central technical subject of Embodiment 3.C is the reconstruction of programmable telecommunications session and usage state when several session operations, resource reservations, and accounting reports overlap in time, identity, or resource scope.¶

The embodiment distinguishes:¶

1. API request from receiver application. 2. Correlation identity from receiver idempotency. 3. Requested duration from granted overall duration. 4. Session extension from deletion and expiry. 5. API-facing session from underlying network resources. 6. Resource reservation from installed allocation. 7. Installed allocation from actual consumption. 8. Reporting threshold from quota. 9. Cumulative counter from interval increment. 10. Original usage report from retransmission or correction. 11. Pool-level usage from per-session attribution. 12. Resource release from accounting completion. 13. Reconstructed remaining balance from permission to use it.¶

The system uses source-qualified operations, known order constraints, session revisions, resource mappings, reservation semantics, usage-report lineage, and current-state observations to produce a multi-dimensional consistency result.¶

Where a required state is established, the processor reports its actual scope.¶

Where an applicable mandatory condition is violated, the resulting inconsistency is identified.¶

Where concurrency, missing status, incompatible measurement semantics, or source gaps prevent determination, the processor retains unresolved state.¶

5.944. This completes Embodiment 3.C without repeating generic quota enforcement,

established CAMARA session operations, existing 3GPP usage reporting, Embodiment 2.C's interoperator roaming analysis, or the earlier protected execution-finality architecture.¶

5.945. EMBODIMENT 4.C - SERVICE-EFFECT VERIFICATION, NETWORK-USAGE ATTRIBUTION, CHARGING-RECORD LINEAGE, AND ACCOUNTING-STATE CORRESPONDENCE

5.946. 4.C.1. Embodiment Identification and Technical Scope

Invention Group: C - Programmable Telecommunications Session Lifecycle and Cross-¶

Operator Operational-State Consistency.¶

Embodiment Number: 4.C - Fourth Embodiment of GROUP C.¶

Technical Title: Systems and Methods for Establishing Evidence-Qualified Correspondence¶

Among Programmable Telecommunications Service Effects, Network Resource Usage, Charging-Session Records, Rating Contexts, and Deferred Accounting Outcomes.¶

Common Workflow: C-CW-01.¶

Principal Workflow Variation: C-V4 - Service Effect, Network Usage, and Charging-¶

Record Correspondence.¶

Embodiment Algorithm: C-ALG-05.¶

Specific Alternative Implementations: C-4-DA-01 through C-4-DA-36.¶

Relevant Common Workflow Stages: C-CW-01.06-C-CW-01.08, C-CW-01.20-C-CW-¶

01.21, C-CW-01.27-C-CW-01.38.¶

| x | 1.C: SIM-related subscriber-association changes during active-session continuity. | |---|---| | x | 2.C: Interoperator roaming and distributed session responsibilities. | | x | 3.C: Concurrent programmable session updates, quota reservations, and usage-state reconciliation. | | x | 5.C: Purpose-scoped consent-state changes during active services. | | x | 6.C: Partial operator failure, session release, and deferred settlement reconstruction. |¶

4.C.1.1. General Technical Subject¶

The present embodiment describes a telecommunications processing arrangement configured to determine whether the service effect associated with a communication or programmablenetwork session corresponds to the correct network traffic, usage measurements, charging references, and accounting outcomes.¶

A service may be requested through an application-facing interface.¶

An operator may accept the request, configure relevant network resources, and report that the service is available.¶

Traffic may then traverse one or more network functions.¶

Usage may be measured by a user-plane function, service-related charging function, application observer, or another supported measurement source.¶

A charging component may receive usage information through an initial, intermediate, eventrelated, or final charging interaction.¶

A record-processing system may aggregate, rate, adjust, or settle that information later.¶

These operations may occur asynchronously and may be subject to different identities, time intervals, record generations, units, source guarantees, and data-retention rules.¶

The present embodiment evaluates the correspondence among these observations without assuming one globally atomic transaction.¶

The system may determine:¶

1. Which application-facing service was requested or established. 2. Which network resources were intended to support it. 3. Which resource changes were actually observed. 4. Which operational effect was established under the specified verification objective. 5. Which measured traffic was attributable to the relevant session and resource interval. 6. Which usage records describe original measurements, retransmissions, corrections, or aggregates. 7. Which charging-session and rating contexts correspond to that usage. 8. Whether a charging request was submitted, accepted, applied, or remains unresolved under its actual contract. 9. Whether an accounting record was generated, delivered, acknowledged, rated, adjusted, or settled. 10. Whether a final record has adequate measurement and accounting coverage. 11. Whether additional charging or reconciliation information remains outstanding after the service or network session ends. 12. Whether a later correction changes an earlier accounting assessment.¶

The disclosed arrangement is not a new charging protocol.¶

It is not a replacement for an existing converged charging function, charging-data function, quota-authority mechanism, billing engine, or protected execution-control system.¶

Its technical purpose is to establish whether the separate representations of service delivery and usage can be consistently related and which conclusions cannot be established from the available evidence.¶

4.C.1.2. Principal Technical Distinction¶

The embodiment separates six layers of evidence.¶

Layer A - Requested service: The application or network controller requests a QoS¶

profile, service condition, connectivity treatment, or equivalent supported behavior.¶

Layer B - Established network treatment: Network functions report or exhibit the¶

corresponding configured or operational resource state.¶

Layer C - Observed service effect: Where required, traffic or application measurements¶

establish whether the selected service-performance conditions were observed.¶

Layer D - Measured network usage: Relevant network functions record the volume,¶

duration, events, or other usage quantities for a defined measurement population.¶

Layer E - Charging interpretation: The measured usage is associated with the relevant¶

charging session, service identifier, rating group, quota context, or other established charging information.¶

Layer F - Accounting and settlement: The applicable charging or billing systems¶

determine and record the subsequent accounting outcome.¶

The processor does not treat successful evidence at one layer as conclusive evidence at every other layer.¶

For example, a session can be reported AVAILABLE by an API while independently measured application performance is inadequate.¶

Likewise, a service can produce valid measured traffic while the final charging record remains pending.¶

An acknowledged charging request does not necessarily establish a completed billing or financial settlement.¶

4.C.1.3. Distinction from Embodiment 3.C¶

Embodiment 3.C concentrates on concurrent session requests, effective duration changes, resource reservations, quota grants, and measured-usage reconstruction.¶

Embodiment 4.C focuses on the later and more detailed correspondence between:¶

(a) the particular service effect; (b) the traffic population to which that effect applied; (c) the actual usage measurements for that population; (d) the applicable charging and rating context;¶

(e) the charging record's original or derived lineage; and¶

(f) its accounting outcome.¶

This embodiment therefore does not repeat the full concurrent-operation or quota-grant reconstruction procedure.¶

It may consume the qualified operation and resource-state results produced by Embodiment 3.C.¶

4.C.1.4. Separation from Prior Execution-Finality Inventions¶

The embodiment does not introduce a new non-bearer quota capability, protected authority component, Finality Sink, virtual identity, jurisdiction token, or execution-time authorization structure.¶

Existing enforcement and charging functions remain responsible for controlling whether usage is permitted.¶

The present embodiment reconstructs and evaluates what happened and how it was measured or accounted for.¶

An established measured quantity is not itself permission to consume additional resources.¶

An unresolved accounting discrepancy is not itself authorization to alter a charging account or financial record.¶

5.948. 4.C.2. Specific Technical Problem Space

5.949. 4.C.2.1. Requested Service and Effective Service May Differ

An application may request a particular QoS profile.¶

The network may accept or report availability of the service.¶

The actual traffic may nevertheless experience varying latency, jitter, loss, or throughput.¶

The meaning of service availability depends upon the applicable provider interface and service objective.¶

The processor must not interpret a status field more broadly than its documented meaning.¶

5.950. 4.C.2.2. A Network Policy Installation Does Not Prove Application Performance

A policy rule may be installed successfully.¶

The device may still experience packet loss because of congestion elsewhere in the network.¶

An application may suffer from server delay unrelated to the radio or core network.¶

The system distinguishes configured treatment from observed service behavior.¶

5.951. 4.C.2.3. Service Measurement and Usage Measurement May Describe Different Populations

An active probe may measure round-trip latency using synthetic packets.¶

A user-plane counter may measure actual customer traffic volume.¶

The probe population and the usage-counter population may differ.¶

A latency probe cannot automatically be treated as the direct measurement of every accounted packet.¶

5.952. 4.C.2.4. Application Traffic Can Traverse Several Network Functions

One logical service may be supported by multiple user-plane functions, routing paths, or edge components.¶

A traffic relocation may cause subsequent usage to be measured by a different function.¶

The processor must identify the relevant resource generations and traffic population.¶

5.953. 4.C.2.5. Traffic Can Be Counted at More Than One Measurement Point

A packet traversing two network functions may contribute to both functions' counters.¶

Adding both totals may count the same packet twice.¶

The system must establish the intended accounting boundary and whether the measurements describe disjoint traffic populations.¶

5.954. 4.C.2.6. Network Translation Can Obscure Flow Identity

A service flow may be identified by addresses and ports.¶

Network address translation or mobility can change the externally observed tuple.¶

An address may later be reused.¶

The processor requires time-qualified flow and session correspondence rather than assuming that a current address identifies a historical traffic population.¶

5.955. 4.C.2.7. Application-Facing and PDU Session Identities May Differ

A programmable service session may correspond to specific flows within a PDU Session.¶

One PDU Session may carry traffic unrelated to the programmable service.¶

The processor must not automatically attribute all PDU Session traffic to the applicationfacing service.¶

5.956. 4.C.2.8. Service Effect Can Begin after Session Creation

An API may create a requested session while network configuration remains pending.¶

The effective service-treatment interval may begin later.¶

Charging or usage intervals may begin under separately applicable rules.¶

The processor does not assume that API creation time, network activation time, and chargeable service-start time are identical.¶

5.957. 4.C.2.9. Service Effect Can End before Resource Cleanup

The service may become unavailable.¶

A user-plane rule may remain installed temporarily.¶

The retained resource does not automatically prove that the original service effect continued.¶

The processor distinguishes service outcome from physical or logical resource cleanup.¶

5.958. 4.C.2.10. Resource Allocation Does Not Establish Traffic Delivery

A network may reserve or install a resource while the application generates no traffic.¶

The existence of that resource does not establish a nonzero transmitted volume.¶

Whether the allocation itself is chargeable is governed by the applicable commercial and charging model, not by the mere presence of traffic.¶

5.959. 4.C.2.11. Usage Can Occur without the Requested QoS Effect

A device may continue transmitting traffic at ordinary service treatment when an optional QoS enhancement becomes unavailable.¶

Usage may still be measured and accounted for.¶

The processor distinguishes baseline traffic from traffic receiving the requested service treatment where the source information permits that distinction.¶

5.960. 4.C.2.12. Report Time and Measurement Time Can Differ

A user-plane function may measure traffic during one interval and submit a usage report later.¶

Charging processing can occur later still.¶

The processor distinguishes traffic occurrence, measurement window, report emission, receipt, and accounting posting times.¶

5.961. 4.C.2.13. Metering Sources Can Use Different Definitions

One source may count octets including certain protocol headers.¶

Another may count application payload bytes.¶

Another may distinguish uplink and downlink volume.¶

The resulting figures may all be correct under their own measurement semantics.¶

They must not automatically be treated as contradictory or equal.¶

5.962. 4.C.2.14. Usage Units Can Be Incompatible

Time usage, data volume, event count, and service transactions are different measurements.¶

A charging record may use a particular rated service unit.¶

The system requires explicit unit and measurement semantics before comparison or aggregation.¶

5.963. 4.C.2.15. Reporting Rules Can Have Different Scopes

Two usage-reporting rules may measure different flows, rating groups, service identifiers, or monitoring conditions.¶

They may also overlap.¶

The processor must determine which records are meant to contribute to a particular accounting total.¶

5.964. 4.C.2.16. A PFCP Report Is Not Automatically a Final Charging Record

A user-plane report may contain traffic measurement information.¶

A subsequent charging function may process the information under an established charging interaction.¶

The PFCP report itself is not automatically a final rated financial charge.¶

5.965. 4.C.2.17. Charging Requests Can Be Asynchronous

A charging consumer may create, update, or release a converged-charging interaction.¶

A request may be delayed or the response may be lost.¶

The processor distinguishes the transmission record from the receiver-side charging outcome.¶

5.966. 4.C.2.18. An Initial Charging Interaction Is Not Final Settlement

An initial charging request may establish a charging context, request units, or report initial usage.¶

It does not, by itself, establish the final consumption of the session or the final billed amount.¶

5.967. 4.C.2.19. An Intermediate Charging Interaction May Be Repeated

A session may generate multiple intermediate updates.¶

Some may be usage reports; others may concern unit reservation or events affecting rating.¶

The processor uses the applicable message semantics rather than blindly adding every request amount.¶

5.968. 4.C.2.20. A Charging Release Is Not Necessarily External Financial Settlement

A final charging interaction may close the charging session and report final usage.¶

Subsequent records, rating, adjustment, invoicing, or commercial settlement may occur in separately governed systems.¶

The processor does not equate network charging-session release with final payment settlement.¶

5.969. 4.C.2.21. Charging Data Can Be Rated Differently by Service Context

A charging function may associate usage with different rating groups, service identifiers, tariffs, or other applicable charging conditions.¶

Traffic quantity equality does not establish charge-amount equality.¶

The processor retains the relevant charging context and its effective interval.¶

5.970. 4.C.2.22. Rating Changes Can Occur During a Session

A tariff or charging classification may change while the session continues.¶

A measurement interval spanning the change cannot necessarily be rated entirely under one rule.¶

The processor must determine whether the available usage information supports the necessary interval or population split.¶

5.971. 4.C.2.23. Roaming Can Change Charging Responsibilities

When a subscriber roams, different operator functions and accounting records may be involved.¶

The home and visited networks may have different reporting and settlement responsibilities.¶

The processor uses the actual roaming architecture and accounting contracts rather than assuming one universal record path.¶

5.972. 4.C.2.24. Interoperator Records Can Be Delayed

A visited operator may transmit usage or settlement information after the relevant session period.¶

A local charging record may therefore exist before the corresponding interoperator information arrives.¶

The processor preserves the distinct stages and source coverage.¶

5.973. 4.C.2.25. A Usage Record Can Be Duplicated in Transport

A report can be delivered twice because of retries, replay, recovery, or message forwarding.¶

If both deliveries refer to one original measurement, adding them doubles the represented usage.¶

The system uses source-qualified report identity and lineage.¶

5.974. 4.C.2.26. Different Reports Can Legitimately Share the Same Value

Two independent five-minute intervals may each contain 100 MB of traffic.¶

The equality of their measured values does not make them duplicates.¶

The processor evaluates original report identity, measurement interval, source generation, and reporting context.¶

5.975. 4.C.2.27. Usage Reports Can Be Corrected

A source may replace an earlier report with an amended quantity.¶

A charging processor may generate an adjustment associated with an earlier record.¶

The processor distinguishes replacement, additional usage, and financial adjustment semantics.¶

5.976. 4.C.2.28. Source Counters Can Restart

A reporting function may restart or replace a usage-reporting rule.¶

Counter positions before and after the transition may belong to different generations.¶

The processor does not automatically subtract incompatible cumulative values.¶

5.977. 4.C.2.29. Partial Traffic Measurements Can Be Misleading

A reporting rule may capture only uplink volume while another captures both directions.¶

A flow may be present only for part of the period.¶

The system evaluates whether the measurement population matches the required accounting objective.¶

5.978. 4.C.2.30. Usage Reports Can Cover Overlapping Time Windows

Two measurements may cover overlapping time intervals.¶

That overlap does not necessarily mean the traffic populations overlap, but it requires evaluation.¶

The processor must distinguish temporal overlap from traffic-population overlap.¶

5.979. 4.C.2.31. Measurement Gaps Do Not Establish Zero Usage

A user-plane function may stop reporting during a network interruption.¶

The absence of a usage report does not establish that no traffic occurred.¶

The processor identifies missing coverage.¶

5.980. 4.C.2.32. A Final Report Can Be Incomplete

A final usage report may omit earlier intervals or certain traffic categories.¶

It can still be authentic and valid for the measurements it includes.¶

The system must evaluate whether the final accounting objective is supported by the complete required report set.¶

5.981. 4.C.2.33. Usage and Billed Amounts May Be Different Quantities

Measured bytes, rated units, monetary charges, discounts, refunds, taxes, and settlements have different meanings.¶

The processor does not convert usage into a final invoice amount without an applicable rating and billing model.¶

5.982. 4.C.2.34. A Zero Charge Does Not Necessarily Mean Zero Usage

A traffic period may be zero-rated, discounted, included in a bundle, or otherwise rated at no incremental charge.¶

The system distinguishes actual measured usage from monetary charging outcome.¶

5.983. 4.C.2.35. A Nonzero Charge Does Not Necessarily Prove Current Traffic

A charge may relate to earlier measured usage, an allocated service, a recurring fee, or another contract-defined event.¶

A charge posted after session termination is not proof that the session remained active when the posting occurred.¶

5.984. 4.C.2.36. A QoS Outcome Does Not Automatically Determine a Refund

A service may fail to meet a performance objective.¶

Whether the customer is entitled to a credit, refund, or other remedy depends upon the applicable service agreement and billing policies.¶

The present embodiment can establish evidence relevant to such a determination without independently imposing one.¶

5.985. 4.C.2.37. Accounting Records May Describe Derived Aggregates

A billing record may aggregate many underlying usage reports.¶

Another record may be a partial summary of the same measurements.¶

The processor must preserve provenance to avoid counting both original measurements and their aggregate as additional usage.¶

5.986. 4.C.2.38. Charging Revisions May Have Historical Effective Dates

A correction may be posted today while affecting a usage interval from an earlier period.¶

The processor distinguishes the correction's posting date from the usage interval it modifies.¶

5.987. 4.C.2.39. Session Deletion May Leave Accounting Incomplete

A programmable service can be terminated and resources released while final reporting remains outstanding.¶

The processor may establish operational closure without claiming final accounting completeness.¶

5.988. 4.C.2.40. A Charging System Can Fail after Receiving Usage

A charging receiver may process an update before a failure interrupts the response.¶

The initiator may not know whether the update was applied.¶

The processor must preserve receiver-outcome uncertainty rather than equate timeout with failure.¶

4.C.2.41. Reconciliation Can Reveal Contradictions without Identifying Their Cause¶

A source may report that a service was unavailable during an interval, while a user-plane measurement associates traffic with the same session.¶

The discrepancy may result from baseline traffic, delayed state propagation, mapping error, measurement scope, or another cause.¶

The processor identifies the contradiction or need for clarification without automatically alleging fraudulent use or incorrect billing.¶

4.C.2.42. Operational Verification and Accounting Correction Are Different Actions¶

The processor may identify a potentially duplicated charge or usage record.¶

That finding does not itself authorize alteration of a customer account.¶

Any correction must be performed under the separately applicable accounting and operational controls.¶

5.989. 4.C.3. Specific Technical Contribution Sought

The present embodiment provides a service-to-usage-to-charging correspondence procedure configured to:¶

(a) identify the application-facing service and logical telecommunications session; (b) identify the versioned service condition and expected effect; (c) relate the service to supporting resources and flow populations; (d) distinguish service requested, configured, reported available, and actually observed; (e) establish the applicable service-effect interval; (f) identify resources through which the relevant traffic passed; (g) determine whether measurements describe the same or different traffic populations; (h) preserve reporting-source and counter-generation information; (i) associate usage reports with sessions, flows, resource intervals, and charging contexts; (j) distinguish original, duplicated, cumulative, incremental, corrected, and derived measurements; (k) construct a supported nonduplicative usage history;¶

(l) identify missing or contradictory measurement coverage;¶

(m) associate measured usage with the applicable charging session and rating context;¶

(n) distinguish charging initialization, intermediate updates, and finalization;¶

(o) determine whether a charging receiver's reported state establishes the relevant processing outcome;¶

(p) distinguish usage measurement from rating and financial settlement;¶

(q) maintain the applicable tariff or rating period where the source supports it;¶

(r) preserve interoperator reporting scope and outstanding remote records;¶

(s) distinguish operational session closure from charging-record completion;¶

(t) identify corrections or late records affecting historical results;¶

(u) maintain reconstructible evidence lineage from service effect through charging;¶

(v) evaluate the required correspondence predicates under three-valued logic; and¶

(w) produce a qualified technical result without independently authorizing charging changes or further resource use.¶

5.990. 4.C.4. Representative System Architecture

5.991. 4.C.4.1. Service Session Identity Resolver

Obtains the relevant application-facing service, API provider namespace, session generation, and supported network-session correspondence.¶

It does not assume the API session and PDU Session are identical.¶

5.992. 4.C.4.2. Service Effect Specification Repository

Stores the objective whose delivery is to be evaluated.¶

The objective may concern QoS availability, a specific traffic treatment, traffic delivery, a latency condition, or another defined service characteristic.¶

The scope determines what observations are mandatory.¶

5.993. 4.C.4.3. Service State Observer

Receives the applicable provider-defined API status and network control information.¶

It distinguishes requested, available, and unavailable states according to the source contract.¶

5.994. 4.C.4.4. Resource and Flow Mapper

Associates the service with relevant flows, policy rules, user-plane resources, and applicable resource generations.¶

It records time-qualified mappings.¶

5.995. 4.C.4.5. Service-Performance Observer

Where required, obtains latency, packet-loss, jitter, throughput, reachability, or other selected observations.¶

It preserves their measurement population and temporal coverage.¶

5.996. 4.C.4.6. Traffic Measurement Collector

Obtains user-plane measurements from relevant network functions.¶

It maintains the source's measurement method, reporting rules, and interval definitions.¶

5.997. 4.C.4.7. Traffic Population Correspondence Evaluator

Determines whether two measurements represent:¶

| x | distinct traffic populations; | |---|---| | x | overlapping traffic populations; | | x | the same original measurement; | | x | different measurement layers; or | | x | an unresolved relationship. |¶

5.998. 4.C.4.8. Counter and Source Generation Manager

Preserves counter resets, rollovers, source restarts, resource relocations, and reporting-rule changes.¶

5.999. 4.C.4.9. Usage Lineage Repository

Maintains the relationships among original measurements, retransmissions, corrected reports, derived summaries, and charging references.¶

5.1000. 4.C.4.10. Measurement Interval Evaluator

Determines applicable event-time intervals and source reporting coverage.¶

It distinguishes measured traffic occurrence from later message delivery.¶

5.1001. 4.C.4.11. Charging Context Resolver

Associates usage records with the applicable charging-session reference, charging consumer and receiver, rating group, service identifier, and charging context where available.¶

It records unsupported or unavailable mappings.¶

5.1002. 4.C.4.12. Charging Operation Tracker

Obtains initial, intermediate, event-related, and final charging-operation information under the actual interface.¶

It distinguishes operation submission, response, processing, and unknown outcomes.¶

5.1003. 4.C.4.13. Rating Context Evaluator

Identifies which charging or rating context applies to each supported usage period.¶

It does not calculate an unsupported tariff or invent a charge amount.¶

5.1004. 4.C.4.14. Accounting Record Correlator

Relates charging messages and usage evidence to the resulting accounting records.¶

It distinguishes raw usage, rated records, adjustments, and final settlement.¶

5.1005. 4.C.4.15. Interoperator Accounting Context Interface

Where roaming or interoperator charging is relevant, associates records with the applicable participating operators and accounting contexts.¶

It retains remote visibility limitations.¶

5.1006. 4.C.4.16. Charging Completeness Evaluator

Determines whether the required usage coverage and processing records are established under the selected accounting objective.¶

5.1007. 4.C.4.17. Session Closure Correspondence Evaluator

Relates service cessation, logical session termination, resource release, final usage collection, and charging-session closure.¶

5.1008. 4.C.4.18. Revision and Correction Processor

Processes later source corrections, accounting adjustments, and revised record relationships.¶

It identifies dependent results requiring recalculation.¶

5.1009. 4.C.4.19. Evidence Provenance Repository

Preserves the source references, lineage, calculation versions, and supporting conditions needed to reproduce a result.¶

This repository does not have to be an execution-finality ledger.¶

5.1010. 4.C.4.20. Optional Existing Charging and Effectuation Interface

Provides qualified findings to an independently governed charging, billing, or networkmanagement system.¶

The reconstruction processor itself does not directly alter a financial balance or grant network access.¶

5.1011. 4.C.5. Necessary Embodiment-Specific Interpretations

The Master Definitions and C-CW-01 terminology remain applicable.¶

4.C.5.1. Service-Effect Correspondence¶

The supported relationship between a requested telecommunications service and the network or application observations relevant to its delivery.¶

4.C.5.2. Traffic-Population Correspondence¶

The relationship between a usage measurement and the traffic population, direction, flow, service, or resource interval it describes.¶

4.C.5.3. Measurement Lineage¶

The original or derived relationship among usage reports, retransmissions, corrections, and aggregates.¶

4.C.5.4. Charging Context Correspondence¶

The supported relationship between technical usage and the applicable charging-session, service, rating, or accounting references.¶

4.C.5.5. Charging Evidence Completeness¶

The extent to which the required usage and charging records establish the selected accounting objective.¶

It does not universally imply final commercial settlement.¶

4.C.5.6. Historical Accounting Revision¶

A revised interpretation or amount associated with an earlier usage period, based upon a corrected measurement, rating context, or charging record.¶

4.C.5.7. Operational-Accounting Closure¶

A scoped result indicating which network resources, usage reports, charging interactions, and accounting conditions are established as completed.¶

5.1012. 4.C.6. Representative Data Structures

5.1013. 4.C.6.1. Service Effect Record

ServiceEffect:¶

service\_reference api\_session\_reference service\_generation provider\_namespace requested\_profile granted\_profile\_if\_known requested\_effect service\_objective\_version api\_status network\_policy\_reference resource\_references effective\_service\_interval observed\_performance measurement\_coverage unresolved\_conditions¶

5.1014. 4.C.6.2. Time-Qualified Flow Mapping

TrafficFlowCorrespondence:¶

flow\_mapping\_id logical\_service\_reference pdu\_session\_reference\_if\_supported flow\_descriptor direction resource\_path\_references reporting\_rule\_references source\_and\_target\_generations effective\_interval mapping\_evidence mapping\_verdict¶

5.1015. 4.C.6.3. Original Usage Measurement

OriginalUsageMeasurement:¶

original\_measurement\_id source\_function source\_generation counter\_or\_reporting\_rule\_id applicable\_flow\_or\_population direction unit measurement\_method counter\_semantics start\_and\_end\_context observed\_quantity measurement\_coverage source\_evidence¶

5.1016. 4.C.6.4. Usage Report Lineage

UsageReportLineage:¶

delivered\_report\_id original\_measurement\_reference source\_identity\_and\_generation parent\_report\_references retransmission\_reference correction\_reference superseded\_report\_reference aggregate\_member\_references transformation\_version contribution\_classification unresolved\_lineage¶

5.1017. 4.C.6.5. Charging Context Record

ChargingContext:¶

charging\_context\_reference charging\_function\_reference charging\_consumer\_reference charging\_session\_generation subscriber\_or\_service\_scope rating\_group\_if\_applicable service\_identifier\_if\_applicable charging\_characteristics applicable\_rating\_interval usage\_measurement\_references grant\_or\_quota\_references source\_evidence¶

5.1018. 4.C.6.6. Charging Operation Record

ChargingOperation:¶

charging\_operation\_id¶

original\_request\_reference charging\_context\_reference operation\_type source\_function receiving\_function reported\_usage\_references requested\_units\_if\_applicable granted\_units\_if\_known transport\_status receiver\_response processed\_outcome\_if\_known correction\_or\_retry\_relationship effective\_interval unresolved\_conditions¶

5.1019. 4.C.6.7. Accounting Correspondence Result

AccountingCorrespondence:¶

service\_reference session\_generation charging\_context\_reference measurement\_interval established\_measured\_usage unresolved\_usage rating\_context derived\_charging\_records adjustments posting\_state settlement\_state\_if\_available evidence\_lineage reconciliation\_verdict¶

5.1020. 4.C.6.8. Complete Service-to-Charging Reconstruction

ServiceChargingReconstruction:¶

reconstruction\_id service\_reference session\_reference service\_effect\_status service\_effect\_interval flow\_correspondence network\_resource\_state usage\_population original\_measurement\_set nonduplicative\_usage\_result charging\_operation\_results rating\_and\_accounting\_context accounting\_record\_status outstanding\_final\_usage outstanding\_interoperator\_records¶

operational\_closure\_status accounting\_closure\_status unresolved\_conditions revision¶

5.1021. 4.C.7. Detailed Operational Procedure - C-V4

The following 46 stages provide the specific implementation sequence for Embodiment 4.C.¶

5.1022. 4.C-01 - Identify the Application-Facing Service

The processor receives or retrieves the service or programmable API-session reference.¶

It identifies the provider namespace and applicable generation.¶

Output: Qualified service identity.¶

5.1023. 4.C-02 - Resolve the Logical Network Session

The system identifies the relevant PDU Session or other network-session correspondence, where supported.¶

It does not assume one-to-one identity.¶

Output: Session relationship.¶

5.1024. 4.C-03 - Retrieve the Service Objective

The processor obtains the requested or granted QoS profile and the technical condition whose delivery is to be evaluated.¶

Output: Service objective.¶

5.1025. 4.C-04 - Establish Service Status History

The system reconstructs the relevant requested, available, unavailable, modified, or terminated status according to its actual API contract.¶

Output: Service status timeline.¶

5.1026. 4.C-05 - Determine the Service-Effect Interval

The processor identifies the interval during which the relevant treatment or outcome is supported by available evidence.¶

It distinguishes API status time from independent performance-observation time.¶

Output: Service-effect interval.¶

5.1027. 4.C-06 - Resolve Network Resource Relationships

The processor associates the service with relevant policy, flow, and user-plane resources.¶

Output: Resource correspondence.¶

5.1028. 4.C-07 - Determine the Traffic Population

The processor identifies which traffic is included in the particular service's measurement or accounting scope.¶

Output: Traffic-population definition.¶

5.1029. 4.C-08 - Qualify Flow Identity and Time

The system evaluates endpoint, port, protocol, direction, translation, and resource-generation information as applicable.¶

Output: Qualified flow mapping.¶

5.1030. 4.C-09 - Obtain Resource-Application Evidence

The processor obtains supported operational observations about the intended network treatment.¶

Output: Network-treatment assessment.¶

5.1031. 4.C-10 - Obtain Service-Performance Observations

Where required, the processor collects relevant latency, loss, throughput, or application performance measurements.¶

Output: Performance evidence.¶

5.1032. 4.C-11 - Determine Measurement Representativeness

The system checks whether the performance observations represent the relevant flow and operating interval.¶

Output: Performance applicability.¶

5.1033. 4.C-12 - Classify the Service Effect

The processor reports the requested, configured, API-reported, and observed outcomes under their separate definitions.¶

Output: Service-effect assessment.¶

5.1034. 4.C-13 - Identify Usage Measurement Sources

The system identifies user-plane functions, reporting rules, and other sources relevant to measured usage.¶

Output: Measurement-source set.¶

5.1035. 4.C-14 - Qualify Measurement Source Generations

Each source and counter is associated with its applicable identity and generation.¶

Output: Source-generation context.¶

5.1036. 4.C-15 - Determine Measurement Semantics

The processor identifies whether a record measures volume, duration, events, or another defined quantity.¶

Output: Measurement-type classification.¶

5.1037. 4.C-16 - Determine Direction and Accounting Population

The processor identifies uplink, downlink, combined, or another defined traffic scope.¶

Output: Population scope.¶

5.1038. 4.C-17 - Acquire Original Measurement Records

The system obtains the available usage reports and relevant source counter records.¶

Output: Measurement collection.¶

5.1039. 4.C-18 - Associate Measurement Windows

The processor records the actual measurement intervals separately from report delivery times.¶

Output: Measurement timeline.¶

5.1040. 4.C-19 - Identify Counter Resets or Relocations

The system detects changes in reporting rule, network function, or counter generation.¶

Output: Counter-transition information.¶

5.1041. 4.C-20 - Classify Report Lineage

The processor identifies original, retransmitted, corrected, and derived reports.¶

Output: Lineage classification.¶

5.1042. 4.C-21 - Identify Duplicated Measurement Contributions

The system excludes established duplicate contributions from usage totals.¶

It retains the records for provenance where appropriate.¶

Output: Deduplicated contribution set.¶

5.1043. 4.C-22 - Identify Overlapping Traffic Measurements

The processor evaluates whether several counters describe the same packets or disjoint populations.¶

Output: Measurement-overlap assessment.¶

5.1044. 4.C-23 - Reconcile Source and Target Resource Usage

Where traffic moved between network functions, the processor associates the relevant reports with each resource interval.¶

Output: Multi-resource usage mapping.¶

5.1045. 4.C-24 - Determine Measurement Coverage

The system identifies the required usage intervals and any missing or inadequately observed periods.¶

Output: Usage coverage assessment.¶

5.1046. 4.C-25 - Derive Supported Usage Quantities

The processor computes totals only from compatible, nonduplicated, adequately scoped measurements.¶

Output: Qualified usage totals.¶

5.1047. 4.C-26 - Resolve the Charging Context

The processor associates the usage with the applicable charging-session or service-context references.¶

Output: Charging identity correspondence.¶

5.1048. 4.C-27 - Determine Rating and Service Scope

The system identifies the applicable service identifier, rating group, charging period, or other relevant classification.¶

Output: Rating context.¶

5.1049. 4.C-28 - Identify Rating Context Changes

The processor determines whether a charging or tariff-related state change occurred during the measurement period.¶

Output: Rating transition assessment.¶

5.1050. 4.C-29 - Determine Usage Partition Requirements

Where different charging conditions apply to different periods or traffic populations, the processor identifies the required partition.¶

Output: Chargeable population partition model.¶

5.1051. 4.C-30 - Retrieve Charging Operations

The processor obtains initial, intermediate, event-related, or final charging-operation records.¶

Output: Charging operation history.¶

5.1052. 4.C-31 - Qualify Charging Request Identity

Each request is associated with its original source, receiving function, context, parameters, and retry semantics.¶

Output: Charging request identity.¶

5.1053. 4.C-32 - Reconcile Receiver Status

The system distinguishes a sent charging request, received response, established processing outcome, and unknown remote result.¶

Output: Charging-operation outcome.¶

5.1054. 4.C-33 - Associate Usage with Charging Operations

The processor determines which original measurements are represented in which charging requests.¶

Output: Measurement-to-charging lineage.¶

5.1055. 4.C-34 - Identify Charging Record Duplication or Derivation

The system identifies whether an accounting record is an independent record, retransmission, adjustment, or aggregate.¶

Output: Charging-record lineage.¶

5.1056. 4.C-35 - Obtain Accounting Processing Status

The processor identifies whether a charging record was accepted, posted, rated, adjusted, or otherwise processed under the available system contract.¶

Output: Accounting-state assessment.¶

5.1057. 4.C-36 - Evaluate Charging and Rating Correspondence

The processor evaluates whether the recorded charges or rated units are associated with the correct usage and effective rating conditions.¶

It does not invent missing tariff information.¶

Output: Charging correspondence verdict.¶

5.1058. 4.C-37 - Evaluate Interoperator Records Where Relevant

The system associates available home and visited operator usage or charging information.¶

It retains unavailable remote state explicitly.¶

Output: Cross-operator accounting correspondence.¶

5.1059. 4.C-38 - Evaluate Final Usage Coverage

The processor determines whether the required usage intervals and measurement populations are sufficiently represented.¶

Output: Final usage completeness assessment.¶

5.1060. 4.C-39 - Evaluate Charging-Session Closure

The processor determines whether the relevant final charging interaction completed under its defined scope.¶

Output: Charging closure result.¶

5.1061. 4.C-40 - Evaluate Operational Session Closure

The system independently checks service cessation, logical session termination, and required network-resource release.¶

Output: Operational closure result.¶

5.1062. 4.C-41 - Evaluate Outstanding Financial or Interoperator Settlement

Where such information is available and relevant to the selected objective, the processor identifies pending rating, invoicing, or settlement conditions.¶

It does not infer settlement from charging-session release alone.¶

Output: Settlement status.¶

5.1063. 4.C-42 - Identify Contradictions and Missing Evidence

The processor identifies inconsistent flow mappings, counter populations, rating periods, or charging records.¶

Output: Discrepancy set.¶

5.1064. 4.C-43 - Determine Which Conclusions Are Established

The system evaluates the mandatory conditions for the selected technical reconstruction objective.¶

Output: Scoped consistency verdict.¶

5.1065. 4.C-44 - Process Corrections and Late Reports

The processor reevaluates affected measurements and charging correspondence when relevant new evidence arrives.¶

Output: Revised accounting reconstruction.¶

5.1066. 4.C-45 - Preserve Traceable Reconstruction Evidence

The system stores the source lineage, time context, calculation rules, state references, corrections, and unresolved information.¶

Output: Reconstructible evidence history.¶

5.1067. 4.C-46 - Produce the Final Service-to-Charging Correspondence Result

The processor reports the established service effect, relevant measured usage, charging context, accounting status, and unresolved conditions.¶

Output: C-V4 service/usage/charging result.¶

5.1068. 4.C.8. Technical Invariants

C4-I01 - A requested service is not automatically an effective service.¶

C4-I02 - API-reported QoS availability is not necessarily proof of every applicationperformance target.¶

C4-I03 - Network policy installation does not establish end-to-end performance.¶

5.1069. C4-I04 - Application performance and network usage may have different measurement populations.

C4-I05 - An API-facing service session is not automatically a PDU Session.¶

C4-I06 - A PDU Session's total traffic is not automatically attributable to one API service session.¶

C4-I07 - A resource allocation does not prove nonzero traffic use.¶

C4-I08 - Network traffic can continue after an optional service treatment becomes unavailable.¶

C4-I09 - Service effect and resource allocation may begin or end at different times.¶

C4-I10 - Usage must be associated with the correct traffic population.¶

C4-I11 - Flow identity requires applicable namespace and time context.¶

C4-I12 - Address reuse must not merge unrelated traffic histories.¶

C4-I13 - Traffic observed by several functions is not automatically independent usage.¶

C4-I14 - Uplink and downlink quantities require compatible direction semantics.¶

C4-I15 - Payload-byte and network-octet measurements are not automatically equal.¶

C4-I16 - Measurement occurrence time is distinct from report delivery time.¶

C4-I17 - A missing usage report does not establish zero traffic.¶

C4-I18 - A source counter requires generation-qualified interpretation.¶

C4-I19 - Cumulative reports must not be blindly added.¶

C4-I20 - Independent interval increments require a justified nonoverlap model.¶

C4-I21 - A retransmitted usage record is not additional usage.¶

C4-I22 - Two equal quantities are not necessarily duplicate records.¶

C4-I23 - A correction is not necessarily new consumption.¶

5.1070. C4-I24 - A derived aggregate must not be counted again with all its constituent measurements.

C4-I25 - Resource relocation does not guarantee counter continuity.¶

C4-I26 - A PFCP usage report is not automatically a final financial charge.¶

C4-I27 - PFCP measurement semantics are determined by the relevant reporting-rule configuration.¶

C4-I28 - Charging requests and underlying traffic measurement are separate events.¶

C4-I29 - Initial charging does not establish final consumption.¶

5.1071. C4-I30 - Intermediate charging updates do not necessarily represent independent increments.

C4-I31 - A final charging request is not universal proof of completed settlement.¶

C4-I32 - A lost charging response does not prove remote nonprocessing.¶

C4-I33 - A receiver acknowledgement is interpreted under its actual contract.¶

C4-I34 - Usage quantity equality does not imply charge-amount equality.¶

C4-I35 - Rating groups are not automatically interchangeable.¶

C4-I36 - Rating changes must be interpreted over their applicable intervals.¶

C4-I37 - A tariff adjustment does not retroactively change the physical quantity of traffic that occurred.¶

C4-I38 - Zero monetary charge does not imply zero network usage.¶

C4-I39 - A posted charge does not necessarily imply current session activity.¶

C4-I40 - Service failure does not automatically determine a refund or credit.¶

5.1072. C4-I41 - Home-operator accounting is not automatically complete interoperator settlement.

C4-I42 - An authentic record may be stale, duplicated, or incomplete.¶

5.1073. C4-I43 - Complete transport delivery does not establish complete physical measurement coverage.

C4-I44 - Resource cleanup and final usage reporting are separate conditions.¶

C4-I45 - Operational closure does not necessarily imply accounting closure.¶

C4-I46 - Accounting closure does not necessarily prove the specified service effect was delivered.¶

C4-I47 - A source-specific version must not be treated as a global chronology without support.¶

C4-I48 - An unknown mandatory measurement cannot silently become zero or TRUE.¶

C4-I49 - A demonstrated mandatory discrepancy is distinct from missing evidence.¶

C4-I50 - A corrected record may require a revised historical accounting result.¶

C4-I51 - A usage reconstruction does not authorize further traffic consumption.¶

C4-I52 - A discrepancy finding does not independently authorize account correction.¶

C4-I53 - Technical attribution and causal attribution must be distinguished.¶

C4-I54 - Multiple compatible reports do not necessarily prove complete measurement coverage.¶

C4-I55 - The selected reconstruction objective determines which state dimensions are mandatory.¶

C4-I56 - No conclusion exceeds its actual API, measurement, charging, and accounting contracts.¶

5.1074. 4.C.9. Mathematical Formulation

The following equations supplement Group C's common mathematical specification.¶

They are non-limiting and require the stated assumptions.¶

5.1075. 4.C.9.1. Service-to-Charging State Vector

For service (s) at time (t), define:¶

[ X\_s(t)= (A\_s,N\_s,Q\_s,F\_s,U\_s,C\_s,B\_s). ]¶

Where:¶

| x | (A_s): application-facing service state; | |---|---| | x | (N_s): applicable network-resource treatment; | | x | (Q_s): observed service-quality state; | | x | (F_s): flow and resource correspondence; | | x | (U_s): usage measurement state; | | x | (C_s): charging context; | | x | (B_s): accounting or billing state. |¶

The components need not change atomically.¶

5.1076. 4.C.9.2. Service-Effect Verification

Let (E\_s) be the required service-effect conditions.¶

Define:¶

\\bigwedge\_{e\\in E\_s}e(s,I), ]¶

where (I) is the relevant observation interval.¶

Each predicate is three-valued: TRUE, FALSE, or UNKNOWN.¶

The result is scoped to the specified conditions rather than all possible performance properties.¶

5.1077. 4.C.9.3. Traffic-Population Mapping

Let (\\mathcal P\_s(I)) identify traffic attributable to service (s) during interval (I).¶

Let (\\mathcal M\_r(I)) identify the population measured by reporting source (r).¶

An attribution requires an established relationship between these sets.¶

An observed measurement total is not automatically equal to service usage unless the relevant population correspondence is supported.¶

5.1078. 4.C.9.4. Measurement Additivity

Let (U(P)) be measured usage for traffic population (P).¶

For disjoint measurable populations (P\_1) and (P\_2), under a compatible additive measurement model:¶

[ U(P\_1\\cup P\_2)=U(P\_1)+U(P\_2). ]¶

If populations overlap:¶

U(P\_1)+U(P\_2)-U(P\_1\\cap P\_2), ]¶

where the overlap term must itself be adequately measurable.¶

If the overlap cannot be determined, a unique combined total may remain unresolved.¶

5.1079. 4.C.9.5. Cumulative Counter Difference

For compatible cumulative observations:¶

[ \\Delta u=c\_2-c\_1, ]¶

subject to common source, counter generation, metric meaning, and supported ordering.¶

A counter reset can invalidate the calculation.¶

5.1080. 4.C.9.6. Time-Qualified Measurement Coverage

Let (I\_s) be the required service accounting interval.¶

Let (I\_i) be the valid covered interval for measurement (i).¶

For an objective requiring complete interval coverage:¶

[ I\_s\\subseteq\\bigcup\_i I\_i. ]¶

Coverage is not sufficient by itself if the traffic populations or measurement definitions differ.¶

5.1081. 4.C.9.7. Service Effect and Chargeable Usage

Let:¶

[ T\_{\\mathrm{effect}}\\subseteq I\_s ]¶

be the established interval of the requested QoS effect.¶

Let:¶

[ T\_{\\mathrm{usage}}\\subseteq I\_s ]¶

be the interval in which attributable network traffic was measured.¶

There is no universal requirement that:¶

[ T\_{\\mathrm{effect}}=T\_{\\mathrm{usage}}. ]¶

The relationship depends upon the service and charging model.¶

5.1082. 4.C.9.8. Rating-Context Partition

Let the session's usage interval be partitioned into rating-relevant intervals:¶

[ I\_s=\\bigcup\_{k=1}^{n}I\_k. ]¶

Where the (I\_k) are disjoint under the relevant model, attributable usage can be evaluated separately for each applicable rating context (R\_k).¶

This does not establish any particular monetary tariff.¶

5.1083. 4.C.9.9. Rated Charge Function

For a defined charging contract:¶

[ B\_k=\\rho(U\_k,R\_k), ]¶

where:¶

| x | (U_k) is attributable usage; | |---|---| | x | (R_k) is the applicable rating context; | | x | (\\rho) is the existing supported rating function. |¶

The processor cannot infer (B\_k) without sufficient information about (\\rho).¶

5.1084. 4.C.9.10. Zero-Rated Usage

Under a rating context where the relevant usage has zero incremental charge:¶

[ U\_k>0 ]¶

may coexist with:¶

[ B\_k=0. ]¶

The physical usage remains nonzero.¶

5.1085. 4.C.9.11. Record Lineage

Let a report (r\_i) reference original measurement (m\_j).¶

Define:¶

[ L(r\_i,m\_j)\\in{T,F,U}. ]¶

If two delivered reports are established as retransmissions of the same original measurement, they do not represent two independent usage contributions.¶

5.1086. 4.C.9.12. Charging Operation State

Let:¶

[ C\_o= (T\_o,A\_o,P\_o,F\_o) ]¶

represent transport, acceptance, processing, and finalization evidence for charging operation (o).¶

The presence of one component does not necessarily establish the others.¶

5.1087. 4.C.9.13. Accounting Completeness

For selected accounting objective (J), let (P\_J) be the mandatory predicates.¶

Define:¶

[ V\_J= \\bigwedge\_{p\\in P\_J}p. ]¶

A network usage-completeness objective may differ from final commercial settlement.¶

5.1088. 4.C.9.14. Historical Correction

Let (B^{(v)}) be the versioned accounting result.¶

Following a supported correction (\\Delta):¶

\\operatorname{Reconcile}(B^{(v)},\\Delta). ]¶

The operation may replace or adjust a record.¶

It is not necessarily addition.¶

5.1089. 4.C.9.15. Dependency-Based Revalidation

Let (D(x)) be the supporting measurements and rules for derived result (x).¶

A correction (\\Delta) may require reevaluation when:¶

[ D(x)\\cap\\Delta\\neq\\varnothing. ]¶

An incomplete dependency inventory may require broader reconstruction.¶

5.1090. 4.C.9.16. Worked Numerical Example - Double Measurement

Suppose the same 600 MB traffic population passes through both UPF-A and UPF-B.¶

Each reports 600 MB under compatible byte-count semantics.¶

The two observations cannot automatically be summed to 1,200 MB of unique service traffic.¶

If the system establishes that both reports cover exactly the same population, the unique measured traffic remains 600 MB.¶

If the overlap is unknown, the combined total is not uniquely determined from those two figures alone.¶

5.1091. 4.C.9.17. Worked Numerical Example - Rating Change

Suppose a session has 300 MB of qualifying usage before a rating transition and 200 MB afterward.¶

The two intervals may be associated with separate applicable rating contexts.¶

The total traffic is 500 MB under the established nonoverlap assumptions.¶

The monetary charge cannot be determined without the respective rating rules.¶

5.1092. 4.C.10. Implementable Pseudocode - C-ALG-05

5.1093. 4.C.10.1. Core Types

ENUM Verdict:¶

COMPATIBLE INCOMPATIBLE UNRESOLVED¶

ENUM MeasurementKind:¶

CUMULATIVE\_VOLUME INTERVAL\_VOLUME DURATION EVENT\_COUNT DERIVED\_AGGREGATE UNKNOWN¶

ENUM ChargingOperationKind:¶

INITIAL UPDATE EVENT¶

RELEASE¶

ENUM RecordRelation:¶

ORIGINAL RETRANSMISSION CORRECTION SUPERSEDING\_RECORD DERIVED\_SUMMARY INDEPENDENT\_RECORD UNRESOLVED\_RELATION¶

TYPE ServiceChargingContext:¶

service\_identity session\_identity network\_resource\_references effect\_specification traffic\_mapping measurement\_sources charging\_references accounting\_requirements¶

5.1094. 4.C.10.2. Resolve Service and Flow Identity

FUNCTION RESOLVE\_SERVICE\_TRAFFIC\_SCOPE(¶

service\_reference, api\_source, network\_mapping\_source ):¶

service = api\_source.GET\_SESSION\_CONTEXT(¶

service\_reference )¶

mapping = network\_mapping\_source.GET\_SUPPORTED\_MAPPING(¶

service\_reference, service.relevant\_interval )¶

RETURN {¶

service\_identity:¶

QUALIFY\_SERVICE\_IDENTITY(service), resource\_correspondence:¶

QUALIFY\_RESOURCE\_MAPPINGS(mapping), traffic\_population:¶

BUILD\_SCOPE\_QUALIFIED\_TRAFFIC\_POPULATION(¶

service, mapping )¶

}¶

5.1095. 4.C.10.3. Evaluate Service Effect

FUNCTION EVALUATE\_SERVICE\_EFFECT(¶

context, service\_status, network\_state, performance\_observations ):¶

status = INTERPRET\_API\_STATUS(¶

service\_status, context.api\_contract )¶

resource = CHECK\_REQUIRED\_NETWORK\_TREATMENT(¶

network\_state, context )¶

performance = CHECK\_SPECIFIED\_PERFORMANCE(¶

performance\_observations, context.effect\_specification )¶

RETURN {¶

api\_status: status, resource\_state: resource, observed\_service\_effect: performance }¶

The function does not replace a missing performance observation with the API availability status.¶

5.1096. 4.C.10.4. Qualify Original Usage Measurements

FUNCTION QUALIFY\_USAGE\_MEASUREMENT(¶

measurement, source\_contract, traffic\_mapping ):¶

identity = CHECK\_ORIGINAL\_MEASUREMENT\_IDENTITY(¶

measurement )¶

generation = CHECK\_COUNTER\_AND\_SOURCE\_GENERATION(¶

measurement )¶

population = CHECK\_TRAFFIC\_SCOPE(¶

measurement, traffic\_mapping )¶

semantics = CHECK\_MEASUREMENT\_METHOD(¶

measurement, source\_contract )¶

interval = CHECK\_MEASUREMENT\_INTERVAL(¶

measurement )¶

RETURN COMBINE\_MEASUREMENT\_QUALIFICATIONS(¶

identity, generation, population, semantics, interval )¶

5.1097. 4.C.10.5. Reconcile Report Lineage

FUNCTION CLASSIFY\_REPORT\_LINEAGE(¶

reports, source\_history ):¶

lineage = NEW\_LINEAGE\_GRAPH()¶

FOR EACH report IN reports:¶

original = RESOLVE\_ORIGINAL\_MEASUREMENT(¶

report, source\_history )¶

relation = CLASSIFY\_SOURCE\_RECORD\_RELATION(¶

report, original, source\_history )¶

ADD\_LINEAGE\_RELATION(¶

lineage, report, original, relation¶

)¶

RETURN lineage¶

5.1098. 4.C.10.6. Prevent Double Counting

FUNCTION DERIVE\_NON\_DUPLICATIVE\_USAGE(¶

qualified\_measurements, lineage, traffic\_partition\_model ):¶

originals = SELECT\_CONTRIBUTING\_ORIGINALS(¶

qualified\_measurements, lineage )¶

APPLY\_ESTABLISHED\_CORRECTIONS(originals)¶

groups = GROUP\_BY\_COMPATIBLE\_POPULATION\_AND\_UNIT(¶

originals )¶

contributions = []¶

FOR EACH group IN groups:¶

overlap = ASSESS\_TRAFFIC\_POPULATION\_OVERLAP(¶

group, traffic\_partition\_model )¶

IF overlap is sufficiently resolved:¶

ADD DERIVE\_VALID\_USAGE(¶

group, overlap ) TO contributions¶

ELSE:¶

MARK\_GROUP\_UNRESOLVED(group)¶

RETURN BUILD\_USAGE\_RESULT(¶

contributions, unresolved\_groups )¶

5.1099. 4.C.10.7. Resolve Charging Context

FUNCTION RESOLVE\_CHARGING\_CORRESPONDENCE(¶

service, usage, charging\_sources ):¶

contexts = charging\_sources.FIND\_RELEVANT\_CONTEXTS(¶

service, usage.measurement\_intervals )¶

results = []¶

FOR EACH context IN contexts:¶

identity = CHECK\_CHARGING\_SESSION\_REFERENCE(¶

context )¶

scope = CHECK\_SERVICE\_AND\_RATING\_CONTEXT(¶

context, usage )¶

interval = CHECK\_CHARGING\_APPLICABILITY(¶

context, usage )¶

ADD {¶

context, identity, scope, interval } TO results¶

RETURN results¶

5.1100. 4.C.10.8. Reconcile Charging Operations

FUNCTION RECONCILE\_CHARGING\_OPERATIONS(¶

operations, receiver\_contracts, available\_receiver\_evidence ):¶

results = []¶

FOR EACH operation IN operations:¶

contract = receiver\_contracts.RESOLVE(¶

operation )¶

transport = CHECK\_TRANSMISSION(¶

operation )¶

response = INTERPRET\_RECEIVER\_RESPONSE(¶

operation, contract )¶

outcome = CHECK\_PROCESSING\_EVIDENCE(¶

operation, available\_receiver\_evidence )¶

ADD {¶

operation, transport, response, outcome } TO results¶

RETURN results¶

5.1101. 4.C.10.9. Evaluate Rating Periods

FUNCTION PARTITION\_USAGE\_BY\_RATING\_CONTEXT(¶

usage, rating\_history ):¶

partitions = BUILD\_RATING\_APPLICABILITY\_PARTITIONS(¶

rating\_history )¶

results = []¶

FOR EACH partition IN partitions:¶

portion = FIND\_SUPPORTED\_USAGE\_PORTION(¶

usage, partition )¶

IF portion cannot be established:¶

ADD UNRESOLVED\_PARTITION(partition) TO results¶

ELSE:¶

ADD {¶

partition, attributed\_usage: portion } TO results¶

RETURN results¶

No monetary total is inferred without the applicable rating calculation.¶

5.1102. 4.C.10.10. Reconcile Accounting Records

FUNCTION RECONCILE\_ACCOUNTING\_RECORDS(¶

charging\_operations, accounting\_records, measurement\_lineage ):¶

classified = []¶

FOR EACH record IN accounting\_records:¶

relation = CLASSIFY\_RECORD\_DERIVATION(¶

record, measurement\_lineage )¶

processing = CHECK\_ACCOUNTING\_PROCESSING\_STATUS(¶

record )¶

ADD {¶

record, relation, processing } TO classified¶

RETURN BUILD\_VERSIONED\_ACCOUNTING\_CORRESPONDENCE(¶

charging\_operations, classified )¶

5.1103. 4.C.10.11. Evaluate Closure

FUNCTION EVALUATE\_SERVICE\_ACCOUNTING\_CLOSURE(¶

service, resources, usage, charging, accounting\_objective¶

):¶

service\_end = CHECK\_SERVICE\_TERMINATION(service)¶

resource\_end = CHECK\_REQUIRED\_RESOURCE\_RELEASE(¶

resources )¶

usage\_complete = CHECK\_REQUIRED\_USAGE\_COVERAGE(¶

usage )¶

charging\_complete = CHECK\_REQUIRED\_CHARGING\_FINALITY(¶

charging )¶

RETURN EVALUATE\_SCOPED\_OBJECTIVE(¶

accounting\_objective, service\_end, resource\_end, usage\_complete, charging\_complete )¶

5.1104. 4.C.10.12. Full Embodiment Orchestration

FUNCTION RECONSTRUCT\_SERVICE\_TO\_CHARGING(¶

service\_reference ):¶

context = RESOLVE\_SERVICE\_TRAFFIC\_SCOPE(¶

service\_reference, API\_SOURCE(), NETWORK\_RESOURCE\_MAPPING\_SOURCE() )¶

effect = EVALUATE\_SERVICE\_EFFECT(¶

context, SERVICE\_STATUS\_HISTORY(), NETWORK\_RESOURCE\_STATE(), SERVICE\_PERFORMANCE\_OBSERVATIONS() )¶

measurements = QUALIFY\_ALL\_RELEVANT\_MEASUREMENTS(¶

context, NETWORK\_USAGE\_SOURCES() )¶

lineage = CLASSIFY\_REPORT\_LINEAGE(¶

measurements,¶

ORIGINAL\_REPORT\_HISTORY() )¶

usage = DERIVE\_NON\_DUPLICATIVE\_USAGE(¶

measurements, lineage, TRAFFIC\_PARTITION\_MODEL() )¶

charging\_context = RESOLVE\_CHARGING\_CORRESPONDENCE(¶

context, usage, CHARGING\_SOURCES() )¶

charging\_operations = RECONCILE\_CHARGING\_OPERATIONS(¶

CHARGING\_OPERATION\_HISTORY(), CHARGING\_RECEIVER\_CONTRACTS(), CHARGING\_RECEIVER\_EVIDENCE() )¶

rated\_partitions = PARTITION\_USAGE\_BY\_RATING\_CONTEXT(¶

usage, RATING\_CONTEXT\_HISTORY() )¶

accounting = RECONCILE\_ACCOUNTING\_RECORDS(¶

charging\_operations, ACCOUNTING\_RECORDS(), lineage )¶

closure = EVALUATE\_SERVICE\_ACCOUNTING\_CLOSURE(¶

context, NETWORK\_RESOURCE\_STATE(), usage, charging\_operations, SELECTED\_CLOSURE\_OBJECTIVE() )¶

result = BUILD\_RECONSTRUCTION(¶

context, effect, usage, charging\_context, charging\_operations, rated\_partitions, accounting, closure )¶

STORE\_VERSIONED\_RECONSTRUCTION(result)¶

RETURN result¶

The procedure does not authorize additional service use or independently change accounting records.¶

5.1105. 4.C.11. Worked Technical Examples

5.1106. 4.C.11.1. Example 1 - QoS AVAILABLE but Performance Not Established

An application receives an AVAILABLE status for its requested QoS session.¶

The network provider reports that the intended treatment is active.¶

No application-level performance measurement is available.¶

The processor can report the provider-defined available status.¶

It cannot automatically assert that a particular 20 ms latency objective was observed.¶

5.1107. 4.C.11.2. Example 2 - Service Treatment Available, Traffic Absent

A requested network treatment is configured.¶

No attributable application packets are observed within a valid complete measurement window.¶

The system may establish zero observed traffic under that particular source and interval.¶

It does not infer that the service was never configured.¶

Any charge for resource availability depends upon the applicable charging contract.¶

5.1108. 4.C.11.3. Example 3 - Baseline Traffic Continues after QoS Ends

An optional QoS session becomes UNAVAILABLE.¶

The application continues transmitting using ordinary network connectivity.¶

The processor distinguishes traffic delivered after the special treatment ended from traffic measured during the treatment interval.¶

It does not assume that the PDU Session necessarily terminated when the QoS API session became unavailable.¶

5.1109. 4.C.11.4. Example 4 - Same Traffic Measured by Two UPFs

A 600 MB traffic population traverses two reporting points.¶

Each reports 600 MB.¶

The reports are associated with the same traffic population.¶

The processor does not add them to produce 1,200 MB of unique usage.¶

5.1110. 4.C.11.5. Example 5 - Different Traffic Populations at Two UPFs

UPF-A measures 300 MB for one nonoverlapping flow group.¶

UPF-B measures 450 MB for a separate flow group.¶

Where the source and population semantics establish disjoint sets, the combined usage can be 750 MB.¶

The processor does not require all measurements to come from one UPF.¶

5.1111. 4.C.11.6. Example 6 - One PDU Session, Several Application Services

A PDU Session carries traffic for Application A and Application B.¶

A programmable QoS session concerns only Application A's qualifying flow.¶

The total PDU Session counter records 1,000 MB.¶

The processor cannot automatically assign the entire 1,000 MB to Application A.¶

5.1112. 4.C.11.7. Example 7 - Overlapping Reporting Rules

One usage-reporting rule measures an entire traffic class.¶

Another measures a subset of the same class.¶

The first reports 900 MB.¶

The second reports 250 MB.¶

The processor does not automatically report 1,150 MB of unique traffic.¶

The two records must be evaluated according to their measurement populations.¶

5.1113. 4.C.11.8. Example 8 - Cumulative Counter Correction

A counter reports 400 MB and later 550 MB.¶

The established increment is 150 MB under a common counter generation.¶

A duplicate delivery of the 400 MB report does not contribute another 400 MB.¶

5.1114. 4.C.11.9. Example 9 - Counter Reset after Function Restart

A reporting source records 950 MB.¶

It restarts.¶

A new-generation counter reports 60 MB.¶

The processor does not interpret negative 890 MB as a valid usage increment.¶

It reconstructs the two generations separately.¶

5.1115. 4.C.11.10. Example 10 - Charging Initial versus Final Operation

A charging consumer sends an initial charging request when the session begins.¶

Several intermediate updates follow.¶

A release interaction reports final usage.¶

The processor distinguishes those stages and does not interpret the initial request as the final billing record.¶

5.1116. 4.C.11.11. Example 11 - Lost Charging Response

A charging update is processed remotely.¶

The response is lost.¶

The sender observes a timeout.¶

The processor does not assume the charging update was rejected or never applied.¶

It retains remote-outcome uncertainty until sufficient receiver status or record evidence becomes available.¶

5.1117. 4.C.11.12. Example 12 - Zero-Rated Service

An operator measures 2 GB of qualifying traffic.¶

The applicable rating conditions result in zero incremental monetary charge.¶

The processor records measured usage independently of the zero charge.¶

It does not represent the traffic volume as zero.¶

5.1118. 4.C.11.13. Example 13 - Rating Group Change Mid-Session

A session generates 300 MB before a charging-context change and 200 MB afterward.¶

The processor maintains the relevant rating contexts separately.¶

The total qualified traffic can be 500 MB.¶

The billed amount requires the applicable rating rules for each portion.¶

5.1119. 4.C.11.14. Example 14 - Measurement Window Crosses Rating Change

A single 10-minute usage aggregate covers a rating change at minute five.¶

The aggregate does not supply a breakdown between the two rating periods.¶

If the charging rules require period-specific quantities, the processor cannot infer a precise split without additional information.¶

5.1120. 4.C.11.15. Example 15 - Late Report after Session Termination

A session ends at 16:00.¶

A final measurement covering 15:55-16:00 arrives at 16:04.¶

The processor attributes the traffic to its measured interval.¶

It does not infer that the service continued until 16:04.¶

5.1121. 4.C.11.16. Example 16 - Corrected Usage Record

A report states that a session used 850 MB.¶

The issuing system later corrects the same measurement to 820 MB.¶

The processor recognizes that the corrected report supersedes the original.¶

It does not add 850 MB and 820 MB.¶

5.1122. 4.C.11.17. Example 17 - Derived Summary Duplicates Raw Usage

Three valid original reports contain 100 MB, 120 MB, and 80 MB.¶

A derived summary reports 300 MB.¶

The processor does not add the summary to its component measurements and obtain 600 MB.¶

It preserves the derivation relationship.¶

5.1123. 4.C.11.18. Example 18 - Interoperator Record Pending

The home operator has local charging records for a roaming session.¶

A visited-operator usage or settlement record remains pending.¶

The processor may establish local charging completeness while retaining unresolved interoperator accounting.¶

5.1124. 4.C.11.19. Example 19 - Resource Released, Charging Open

The API session is unavailable.¶

Its relevant network resources are released.¶

The charging system has not received the final usage information.¶

The processor records operational closure and accounting incompleteness separately.¶

5.1125. 4.C.11.20. Example 20 - Financial Charge Posted after Session End

A billing record is posted the following day for traffic measured during the previous session.¶

The posting date is not treated as evidence that the network session remained active the following day.¶

5.1126. 4.C.11.21. Example 21 - Service Performance Failure and Valid Traffic Usage

A session experiences poor application latency while delivering 400 MB of measured traffic.¶

The performance objective is not satisfied.¶

The measured traffic volume may nevertheless be valid.¶

The processor reports both facts.¶

It does not automatically cancel the measured usage or determine a refund.¶

5.1127. 4.C.11.22. Example 22 - Different Unit Definitions

A source reports 1,000,000 octets.¶

Another reports 1 MB.¶

The processor must determine whether the sources use decimal or binary units and whether they measure the same population.¶

The apparent numerical agreement is insufficient by itself.¶

5.1128. 4.C.11.23. Example 23 - Flow Address Reuse

A device releases an IP address.¶

The same address is later assigned to another device.¶

An old traffic record is associated with the earlier session interval.¶

The processor does not attribute the historical usage to the later device simply because the IP address matches.¶

5.1129. 4.C.11.24. Example 24 - Packet-Path Relocation

A service flow moves from one user-plane path to another.¶

The old and new reporting functions overlap briefly.¶

The processor evaluates the measured traffic populations and transition interval.¶

It does not presume that the two reports describe either entirely separate or entirely identical packets.¶

5.1130. 4.C.12. Specific Design-Around Alternatives and Implementation Pathways

The following 36 alternatives provide distinct enabled methods.¶

5.1131. C-4-DA-01 - Centralized Service-to-Charging Reconciler

Mechanism: One processor collects service, usage, and charging records.¶

Implementation: Source-qualified identifiers connect the records.¶

Limitation: Central access does not guarantee complete evidence.¶

Failure: Missing records remain unresolved.¶

Test: Withhold a final usage report.¶

5.1132. C-4-DA-02 - Federated Operator-Local Reconciliation

Mechanism: Separate operator or functional domains reconcile their own states.¶

Implementation: Only qualified boundary results are exchanged.¶

Limitation: Remote internal measurements may be unavailable.¶

Failure: Unsupported cross-domain conclusions remain qualified.¶

Test: Supply a home-side charge record without visited-side traffic details.¶

5.1133. C-4-DA-03 - Event-Sourced Measurement and Charging Reconstruction

Mechanism: Original usage and charging events are retained for replay.¶

Implementation: The processor rebuilds correspondence using source-qualified events.¶

Limitation: Missing original records prevent complete replay.¶

Failure: Historical gaps remain explicit.¶

Test: Remove an original measurement before reconstruction.¶

5.1134. C-4-DA-04 - Snapshot-and-Delta Accounting Reconstruction

Mechanism: A versioned accounting snapshot is supplemented by later updates.¶

Implementation: The processor applies corrections and deltas under defined semantics.¶

Limitation: Snapshot completeness and epoch mapping matter.¶

Failure: Missing deltas produce unresolved totals.¶

Test: Omit a charging update from the delta history.¶

5.1135. C-4-DA-05 - Relational Service-Flow-Charging Mapping

Mechanism: Separate relational records represent service, resource, traffic, and charging¶

relationships.¶

Implementation: Time-qualified joins establish correspondence.¶

Limitation: A join does not establish operational effects.¶

Failure: Missing source records remain unresolved.¶

Test: Reuse a flow address in a new session generation.¶

5.1136. C-4-DA-06 - Graph-Based Evidence Lineage

Mechanism: A graph represents original measurements and derived charging records.¶

Implementation: Edges indicate retransmission, aggregation, correction, and¶

correspondence.¶

Limitation: An incorrect lineage edge can misrepresent usage.¶

Failure: Ambiguous edges remain qualified.¶

Test: Introduce a derived summary and three original reports.¶

5.1137. C-4-DA-07 - Service-Status-Only Verification Mechanism: A scoped assessment relies on the provider's service status.

Implementation: The result is expressly limited to the API contract.¶

Limitation: It does not prove independent application-level performance.¶

Failure: Performance conclusions remain unavailable.¶

Test: Return AVAILABLE while the service probe fails.¶

5.1138. C-4-DA-08 - Independent Service-Performance Verification

Mechanism: A separate performance observer evaluates service effects.¶

Implementation: Measurements are associated with the relevant flow and interval.¶

Limitation: Probe traffic may not represent all actual customer traffic.¶

Failure: Representativeness limitations are recorded.¶

Test: Compare a successful probe with degraded application traffic.¶

5.1139. C-4-DA-09 - Hybrid Network and Application Verification

Mechanism: Provider status and application measurements are combined as distinct¶

evidence.¶

Implementation: Each supports its own scoped condition.¶

Limitation: The observations may use different intervals.¶

Failure: Temporal mismatch remains explicit.¶

Test: Delay the application measurements after a QoS state change.¶

5.1140. C-4-DA-10 - Flow-Qualified Resource Attribution

Mechanism: Usage is mapped using supported service-flow identity.¶

Implementation: Flow, session, resource, and time references are evaluated.¶

Limitation: Translation and address reuse complicate mapping.¶

Failure: Unsupported attribution remains unresolved.¶

Test: Change the source port during a session.¶

5.1141. C-4-DA-11 - PDU-Session-Scoped Usage Reconstruction Mechanism: Usage is evaluated for the complete network session.

Implementation: The output clearly identifies the broader scope.¶

Limitation: It does not automatically describe one application-facing QoS session.¶

Failure: Application-specific attribution is withheld.¶

Test: Generate two application flows in one PDU Session.¶

5.1142. C-4-DA-12 - Per-Flow Reporting-Rule Reconstruction

Mechanism: Usage is associated with an appropriate reporting rule or flow population.¶

Implementation: The processor uses the rule's measurement semantics.¶

Limitation: Rules can overlap.¶

Failure: No unsupported aggregation occurs.¶

Test: Configure nested traffic measurement rules.¶

5.1143. C-4-DA-13 - Multi-UPF Measurement Correlation

Mechanism: Several reporting functions contribute measurements for one session.¶

Implementation: The processor relates their traffic populations and time windows.¶

Limitation: Duplicate packet measurement may occur.¶

Failure: Unresolved overlap prevents a unique total.¶

Test: Observe the same packets at two UPFs.¶

5.1144. C-4-DA-14 - Cumulative Counter Lineage

Mechanism: Counter positions within one generation produce measured increments.¶

Implementation: Generation and ordering conditions are checked.¶

Limitation: Counter resets and missing positions affect accuracy.¶

Failure: Incompatible subtraction is rejected.¶

Test: Restart a counter source between reports.¶

5.1145. C-4-DA-15 - Incremental Interval Measurement

Mechanism: Independent interval reports are combined.¶

Implementation: The processor verifies interval and population partitions.¶

Limitation: Partial overlap may make addition invalid.¶

Failure: Unresolved portions are excluded from definitive totals.¶

Test: Provide overlapping five-minute reports.¶

5.1146. C-4-DA-16 - Original-Measurement Deduplication Mechanism: Retransmitted reports are related to one original measurement.

Implementation: Source and report identity determine contribution count.¶

Limitation: Exact identity may be absent.¶

Failure: The processor does not claim exact deduplication without evidence.¶

Test: Retransmit a report using a new transport message identifier.¶

5.1147. C-4-DA-17 - Correction and Supersession Reconciliation Mechanism: Source-defined corrections replace or amend earlier records.

Implementation: Dependent totals are recalculated.¶

Limitation: Corrections may arrive after preliminary accounting.¶

Failure: Historical revisions remain traceable.¶

Test: Replace an 850 MB record with an 820 MB correction.¶

5.1148. C-4-DA-18 - Derived Summary Lineage Mechanism: Aggregated records reference their underlying measurements.

Implementation: The processor distinguishes summary representation from additional¶

usage.¶

Limitation: Aggregate membership may be incomplete.¶

Failure: Unsupported combined totals remain unresolved.¶

Test: Add a summary to its original constituent reports.¶

5.1149. C-4-DA-19 - Counter-Generation-Aware Relocation

Mechanism: Resource and counter generations are tracked during traffic relocation.¶

Implementation: Source and target measurements are separately qualified.¶

Limitation: Transition overlap may be difficult to partition.¶

Failure: Unknown overlap is recorded.¶

Test: Move a flow between two reporting functions.¶

5.1150. C-4-DA-20 - Service-Effect-Interval Partitioning

Mechanism: Usage is associated with periods before, during, and after the requested¶

treatment.¶

Implementation: The processor uses supported timestamps and state references.¶

Limitation: A coarse usage aggregate may straddle boundaries.¶

Failure: Exact partition remains unresolved if unavailable.¶

Test: Activate QoS midway through a reporting interval.¶

5.1151. C-4-DA-21 - Rating-Group-Aware Usage Partitioning

Mechanism: Measurements are associated with their charging rating groups.¶

Implementation: The processor uses the source-defined group mapping.¶

Limitation: A single report may lack the required breakdown.¶

Failure: Rating attribution remains unresolved.¶

Test: Change rating group during one interval.¶

5.1152. C-4-DA-22 - Charging-Session Identity Correspondence

Mechanism: Technical usage is mapped to the relevant charging context.¶

Implementation: Charging-session references and generations are retained.¶

Limitation: The mapping may be unavailable outside the operator.¶

Failure: Charge attribution remains qualified.¶

Test: Reuse a local charging reference under a new generation.¶

5.1153. C-4-DA-23 - Converged-Charging Operation Lifecycle Mechanism: Initial, intermediate, and final charging interactions are tracked separately.

Implementation: The processor interprets the existing service operations.¶

Limitation: An acknowledgement may not establish every downstream billing step.¶

Failure: Settlement is not inferred.¶

Test: Complete final charging release without posting a bill.¶

5.1154. C-4-DA-24 - Lost-Response Charging Reconciliation

Mechanism: A charging update's remote outcome is reconstructed after response loss.¶

Implementation: Original request and receiver evidence are compared.¶

Limitation: Historical status may be unavailable.¶

Failure: Unknown remote result remains unresolved.¶

Test: Process an update and drop its response.¶

5.1155. C-4-DA-25 - Charging-Record Aggregation Reconciliation

Mechanism: Original usage records are mapped to downstream aggregate charging records.¶

Implementation: Derivation relationships prevent duplicate contribution.¶

Limitation: Missing aggregate membership can prevent exact comparison.¶

Failure: Unsupported totals remain qualified.¶

Test: Compare a summary record with its source reports.¶

5.1156. C-4-DA-26 - Time-Qualified Rating Context

Mechanism: Usage is partitioned according to applicable rating intervals.¶

Implementation: Effective rating revisions are retained.¶

Limitation: Coarse source measurements may prevent exact partition.¶

Failure: No invented monetary split.¶

Test: Change the rating context during one aggregate window.¶

5.1157. C-4-DA-27 - Zero-Rated Usage Interpretation

Mechanism: Technical usage and monetary rating are maintained separately.¶

Implementation: The processor records measured quantity and applicable zero-rating status.¶

Limitation: Zero-rating eligibility requires supported context.¶

Failure: Monetary status remains unresolved if the rule is unavailable.¶

Test: Measure traffic under an established zero-rated service.¶

5.1158. C-4-DA-28 - Roaming Usage and Charging Federation

Mechanism: Home and visited operator records are related through permitted¶

correspondence.¶

Implementation: Distinct operator and measurement scopes are retained.¶

Limitation: Interoperator records may arrive late or be withheld.¶

Failure: Settlement completeness remains unresolved.¶

Test: Delay visited-operator usage information.¶

5.1159. C-4-DA-29 - Late Final-Usage Processing Mechanism: Usage delivered after session closure is assigned to its measurement interval.

Implementation: Session generations and event-time context determine attribution.¶

Limitation: Final source coverage may remain incomplete.¶

Failure: No inference of continued active session solely from late delivery.¶

Test: Deliver a valid report several minutes after deletion.¶

5.1160. C-4-DA-30 - Operational versus Accounting Closure Mechanism: Network resource release and charging completion are evaluated as separate

objectives.¶

Implementation: Each has independent evidence conditions.¶

Limitation: Some settlement systems may not expose final status.¶

Failure: Resource closure may be verified while settlement remains unresolved.¶

Test: Release the network resource before the final charging response.¶

5.1161. C-4-DA-31 - Billing Adjustment Correspondence Mechanism: Financial adjustments are linked to the relevant charged record and usage

period.¶

Implementation: Adjustment lineage is retained separately from physical usage¶

measurements.¶

Limitation: Commercial eligibility may be outside the processor's scope.¶

Failure: The processor does not invent a refund entitlement.¶

Test: Apply a billing credit to previously measured nonzero usage.¶

5.1162. C-4-DA-32 - Read-Only Independent Charging Consistency Monitor

Mechanism: A separate processor compares network usage and charging records.¶

Implementation: It produces discrepancy findings without modifying accounts.¶

Limitation: Separate processing does not guarantee independent data.¶

Failure: Shared source ancestry is recognized.¶

Test: Feed two derived records from the same source.¶

5.1163. C-4-DA-33 - Dependency-Aware Historical Recalculation Mechanism: Corrections trigger selective reevaluation of dependent accounting results.

Implementation: A dependency graph links measurements to totals and charging records.¶

Limitation: An incomplete dependency graph may miss results.¶

Failure: Broader reconstruction is used.¶

Test: Correct one measurement and compare incremental with full recalculation.¶

5.1164. C-4-DA-34 - Crash-Recoverable Measurement Reconciliation Mechanism: Report and calculation frontiers are persisted.

Implementation: A restarted processor resumes or reconstructs from retained source records.¶

Limitation: Missing original history may prevent exact recovery.¶

Failure: Coverage gaps remain explicit.¶

Test: Crash after processing a report but before checkpoint persistence.¶

5.1165. C-4-DA-35 - Integrity-Protected Charging Evidence Mechanism: Source reports may be authenticated and integrity-protected.

Implementation: Provenance and semantic correctness are evaluated independently.¶

Limitation: A valid signature does not prove a record is unique, complete, or correctly rated.¶

Failure: Authentic duplicates are still deduplicated.¶

Test: Replay a correctly authenticated earlier usage record.¶

5.1166. C-4-DA-36 - Optional Constraint-Based and Advanced Timing Reconstruction

Mechanism: A constraint solver and suitable timing data assist in resolving ambiguous¶

measurement and charging relationships.¶

Implementation: Candidate mappings remain subject to actual source and accounting rules.¶

Limitation: No universal quantum or advanced-computing speedup or synchronization¶

guarantee is presumed.¶

Failure: Solver exhaustion and unresolved time order produce qualified results.¶

Test: Compare candidate results against independently known synthetic usage history.¶

5.1167. 4.C.13. Design-Around and Functional Correspondence Analysis

The disclosed alternatives may be implemented through centralized, federated, relational, graph-based, event-sourced, streaming, or constraint-based architectures.¶

Some deployments may rely on direct user-plane measurement records.¶

Others may receive only charging function reports or aggregate billing records.¶

The disclosure does not require an external application to obtain every operator-internal session or charging identifier.¶

However, the conclusions must remain limited to the identities and measurement evidence actually available.¶

A system that possesses only an aggregate charging record cannot necessarily reconstruct every original user-plane event.¶

A system with detailed traffic measurements may not know the correct monetary tariff.¶

An application-level observer may determine experienced latency without proving the provider's internal QoS configuration.¶

A provider status may establish the declared QoS state without proving every customer's actual performance.¶

A valid PFCP report may describe measured traffic but not a final bill.¶

A completed charging release may close a charging session while interoperator settlement remains outstanding.¶

These limitations are not cured by adding a conventional log, cryptographic signature, central database, or AI classifier.¶

The common technical relationship is source-qualified correspondence from service effect¶

to measured traffic population, through report lineage and charging interpretation, to the specific accounting state established by the evidence.¶

The alternatives support distinct dependent implementation limitations.¶

They do not imply that every mechanism is independently patentable or that generic usage reporting and charging systems fall within any eventual claim.¶

5.1168. 4.C.14. PHOSITA Reference Implementation

A practical reference model may contain:¶

Programmable QoS API simulator: Produces service-session status and lifecycle events.¶

PDU Session simulator: Maintains logical connectivity and relevant flow associations.¶

Policy/resource simulator: Applies or removes selected QoS treatment.¶

Traffic generator: Produces independently known uplink and downlink traffic.¶

Service-performance observer: Measures relevant latency, throughput, or loss.¶

UPF measurement simulator A: Generates usage under one reporting rule.¶

UPF measurement simulator B: Represents another resource or measurement point.¶

URR configuration module: Defines measurement method, population, reporting triggers,¶

and counter semantics.¶

Measurement lineage repository: Identifies originals, duplicates, corrections, and¶

aggregates.¶

Charging consumer simulator: Produces initial, intermediate, and final charging operations.¶

Charging function simulator: Maintains receiver-side charging context.¶

Rating context simulator: Provides defined effective rating rules and changes.¶

Accounting record repository: Contains generated, rated, and adjusted records.¶

Roaming accounting simulator: Represents delayed remote usage information.¶

Session closure tracker: Separately evaluates service, resource, charging, and settlement¶

state.¶

Fault injector: Produces report loss, duplicate delivery, clock uncertainty, source restarts,¶

and processing failures.¶

Reconstruction engine: Evaluates service/usage/charging correspondence.¶

Independent test oracle: Retains the actual generated traffic and simulated charging results¶

outside the reconstruction engine.¶

All components may initially run on a single computer.¶

A laboratory test does not need to modify a live customer account, real charging system, or production network.¶

5.1169. 4.C.15. Detailed PHOSITA Implementation Procedure

Phase 1 - Define the Service and Session Identities¶

Represent the application-facing service separately from the PDU Session and user-plane resources.¶

Phase 2 - Define the Service Objective¶

Specify exactly which network or application condition constitutes the service effect.¶

Phase 3 - Implement Provider Status¶

Support requested, available, unavailable, and applicable lifecycle transitions.¶

Phase 4 - Implement Resource Treatment¶

Allow the network treatment state to differ temporarily from the API status.¶

Phase 5 - Implement Application Performance Measurements¶

Measure selected latency, loss, throughput, or another objective.¶

Phase 6 - Define Flow Populations¶

Separate the traffic associated with the service from unrelated session traffic.¶

Phase 7 - Generate Known Traffic¶

Create deterministic packet and byte totals for the test oracle.¶

Phase 8 - Implement Multiple Measurement Points¶

Allow the same packet population to be counted at more than one resource.¶

Phase 9 - Implement Independent Populations¶

Provide nonoverlapping flow measurements for valid aggregation.¶

Phase 10 - Implement Direction Semantics¶

Distinguish uplink, downlink, and combined counters.¶

Phase 11 - Implement Cumulative Reporting¶

Generate source-compatible counter positions.¶

Phase 12 - Implement Interval Reporting¶

Generate source-defined interval increments.¶

Phase 13 - Implement Counter Restarts¶

Assign new source or counter generations.¶

Phase 14 - Implement Traffic Relocation¶

Move flows between measurement functions.¶

Phase 15 - Implement Duplicate Delivery¶

Transmit the same original measurement more than once.¶

Phase 16 - Implement Derived Aggregates¶

Generate summary records from identified original measurements.¶

Phase 17 - Implement Corrections¶

Supersede earlier source measurements.¶

Phase 18 - Implement Measurement Gaps¶

Omit selected intervals without generating artificial zero traffic.¶

Phase 19 - Implement Charging Session Creation¶

Create a distinct charging context under the selected simulated charging contract.¶

Phase 20 - Implement Intermediate Charging Updates¶

Associate relevant measurement records with charging operations.¶

Phase 21 - Implement Charging Release¶

Report final usage and close the charging context under its specified semantics.¶

Phase 22 - Implement Lost Charging Responses¶

Allow remote processing while the initiator observes a timeout.¶

Phase 23 - Implement Rating Context Changes¶

Apply distinct rating conditions to defined service intervals.¶

Phase 24 - Implement Zero-Rated Usage¶

Generate nonzero traffic with a zero monetary charge under the selected contract.¶

Phase 25 - Implement Late Reports¶

Deliver final usage after the service session has terminated.¶

Phase 26 - Implement Roaming Record Delay¶

Delay a visited-operator usage record while retaining home-side accounting.¶

Phase 27 - Implement Adjustment Records¶

Create a correction to a prior rated record.¶

Phase 28 - Implement Operational Closure¶

Release the network resources independently of charging completion.¶

Phase 29 - Implement Accounting Closure¶

Evaluate the selected final reporting and processing requirements.¶

Phase 30 - Implement Discrepancy Identification¶

Compare the reconstructed totals against the test oracle.¶

Phase 31 - Implement Dependency-Based Revisions¶

Recalculate affected historical results after a source correction.¶

Phase 32 - Implement Crash Recovery¶

Restart the reconstruction process after partially processing records.¶

Phase 33 - Implement Privacy-Limited Output¶

Provide only the charging and service information needed by an authorized recipient.¶

Phase 34 - Implement Read-Only Separation¶

Prevent the reconstruction engine from altering actual or simulated customer balances without a separate authorized interface.¶

Phase 35 - Run the Proposed Verification Tests¶

Measure accuracy and correctness against known controlled outcomes.¶

Phase 36 - Record Results and Limitations¶

Record missing coverage, false double counting, invalid attribution, unresolved outcomes, processing time, and memory consumption.¶

No completed test result is claimed here.¶

5.1170. 4.C.16. Failure and Adversarial Conditions

5.1171. F01 - API status AVAILABLE but no application performance measurements:

Performance conclusion unresolved.¶

5.1172. F02 - Provider status AVAILABLE but measured service fails objective: Distinct

results retained.¶

F03 - QoS unavailable while baseline connectivity continues: Service and connectivity¶

separated.¶

5.1173. F04 - Traffic population incorrectly mapped to whole PDU Session: Scope mismatch

detected.¶

F05 - Address reused by another session: Time-qualified flow identity required.¶

F06 - Network treatment begins after API creation: Effective interval corrected.¶

F07 - User-plane rule remains after QoS termination: Cleanup and effect distinguished.¶

F08 - Two UPFs count the same traffic: No automatic addition.¶

F09 - Two UPFs count independent traffic: Compatible aggregation supported.¶

F10 - Counters have different units: Invalid direct comparison rejected.¶

F11 - Uplink-only counter compared with total traffic: Population mismatch.¶

F12 - Original report retransmitted: No extra usage contribution.¶

F13 - Distinct reports have equal measured values: No false deduplication.¶

F14 - Derived summary overlaps originals: No double counting.¶

F15 - Report correction replaces previous data: Historical revision performed.¶

F16 - Counter resets during measurement: Generation boundary applied.¶

F17 - Counter wraps without known modulus: Quantity unresolved.¶

F18 - Reporting rule changes mid-session: Source scope reevaluated.¶

F19 - Measurement interval overlaps tariff change: Partition requirement identified.¶

F20 - Measurement gap occurs: Zero usage not inferred.¶

F21 - PFCP report received after traffic interval: Measurement time respected.¶

F22 - Initial charging request processed: Not treated as final settlement.¶

5.1174. F23 - Intermediate charging request contains usage already reported: Lineage

interpreted.¶

F24 - Final charging response lost: Remote outcome unresolved.¶

F25 - Charging release complete, billing pending: Separate closure states.¶

F26 - Rating group mapping unavailable: Rated amount not invented.¶

F27 - Source charge record duplicated: No extra financial amount inferred.¶

F28 - Adjustment posted for earlier period: Historical relationship preserved.¶

F29 - Zero-rated usage: Nonzero traffic preserved.¶

F30 - Nonzero charge posted after session closure: No false active-session inference.¶

F31 - Roaming usage record arrives late: Operator and interval context retained.¶

F32 - Home record complete, visited settlement unknown: Partial settlement status.¶

5.1175. F33 - Service performance degraded with valid measured traffic: Both conditions

reported.¶

F34 - QoS failure used as unsupported refund trigger: No automatic refund.¶

F35 - Customer account correction proposed without authorization: No effectuation.¶

F36 - Authentic stale report replayed: Freshness and contribution checked.¶

F37 - Source function changes generation: Counter and report identity separated.¶

5.1176. F38 - Same packet measured on two directions or layers: Measurement population

evaluated.¶

F39 - Charging request lacks associated original measurement: Lineage unresolved.¶

F40 - Accounting summary lacks constituent records: Limited provenance stated.¶

F41 - Billing rate table unavailable: Monetary total unresolved.¶

F42 - Currency/tax context differs: No unsupported monetary aggregation.¶

F43 - Service probe represents only synthetic traffic: Representativeness qualified.¶

5.1177. F44 - Reporting source clock differs from API server clock: Temporal uncertainty

retained.¶

F45 - Reconstruction solver times out: Unknown not infeasible.¶

F46 - Processor crashes during accounting update: Replay or checkpoint reconciliation.¶

F47 - Resource released but usage reporting incomplete: Operational closure separate.¶

F48 - Charging processing complete but resource remains active: Independent resource¶

state.¶

F49 - Charging correction arrives after invoice generation: Historical adjustment¶

relation preserved.¶

F50 - Two conflicting source mappings cannot be reconciled: Contradiction retained.¶

5.1178. 4.C.17. Representative Proposed Verification Test Suite

The following 100 cases are proposed laboratory tests, not reported executed tests.¶

Test ID Controlled scenario Expected technical behavior¶

C4- T001 C4- T002 C4- T003 C4- T004¶

Valid service-session creation¶

API REQUESTED state¶

API AVAILABLE state¶

API UNAVAILABLE state¶

Service identity established¶

No unsupported applied-effect claim Provider-defined status recognized Service unavailability represented¶

C4- T005 C4- T006¶

AVAILABLE but performance data absent Performance unresolved¶

Separate status/performance AVAILABLE but application latency excessive¶

results¶

C4- T007 C4- T008 C4- T009 C4- T010 C4- T011 C4- T012 C4- T013 C4- T014 C4- T015 C4- T016 C4- T017 C4- T018 C4- T019 C4- T020 C4- T021 C4- T022 C4- T023¶

Network policy installed but no traffic¶

Baseline traffic continues after QoS removal¶

Service effect starts after creation¶

Service effect stops before resource cleanup¶

One API session linked to one PDU Session¶

One PDU Session carries two application flows¶

API resource mapping missing¶

Flow address changes¶

Flow address reused¶

Service flow translated by NAT¶

Uplink traffic only¶

Downlink traffic only¶

Combined directional measurement¶

Network-octet and payload-byte counters differ¶

One UPF produces valid measurement¶

Two UPFs report same packets¶

Two UPFs report disjoint packets¶

Allocation distinct from usage¶

Service treatment distinction¶

Correct interval¶

Different closure dimensions¶

Supported correspondence¶

Per-service attribution¶

Limited conclusion¶

Updated mapping¶

Historical separation¶

Source-qualified correspondence¶

Direction semantics¶

Defined aggregation¶

No assumed equality¶

Source semantics applied¶

No double counting¶

Valid aggregation¶

C4- T024 C4- T025 C4- T026 C4- T027 C4- T028 C4- T029 C4- T030 C4- T031 C4- T032 C4- T033 C4- T034 C4- T035 C4- T036 C4- T037 C4- T038 C4- T039 C4- T040¶

Two UPFs have unknown overlap¶

Nested URRs cover overlapping traffic¶

Distinct URRs cover different rating populations¶

Cumulative counter positions¶

Incremental usage intervals¶

Duplicate cumulative report¶

Duplicate interval report¶

Equal amounts from different intervals¶

Corrected source measurement¶

Derived summary includes originals¶

Counter reset¶

Counter wrap with known modulus¶

Counter wrap semantics unknown¶

Resource relocation changes counter source¶

Relocation measurements overlap¶

Relocation leaves gap¶

Measurement source stops reporting¶

Combined total unresolved¶

Overlap identified¶

Scoped measurements¶

Valid difference¶

Valid aggregation¶

No duplicate contribution¶

Not falsely deduplicated¶

Earlier report superseded¶

Aggregate not counted again¶

Generation handling¶

Defined reconstruction¶

Quantity unresolved¶

Multi-source correspondence¶

Overlap evaluated¶

Missing coverage¶

No fabricated zero¶

C4- T041 C4- T042 C4- T043 C4- T044 C4- T045 C4- T046 C4- T047 C4- T048 C4- T049 C4- T050 C4- T051 C4- T052 C4- T053 C4- T054 C4- T055 C4- T056 C4- T057¶

Report emitted after measurement interval¶

Report received after session deletion¶

Clock offset between sources¶

Reporting rule changed mid-interval¶

Traffic population changes mid-session¶

Initial charging operation¶

Intermediate charging update¶

Event-related charging operation¶

Final charging release¶

Charging request submitted without response¶

Charging update applied but response lost¶

Charging update rejected¶

Charging retry with same original identity¶

Charging retry with changed parameters¶

Charging-session identifier reused¶

Usage report linked to charging update¶

One charging update contains several measurements¶

Event/report time separated¶

Historical attribution¶

Temporal uncertainty¶

Source revision evaluated¶

Population versions¶

Initial context established¶

Correct lifecycle stage¶

Event semantics¶

Scoped charging closure¶

Unknown outcome¶

No false nonprocessing¶

Rejection recorded¶

Contract-specific retry¶

Conflict evaluated¶

Generation-qualified identity¶

Measurement lineage¶

Correct aggregation scope¶

C4- T058 C4- T059 C4- T060 C4- T061 C4- T062 C4- T063 C4- T064 C4- T065 C4- T066 C4- T067 C4- T068 C4- T069 C4- T070 C4- T071 C4- T072 C4- T073 C4- T074¶

Same original measurement in two updates No independent double count¶

Charging update references unavailable source report Charging request received but finalization unknown¶

Incomplete lineage¶

Scoped processing state¶

Correct rating group Supported classification¶

Incorrect rating group mapping Mismatch detected¶

Rating group changes mid-session Time-qualified partition¶

Usage aggregate crosses rating change Precise split unresolved¶

Separate measurements align with rating periods Correct partition¶

Zero-rated traffic with nonzero usage Distinct usage/charge¶

Monetary charge without current traffic No active-state inference¶

Service-level failure with valid usage Separate findings¶

Service-level failure without refund policy No invented entitlement¶

Charging record adjusted after rating correction Historical revision¶

Financial adjustment differs from traffic correction Distinct record types¶

One billing record aggregates several charges Derivation recognized¶

Aggregate record also delivered with originals No double count¶

Charge record missing original usage references Provenance limited¶

C4- T075 C4- T076 C4- T077 C4- T078 C4- T079 C4- T080 C4- T081 C4- T082 C4- T083 C4- T084 C4- T085 C4- T086 C4- T087 C4- T088 C4- T089 C4- T090 C4- T091¶

Final usage interval fully covered Coverage established¶

Final usage interval has missing segment Incomplete result¶

Final report authentic but partial No false completeness¶

Service interval differs from charging interval Correct relationship¶

Session termination before final charging update Independent stages¶

Resources released before final usage report Partial closure¶

Charging release complete while settlement¶

Distinct finality pending Local accounting complete, remote roaming record¶

Interoperator uncertainty pending¶

Visited usage record arrives late Historical correspondence¶

Interoperator record duplicates existing traffic Source overlap evaluated¶

Roaming context changes accounting source Version-qualified mapping¶

Billing currency differs across records No unsupported addition¶

Final monetary amount Tax or discount information absent¶

unresolved¶

Device address reused under new generation Correct traffic attribution¶

Performance probe covers different population Representativeness limited¶

Network policy reports active while user plane¶

Discrepancy differs¶

Relational reconstruction matches oracle Correct supported mapping¶

C4-¶

Event-sourced replay matches oracle T092¶

Correct historical reconstruction¶

C4- T093 C4- T094¶

Event history missing source record¶

Graph lineage includes circular erroneous derivation¶

Explicit gap¶

Invalid lineage detected¶

C4-¶

Constraint solver admits several accounting states No false uniqueness T095¶

C4-¶

Constraint solver times out Unresolved result T096¶

C4-¶

Processor crashes before durable checkpoint Replay/dedup behavior T097¶

C4- T098 C4- T099 C4- T100¶

Late correction affects several dependent totals Selective reevaluation¶

Reconciliation detects potential overcharge¶

Final result includes effect, traffic, usage, charging and closure¶

No unauthorized account mutation¶

Reconstructible scoped result¶

5.1179. 4.C.17.1. Test Evidence Requirements

Each executed test should retain:¶

1. Original service request. 2. API contract and provider version. 3. Logical service and session identifiers. 4. Applicable resource and flow mappings. 5. Requested and effective service intervals. 6. Observed network treatment. 7. Service-performance observations. 8. Generated traffic ground truth. 9. Measurement population definitions. 10. Usage-reporting rule configurations. 11. Source and counter generations. 12. Measurement time and delivery time. 13. Original reports and retransmissions. 14. Corrections and aggregates. 15. Charging context and rating group. 16. Charging request/response histories. 17. Accounting and settlement status. 18. Relevant interoperator records.¶

19. Expected and reconstructed totals. 20. Outstanding evidence and uncertainty. 21. Processing time and memory usage. 22. Historical revisions. 23. Any authorized correction mechanism used outside the read-only reconstruction engine.¶

A passing measurement test does not establish pricing correctness.¶

A correct charging record does not establish that the required QoS performance was achieved.¶

A successfully reconciled final charge does not independently demonstrate authorized execution-finality enforcement.¶

5.1180. 4.C.18. Standards and Established Technology Correspondence

5.1181. 4.C.18.1. CAMARA Quality on Demand

CAMARA Quality on Demand provides an established programmable interface for requesting and managing QoS sessions.¶

Its API session status and duration semantics are interpreted according to the applicable specification.¶

The present embodiment may use the service-status and session references as input.¶

It does not claim the existing create, retrieve, extend, delete, or notification operations individually.¶

Reference:¶

https://github.com/camaraproject/QualityOnDemand¶

4.C.18.2. 3GPP TS 29.244¶

3GPP TS 29.244 defines PFCP and associated user-plane measurement and reporting functionality.¶

Applicable usage-reporting rules support different measurement methods and reporting triggers.¶

The embodiment uses these established mechanisms where relevant.¶

The novel-subject-matter question, if any, concerns the specific evidence correspondence among their outputs and independently represented service and charging contexts.¶

4.C.18.3. 3GPP TS 32.291¶

3GPP TS 32.291 defines the Nchf converged-charging service interfaces and operations.¶

Initial, intermediate, event-related, and release interactions have specific established semantics.¶

The present embodiment tracks those interactions but does not redefine them.¶

4.C.18.4. 3GPP TS 32.290¶

3GPP TS 32.290 provides stage 2 charging architecture and principles for the 5G system.¶

The particular charging model determines the applicable reservation, reporting, and charging relationships.¶

No universally additive quota or billing interpretation is imposed.¶

4.C.18.5. 3GPP TS 32.255¶

3GPP TS 32.255 addresses relevant charging management aspects of 5G data connectivity.¶

The processor may obtain technical usage and charging correspondence under the applicable service and network function model.¶

It does not invent established data-connectivity charging procedures.¶

5.1182. 4.C.18.6. 3GPP Session Management and Roaming

Applicable session-management and roaming procedures identify network resource and operator roles.¶

The embodiment uses their output as context.¶

The detailed roaming responsibility reconstruction remains within Embodiment 2.C.¶

5.1183. 4.C.18.7. Conventional Metering and Billing Systems

Existing network monitoring, metering, mediation, charging-data processing, rating, invoicing, and settlement systems may provide source records.¶

Their presence is prior art.¶

The present embodiment concerns consistent interpretation of the relationships among their differing record scopes and state transitions.¶

5.1184. 4.C.19. Specific Claim-Supporting Relationships

The following may be considered during later claim drafting, subject to full prior-art and earlier-disclosure analysis.¶

Relationship 1 - Service-effect-to-flow correspondence: Associating a requested¶

programmable service with the actual flow and resource context to which the service treatment applies.¶

Relationship 2 - Multilayer service-effect distinction: Separately evaluating provider¶

service status, network treatment, and observed application performance.¶

Relationship 3 - Traffic-population lineage: Determining whether different reporting¶

functions measured overlapping or distinct traffic populations.¶

Relationship 4 - Original-versus-derived usage: Distinguishing source measurements¶

from retransmissions, corrections, and aggregates.¶

Relationship 5 - Generation-qualified counter reconciliation: Preserving counter validity¶

across function restarts and resource relocation.¶

5.1185. Relationship 6 - Time-qualified usage-to-charging mapping: Associating measured

usage with the relevant session and charging-period context.¶

Relationship 7 - Rating-group partitioning: Reconstructing which usage belongs to¶

which effective rating context without unsupported interval splitting.¶

5.1186. Relationship 8 - Asynchronous charging outcome reconstruction: Distinguishing

charging submission, receiver processing, and unresolved remote results.¶

Relationship 9 - Operational-accounting separation: Distinguishing service closure and¶

resource release from final usage and accounting completeness.¶

Relationship 10 - Roaming-related accounting uncertainty: Preserving home-side and¶

visited-side reporting limitations under the applicable architecture.¶

Relationship 11 - Revision-aware historical accounting: Recalculating affected results¶

when measurements or charging records are corrected.¶

Relationship 12 - Read-only consistency output: Producing qualified discrepancy¶

evidence without directly modifying charging or financial state.¶

These are potential technical claim relationships, not assertions that any constituent technology is individually novel.¶

Any resulting claim requires detailed comparison against charging and mediation prior art, including 3GPP standards and existing operator systems.¶

5.1187. 4.C.20. Relationship to the Foundational Shared Technical Foundation

Earlier disclosures include substantial telecommunications, quota, virtual-identity, compliance, and execution-finality subject matter.¶

The present embodiment does not repackage those previously disclosed protected authority or quota mechanisms as newly introduced features.¶

Its additional drafting focus is the technical correspondence among observed service¶

effect, measured network usage, source record lineage, charging context, and final accounting evidence.¶

The proposed incremental combinations potentially requiring examination include:¶

(a) service-effect intervals tied to flow-specific usage populations; (b) cross-resource measurement overlap and nonduplication; (c) charging-session correspondence across changing network resources; (d) rating-context partitioning under incomplete timing or usage evidence; (e) multi-stage charging outcome reconstruction; (f) delayed final reports after operational closure; (g) interoperator accounting evidence under limited remote visibility; (h) revision of historical charging correspondence after source corrections; and (i) read-only discrepancy reporting with separate authorization for actual corrections.¶

5.1188. 4.C.21. Particular Technical Effects

Depending upon implementation and evidence availability, the embodiment may provide:¶

(a) improved separation of service availability from observed performance; (b) reduced incorrect attribution of PDU Session traffic to one application-facing service; (c) improved flow-specific usage reconstruction; (d) reduced double counting across multiple measurement points;¶

(e) improved handling of duplicate and corrected reports;¶

(f) more accurate interpretation of counter resets and resource relocation;¶

(g) improved association of usage with charging and rating contexts;¶

(h) better separation of technical usage from monetary charging outcomes;¶

(i) improved handling of delayed charging requests and responses;¶

(j) more accurate accounting of service intervals crossing rating changes;¶

(k) clearer separation of network-session closure from charging completeness;¶

(l) improved identification of outstanding roaming-related accounting records;¶

(m) more reconstructible historical correction records;¶

(n) improved identification of discrepancies between service observations and accounting records;¶

(o) reduced unsupported claims of zero usage or zero charge;¶

(p) compatibility with existing 3GPP and programmable network API mechanisms; and¶

(q) improved evidence available for independently governed account correction or operational investigation.¶

These are potential technical effects.¶

No specific reduction in billing errors, operational expense, latency, customer disputes, or incorrect charge totals is asserted without actual measured validation.¶

5.1189. 4.C.22. Non-Limiting Implementation Character

The embodiment may be implemented using conventional processors, telecommunications management functions, network monitoring systems, charging functions, usage collectors, distributed event repositories, billing mediation processors, or combinations thereof.¶

It may be centralized, distributed, or federated.¶

It may use direct traffic measurements, existing PFCP usage reports, charging operations, aggregate accounting records, or other applicable evidence.¶

Its conclusions remain limited by the source information available.¶

One service may have several underlying resources.¶

Several services may share one network session.¶

A packet may be observed at multiple reporting points.¶

A usage report may arrive late.¶

A rating condition may change during the session.¶

An accounting correction may be posted after termination.¶

A service may have nonzero usage but zero charge.¶

A charging function may close its context while downstream financial settlement remains incomplete.¶

No universal global atomicity or exactly-once delivery is presumed.¶

No particular vendor, AI model, database, programming language, mobile network generation, or commercial charging platform is essential to all variations.¶

The technical reconstruction does not independently authorize further traffic, grant additional quota, modify a customer account, or impose a financial remedy.¶

5.1190. 4.C.23. Conclusion

The central technical subject of Embodiment 4.C is evidence-qualified reconstruction of the relationship among a programmable telecommunications service, its actual network effects, attributable traffic measurements, charging records, and accounting outcomes.¶

The disclosed arrangement distinguishes:¶

1. Requested service from provider-reported service availability. 2. Service availability from observed application performance. 3. Network resource allocation from measured traffic. 4. API service identity from PDU Session and reporting-rule identities. 5. Traffic population from measurement reporting point. 6. Original usage from retransmission or derived aggregation. 7. Measurement time from reporting time. 8. Cumulative counters from independent increments. 9. Network usage from rated charge. 10. Zero charge from zero traffic. 11. Initial charging from final usage reporting. 12. Charging-session closure from commercial settlement. 13. Operational resource release from final accounting completion. 14. A discrepancy finding from authorization to correct an account.¶

It supplies specific data structures, formal predicates, processing steps, pseudocode, alternative implementations, failure semantics, and laboratory verification scenarios.¶

Where the evidence supports a particular service, usage, or charging state, the processor reports that state under its applicable scope.¶

Where a mandatory correspondence is contradicted, the discrepancy is preserved.¶

Where relevant usage, rating, source lineage, or charging evidence is missing, the result remains unresolved rather than being replaced with an assumed zero or successful settlement.¶

5.1191. This completes Embodiment 4.C, without repeating Embodiment 3.C's concurrent

quota-grant analysis, generic 3GPP charging functionality, or the earlier protected execution-finality architecture.¶

5.1192. EMBODIMENT 5.C - PURPOSE-SCOPED CONSENT-STATE TRANSITIONS, ACTIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE DEPENDENCIES, AND

5.1193. DOWNSTREAM PROCESSING-STATE RECONSTRUCTION

5.1194. 5.C.1. Embodiment Identification

Invention Group: C - Programmable Telecommunications Session Lifecycle and Cross-¶

Operator Operational-State Consistency.¶

Embodiment Number: 5.C - Fifth Embodiment of GROUP C.¶

Technical Title: Systems and Methods for Reconstructing Purpose-Scoped Consent Changes¶

Across Active Telecommunications Services, Network API Consumers, In-Flight Processing, and Downstream Data-Processing Resources.¶

Common Workflow: C-CW-01.¶

Principal Workflow Variation: C-V5 - Purpose-Scoped Consent-State Changes During¶

Active Telecommunications Service.¶

Embodiment Algorithm: C-ALG-06.¶

Implementation Alternatives: C-5-DA-01 through C-5-DA-36.¶

Proposed Verification Tests: C5-T001 through C5-T100.¶

Common Workflow Correspondence: C-CW-01.03-C-CW-01.04, C-CW-01.09-C-CW-¶

01.25, C-CW-01.27-C-CW-01.29, and C-CW-01.32-C-CW-01.38.¶

| x | 1.C - SIM-related subscriber-association changes during active session continuity. | |---|---| | x | 2.C - Interoperator roaming transition and responsibility correspondence. | | x | 3.C - Concurrent programmable session updates and usage-quota reconciliation. | | x | 4.C - Service effect, network usage, and charging-record correspondence. | | x | 6.C - Partial operator failure, session release, and deferred settlement reconstruction. |¶

5.1196. 5.C.1.1. General Technical Subject

The present embodiment describes a telecommunications state-reconstruction arrangement configured to evaluate the operational consequences of a change in a user's consent for a defined data-processing purpose while one or more telecommunications services remain active.¶

A communications service may involve multiple processing activities.¶

For example, the underlying connectivity service may carry user traffic while an application additionally requests location verification, subscriber information, device status, network performance information, or another provider-exposed data service.¶

Those processing activities may involve different purposes, permitted scopes, recipients, data categories, network APIs, and service dependencies.¶

A user may grant consent for one defined purpose while withholding or withdrawing consent for another.¶

A consent-management system may record the change before all applications, exposure interfaces, event subscriptions, caches, and downstream processors receive updated information.¶

An external API consumer may hold an earlier consent-check result.¶

An event subscription may remain present after the consent record changes.¶

An API request may have been initiated before the change but may not yet have completed.¶

A cached data item may have been lawfully obtained before the change but still be subject to separate retention or further-processing restrictions.¶

The system reconstructs these different conditions without assuming they change atomically.¶

The arrangement may determine:¶

(a) which consent record changed; (b) which user, purpose, processing scope, and recipient context the record concerns; (c) which consent revision or effective-state interval applies; (d) which active processing activities depend upon that consent; (e) which telecommunications services are independent of that processing purpose; (f) which requests or downstream data-processing operations were pending; (g) which external subscriptions, caches, or derived data objects remain associated with the purpose;¶

(h) which processing cessation or modification effects are established;¶

(i) which effects remain unobserved or unresolved;¶

(j) whether an apparently completed update covers every processing activity required by the selected objective; and¶

(k) which observations support a subsequent reconstruction or review.¶

The embodiment is a technical state-correspondence mechanism.¶

It does not establish that consent is the lawful basis for every telecommunications processing activity.¶

It does not purport to define which processing is legally permitted under every jurisdiction.¶

It does not introduce a new purpose-based execution authorization primitive.¶

Actual permission evaluation and consequential processing controls remain within the separately applicable legal, operator, API, and protected effectuation mechanisms.¶

5.1197. 5.C.1.2. Principal Technical Distinction

The principal technical distinction is consent-revision-to-processing-state correspondence.¶

The system separates five technical questions.¶

The processor identifies the consent subject, purpose, scope, relevant controller or provider, source revision, and effective-state semantics.¶

5.1199. Question B - Which activities depend upon the changed condition?

The processor constructs the applicable dependency relationship between that consent condition and identified processing activities.¶

5.1200. Question C - Which activities were pending or ongoing when the change became applicable?

The processor obtains available request, subscription, cache, operation, and service states.¶

5.1201. Question D - Which resulting processing effects are actually established?

The processor distinguishes reported consent-state change, notification, consumer acknowledgement, subscription change, operation outcome, and observed cessation or continuation.¶

5.1202. Question E - Which independent services remain unaffected?

The processor determines whether an underlying telecommunications service or other processing activity has a separate applicable basis and does not automatically inherit the consequence of the changed consent.¶

The existence of a consent withdrawal does not itself prove that every downstream processor received the update.¶

The acknowledgement of a withdrawal notification does not universally prove that all data processing ceased.¶

The termination of an optional API subscription does not necessarily require termination of the underlying PDU Session.¶

5.1203. 5.C.1.3. Distinction from Existing Consent APIs

Existing consent-management systems and CAMARA interfaces already provide mechanisms to check consent or processing validity for specified purposes and scopes.¶

The present embodiment does not claim generic consent capture, withdrawal, lookup, consent status, purpose enumeration, or a valid-for-processing boolean as newly invented.¶

It uses those existing mechanisms as potential information sources.¶

Its proposed additional subject is the technical reconstruction of the relationship between a changed consent record and the multiple downstream activities or session representations that may depend upon it.¶

The processor may produce a result such as:¶

Consent purpose P1:¶

provider consent revision: WITHDRAWN affected exposure subscription: REMOVED in-flight API operation: OUTCOME\_UNKNOWN downstream queued processing: CESSATION\_CONFIRMED cached derived data: DISPOSITION\_PENDING unrelated connectivity session: CONTINUING unrelated purpose P2: UNCHANGED¶

This is not one universal authorization state.¶

It is a collection of separately established operational conditions.¶

5.1204. 5.C.1.4. Distinction from the Prior Purpose-Execution-Finality Architecture

The user's earlier foundational portfolio already addresses data-purpose-output governance and protected execution-finality.¶

The present embodiment shall not present those core mechanisms as newly introduced.¶

In particular, this embodiment does not require a new:¶

| x | purpose-bound Execution Handle; | |---|---| | x | protected authority component; | | x | non-bearer cryptographic capability; | | x | Finality Sink; | | x | atomic verify-and-effectuate mechanism; | | x | jurisdiction token; or | | x | protected quota or consent-enforcement primitive. |¶

Where a deployment includes such mechanisms, they may independently govern whether consequential processing occurs.¶

The present embodiment supplies a reconstruction of the changing consent and processing state upon which those existing controls may rely.¶

The incremental technical focus is operational dependency reconstruction during a live¶

telecommunications service, not the abstract principle that a processing purpose must be¶

authorized.¶

5.1205. 5.C.2. Particular Technical Problem Space

A user's consent may concern a specified personal-data processing activity.¶

An active PDU Session, network registration, or ordinary connectivity service does not automatically depend upon that consent.¶

The processor must distinguish the activity covered by consent from the underlying connectivity state.¶

5.1207. 5.C.2.2. Different Purposes Can Apply to Different Activities

An application may process subscriber information for fraud prevention and separately for marketing analytics.¶

Those processing purposes are not automatically interchangeable.¶

Withdrawal for one purpose does not by itself establish withdrawal of every other valid consent or processing basis.¶

An API may use OAuth scopes to describe access rights.¶

A consent system may also associate that access with a purpose and data subject.¶

An access token's possession or continued validity is not by itself conclusive evidence that every consent-dependent processing condition remains satisfied.¶

The processor records the relationship under the actual provider model.¶

An application may obtain a positive consent-validity result at one time.¶

A withdrawal may subsequently occur.¶

The earlier result must not automatically be described as the user's current consent state.¶

The processor records query time, provider semantics, and any applicable freshness limitations.¶

The provider may record a withdrawal before a downstream application receives notice.¶

An application may process the notification later.¶

The resulting delay is relevant to understanding which state the downstream system actually held.¶

The processor distinguishes effective consent state from notification delivery.¶

5.1211. 5.C.2.6. Notification Delivery Does Not Necessarily Establish Application

A message broker may acknowledge delivery.¶

The receiving application may not yet have updated its local state.¶

The processor distinguishes message delivery, processing acknowledgement, state mutation, and observed downstream effect.¶

5.1212. 5.C.2.7. Source Event Ordering Can Differ from Arrival Ordering

A user may grant consent, withdraw it, and later provide new consent.¶

Notifications may arrive in a different order.¶

Applying them strictly in transport arrival order can regress local processing-state interpretation.¶

The processor uses source-qualified revision and applicable temporal semantics.¶

5.1213. 5.C.2.8. A New Grant Is Not Necessarily Restoration of the Previous Grant

A later consent grant may concern different scopes, purposes, recipients, duration, or identity context.¶

The processor cannot assume it universally restores every previously affected processing activity.¶

It evaluates the new grant as its own applicable revision.¶

5.1214. 5.C.2.9. One User May Have Several Relevant Identity Contexts

The telecommunications subscriber, end user, application account holder, and authorized consenting person may not always be identical.¶

The processor requires supported subject and authority correspondence from the existing consent-management system.¶

It does not invent a right to withdraw or grant consent from a bare phone-number match.¶

5.1215. 5.C.2.10. Subscriber Identity Can Change During the Service

A mobile number may be reassigned.¶

A SIM or eSIM profile may change.¶

A user may switch devices or application accounts.¶

Historical consent must be associated with the correct subject and generation rather than blindly inherited by the current holder of an identifier.¶

5.1216. 5.C.2.11. A Processing Purpose May Cover Several API Operations

A consent record may apply to a defined group of scopes.¶

A consumer may call several network APIs under those scopes.¶

The processor must identify the affected operations rather than assume one API call is the complete processing activity.¶

5.1217. 5.C.2.12. One API May Support Several Purposes

The same API may be used for distinct processing purposes.¶

A withdrawal of one purpose must not automatically be interpreted as a universal withdrawal from every permitted use of the API.¶

5.1218. 5.C.2.13. One Processing Activity May Have More Than One Dependency

A downstream activity may depend upon user consent, an application configuration, a valid service subscription, an available network API, and another independent technical condition.¶

The processor separates those dependencies and evaluates the actual applicable processing basis.¶

It must not invent alternative legal grounds to justify continued processing.¶

5.1219. 5.C.2.14. A Lawful-Basis Determination Is Not a Mere Software Default

Consent is not the only legal basis for processing in all circumstances.¶

Where another legal basis is asserted, the actual determination belongs to the responsible controller under applicable law.¶

The reconstruction engine cannot automatically replace withdrawn consent with a different basis.¶

It records an independently established basis determination if the authorized system provides one.¶

5.1220. 5.C.2.15. Withdrawal Does Not Automatically Invalidate Historical Processing

Processing performed before a withdrawal may have a different legal and technical status from processing performed afterward.¶

The processor distinguishes original processing time from notification time and later continued activity.¶

It does not retroactively rewrite the physical occurrence of earlier processing.¶

5.1221. 5.C.2.16. In-Flight API Requests Have Uncertain Outcomes

A data-access request may have been submitted before withdrawal and processed after the relevant effective-state transition.¶

A response may be lost.¶

The processor cannot necessarily establish the receiver's processing time from client request time alone.¶

It retains the applicable operation uncertainty.¶

5.1222. 5.C.2.17. A Pending Request Is Different from an Accepted Request

An application may queue a location-verification request before withdrawal.¶

The request may not yet have reached the provider.¶

A downstream task queue may contain additional requests.¶

The processor distinguishes queue presence from actual network API effectuation.¶

5.1223. 5.C.2.18. Cancellation Is Not Necessarily Immediate

A system may submit cancellation for an event subscription or asynchronous processing job.¶

The receiver may acknowledge the cancellation before all affected work has ended, depending upon the relevant contract.¶

The processor verifies the specified cancellation outcome separately.¶

5.1224. 5.C.2.19. A Subscription Can Remain Registered without Producing New Events

An event subscription record may remain stored although no new notifications are being delivered.¶

Conversely, notifications may be in transit after the subscription is marked removed.¶

The processor distinguishes subscription configuration, provider delivery, and consumer processing.¶

5.C.2.20. Deleting a Subscription Record Is Not Deleting Previously Received Data¶

A consumer may stop receiving events but retain earlier data.¶

The processor evaluates the relevant downstream data-processing state separately from the exposure subscription.¶

5.1225. 5.C.2.21. Cached Information May Have a Different Retention State

A cached location, subscriber, or device-information result may have been obtained before withdrawal.¶

The later use, retention, or deletion of that data may have separate requirements.¶

The processor does not assume all cached data must always be deleted immediately or may always be retained.¶

It reconstructs the applicable processing and retention obligations supplied by the responsible policy system.¶

5.1226. 5.C.2.22. Derived Data May Have Multiple Upstream Sources

A derived analytics record may depend on one consent-covered data source and several other inputs.¶

The processor must identify the relevant lineage and the extent to which the withdrawal affects further processing.¶

It cannot automatically conclude that every derived record is exclusively attributable to the withdrawn purpose.¶

5.1227. 5.C.2.23. Processing Dependencies Can Be Shared

Two processing activities may share one cache, message queue, or data repository.¶

One activity may depend on the withdrawn consent and another may have a separately established valid basis.¶

The processor should not automatically delete shared resources or disable unrelated activities.¶

It identifies which processing operations and data populations are affected.¶

5.1228. 5.C.2.24. A Derived Output May Already Have Been Delivered

An application may have transmitted an output to a downstream recipient before the withdrawal event.¶

The processor cannot reverse historical delivery by changing the current consent record.¶

It identifies the prior effect and any independently applicable downstream obligations.¶

5.1229. 5.C.2.25. The Receiving Domain May Be Unreachable

A network API consumer, data processor, or external recipient may not be available when the consent state changes.¶

The central provider may know that withdrawal was recorded.¶

The remote processing outcome may remain unknown.¶

The processor does not assume remote cessation merely because the provider updated its own record.¶

5.1230. 5.C.2.26. A Remote Acknowledgement May Have Limited Scope

A downstream service may acknowledge that a consent-change notification was processed.¶

The acknowledgement may refer only to one application instance or one processing activity.¶

It need not prove complete cessation across all replicas, queues, or stored data.¶

5.1231. 5.C.2.27. Replica Lag Can Produce Divergent Local States

Several consumer instances may hold different cached consent revisions.¶

One instance may have processed the withdrawal while another has not.¶

The processor records per-instance or per-service state where relevant.¶

It does not assume that one successful cache invalidation covers all replicas.¶

A subscriber may withdraw consent while an application extends a service session or changes its configuration.¶

The operations may refer to different state revisions.¶

The processor evaluates their applicable dependency and ordering relationships.¶

5.C.2.29. A Network Session May Remain Active without the Optional Data Processing¶

A mobile connectivity service may continue carrying ordinary traffic.¶

A separate location-related API subscription may become unavailable.¶

These conditions are not inherently contradictory.¶

The processor reports the service states independently.¶

A telecommunications application may combine basic connectivity with optional personalized analytics.¶

Withdrawal of analytics consent may affect analytics collection while leaving ordinary network service available under its own applicable conditions.¶

The processor determines the actual feature dependencies rather than imposing universal session termination.¶

5.1234. 5.C.2.31. The Service May Be Technically Dependent on the Processing Activity

In another deployment, an optional service cannot function without a particular consentdependent data operation.¶

The processor may identify that the specific feature can no longer meet its required preconditions.¶

It does not automatically equate that finding with permission to terminate broader connectivity.¶

An application may access a network API through an aggregator or intermediary.¶

The application, intermediary, and operator may observe different consent-related statuses.¶

The processor must identify which system provides the authoritative record and the meaning of each exposed result.¶

5.1236. 5.C.2.33. Aggregator Caching Can Obscure Freshness

An intermediary may cache an earlier positive status.¶

A later provider-side withdrawal may not yet be reflected in that cache.¶

The reconstruction identifies the two revisions and their evidence.¶

It does not treat the intermediary's positive cached response as a definitive current provider state.¶

5.1237. 5.C.2.34. Roaming Does Not Automatically Transfer Consent Authority

An application may operate while a subscriber roams.¶

The home and visited operators may have distinct responsibilities and privacy arrangements.¶

A visited-network observation does not automatically confer authority to determine a user's processing consent.¶

The applicable operator and consent-management architecture must be established.¶

A permission may cover a specified combination of scopes.¶

A withdrawal may affect all or only part of that combination depending upon the source contract.¶

The processor must interpret the actual scope update rather than assume every scope is revoked.¶

5.C.2.36. An Expired Consent and a Withdrawn Consent May Have Different Histories¶

A consent record may expire at a scheduled time.¶

A separate event may explicitly withdraw consent.¶

Both can result in current processing being disallowed under a consent-based model, but their source histories and effective-state semantics differ.¶

The processor preserves those distinctions.¶

An application may attempt an unsupported or unauthorized consent update.¶

The provider may reject the request.¶

The processor must not classify a rejected management operation as an established change to the authoritative consent state.¶

The user's actual consent and legal rights remain governed by applicable procedures.¶

A signed or authenticated consent-status record may accurately represent an earlier provider state.¶

It does not necessarily establish present validity.¶

The processor evaluates source revision and temporal applicability separately from authenticity.¶

An API may return no matching consent for the requested user, scope, and purpose.¶

That result must be interpreted according to the provider's processing-validity and recordcoverage contract.¶

It does not establish every possible legal basis or historical processing fact.¶

A consumer may know a mobile number but lack supported correspondence to the data subject who provided consent.¶

The processor cannot fabricate consent applicability from an unqualified identifier.¶

5.1243. 5.C.2.41. Source Versions Are Not Globally Comparable

An operator consent service may use revision 25.¶

An aggregator may use revision 100.¶

The processor cannot infer that the aggregator has the newer applicable state merely because its number is larger.¶

5.1244. 5.C.2.42. Data-Processing Cessation Can Have Several Separate Dimensions

For one affected processing activity, the system may separately record:¶

| x | acceptance of the consent withdrawal; | |---|---| | x | cancellation of future data requests; | | x | subscription deactivation; | | x | termination of queued jobs; |¶

| x | cessation of new data collection; | |---|---| | x | state of retained historical data; | | x | state of already delivered outputs; and | | x | outstanding remote acknowledgements. |¶

One dimension may be established while another remains unresolved.¶

5.1245. 5.C.2.43. A Missing Response Does Not Establish Continued Processing

An external processor may fail to acknowledge an update.¶

That does not prove it continued processing.¶

The processor records the lack of evidence rather than automatically alleging continued activity.¶

5.1246. 5.C.2.44. A Successful Notification Does Not Establish Universal Cessation

A notification may be received and acknowledged, but unrelated or hidden processing paths may exist.¶

The processor does not claim complete processing cessation without adequate coverage of the stated processing graph and observations.¶

5.1247. 5.C.2.45. A Technical Discrepancy Is Not Automatically a Legal Violation

The processor may detect that a downstream system appears to retain an older consent revision.¶

Whether particular processing was unlawful depends upon the actual legal basis, circumstances, and applicable rules.¶

5.1248. 5.C.2.46. Reconstruction Is Not Effectuation Authority

The system may identify that a processing activity should be stopped or reassessed under the responsible policy system.¶

It does not itself obtain authority to terminate a network session, delete customer records, or modify another domain's state.¶

Those consequential operations remain separately governed.¶

5.1249. 5.C.3. Specific Technical Contribution Sought

The embodiment provides a versioned consent-to-processing dependency reconstruction¶

procedure that:¶

1. Identifies the authoritative source and scope of a consent-state revision. 2. Distinguishes purpose, data category, API scope, data subject, and recipient context. 3. Establishes the relevant consent subject or permitted identity mapping. 4. Identifies the effective-state and source-revision semantics. 5. Enumerates processing activities potentially dependent upon the changed consent. 6. Distinguishes consent-dependent and independently governed activities. 7. Identifies ongoing telecommunications services and their relationships to affected processing. 8. Identifies active API subscriptions and outstanding requests. 9. Associates data-processing activities with queues, caches, derived outputs, and downstream consumers. 10. Determines which processing activities were initiated before or after the applicable transition. 11. Differentiates notification delivery from observed processing-state change. 12. Reconstructs remote or asynchronous operation outcomes. 13. Evaluates subscription cancellation independently of in-flight notifications. 14. Associates cached and derived data with relevant provenance. 15. Distinguishes current processing restrictions from the historical occurrence of earlier processing. 16. Retains purpose-specific and scope-specific distinctions. 17. Detects incompatible or stale downstream state representations. 18. Maintains independent logical network-session continuity. 19. Determines whether an optional service feature is affected. 20. Preserves unresolved remote or incomplete processing-state observations. 21. Identifies dependencies requiring reevaluation after later consent corrections or renewed grants. 22. Produces a reproducible, multidimensional consent-to-processing correspondence result.¶

It does not independently decide every lawful basis or execute the resulting operational changes.¶

5.1250. 5.C.4. Representative Technical Components

Obtains authoritative or source-qualified consent information using an established consentmanagement interface.¶

It records the provider's declared state semantics and version.¶

Associates the consent record with the relevant user, subscriber, or other legally and technically applicable subject.¶

It uses permitted identity mappings rather than arbitrary identifier equality.¶

5.1253. 5.C.4.3. Purpose and Scope Normalizer

Preserves purpose identifiers, API scopes, processing categories, and provider-specific mappings.¶

It does not equate all purposes merely because they use the same API endpoint.¶

Maintains the known state history, effective context, reporting source, and prior or subsequent revisions.¶

5.1255. 5.C.4.5. Processing Activity Inventory

Identifies relevant processing jobs, API requests, event subscriptions, data flows, and service features.¶

It distinguishes current activities from historical records.¶

5.1256. 5.C.4.6. Processing Dependency Resolver

Associates consent scopes and purposes with the activities whose applicable processing basis depends upon them.¶

The relationship may be one-to-many or many-to-one.¶

5.1257. 5.C.4.7. Active Telecommunications Service Resolver

Identifies the related connectivity session, programmable API service, and optional service features.¶

It determines which services actually depend on the changed processing activity.¶

5.1258. 5.C.4.8. API Request State Collector

Obtains pending, submitted, accepted, completed, failed, and unknown request states.¶

It interprets source-specific operation semantics.¶

5.1259. 5.C.4.9. Event Subscription State Collector

Obtains the relevant exposure subscriptions and any supported status of cancellation or deactivation.¶

5.1260. 5.C.4.10. Asynchronous Job State Collector

Identifies downstream processing jobs that may continue independently of the original API request.¶

5.1261. 5.C.4.11. Cache and Derived-Data Correspondence Interface

Associates cached objects or derived results with relevant source data, purpose, and processing generation.¶

It does not automatically decide data-retention law.¶

5.1262. 5.C.4.12. Downstream Consumer State Collector

Obtains permitted information concerning consent revision processing, job state, and relevant outstanding effects in external consumers.¶

5.1263. 5.C.4.13. State-Transition Chronology Resolver

Determines supported event order using source revisions, effective intervals, and operation dependencies.¶

5.1264. 5.C.4.14. Processing-State Reconstructor

Constructs the possible and established states for each affected processing activity.¶

5.1265. 5.C.4.15. Unaffected Service Evaluator

Identifies services and processing activities for which the changed consent has no established applicability.¶

5.1266. 5.C.4.16. Incomplete-Coverage Evaluator

Records processing activities or consumer domains whose state is unavailable.¶

It distinguishes known inventory completeness from mere message-delivery completeness.¶

5.1267. 5.C.4.17. Historical Revision Manager

Reevaluates affected results when earlier consent mappings, event times, or downstream statuses are corrected.¶

5.1268. 5.C.4.18. Optional Existing Protected Enforcement Interface

Supplies qualified state information to the independently applicable processing authority or enforcement system.¶

This interface does not create a new purpose-execution-finality mechanism.¶

5.1269. 5.C.5. Necessary Embodiment-Specific Interpretations

The general definitions and Common Workflow C-CW-01 remain applicable.¶

The supported relationship between one consent condition and one or more activities whose processing basis or technical configuration depends upon that condition.¶

5.1271. 5.C.5.2. Purpose-Scoped Transition

A change to consent applicability for a specified purpose and associated scope under the originating provider's actual information model.¶

5.1272. 5.C.5.3. Processing Dependency Set

The set of processing activities potentially or conclusively affected by a given consent transition.¶

Membership can be established, inapplicable, or unresolved.¶

The source-qualified version, effective-state interval, subject, purpose, and scope needed to interpret a consent record.¶

5.1274. 5.C.5.5. Processing-State Observation

Evidence describing the state of a specific ongoing or pending processing activity under a defined observation scope.¶

5.1275. 5.C.5.6. Downstream Cessation Correspondence

The relationship between a changed consent state and the observed outcome of a related processing-stop, subscription-cancellation, or other separately governed operation.¶

5.1276. 5.C.5.7. Historical Processing Boundary

The supported temporal or causal boundary that distinguishes processing performed before a relevant change from later processing.¶

This is an evidence concept, not a universal legal determination.¶

5.1277. 5.C.5.8. Unaffected Connectivity Context

An ongoing network service for which the particular changed consent condition is not established as a mandatory operational dependency.¶

5.1278. 5.C.6. Representative Data Structures

ConsentTransition:¶

transition\_id source\_provider source\_generation consent\_record\_reference subject\_reference subject\_namespace purpose\_identifier scope\_identifiers data\_categories applicable\_consumer\_context previous\_consent\_state new\_consent\_state source\_revision effective\_time\_or\_interval notification\_time reporting\_limitations source\_evidence¶

ConsentSubjectMapping:¶

mapping\_reference consent\_subject subscriber\_reference\_if\_permitted application\_account\_reference mobile\_line\_reference\_if\_applicable subject\_generation applicable\_interval source\_authority\_context mapping\_evidence privacy\_restrictions correspondence\_verdict¶

5.1281. 5.C.6.3. Processing Activity Record

ProcessingActivity:¶

activity\_id processing\_domain application\_or\_consumer processing\_purpose api\_scopes data\_categories subject\_reference input\_data\_references service\_dependencies processing\_basis\_reference request\_or\_job\_reference activity\_generation observed\_processing\_state¶

applicable\_interval unresolved\_conditions¶

5.1282. 5.C.6.4. Dependency Relationship

ConsentProcessingDependency:¶

dependency\_id consent\_record\_reference consent\_revision\_context processing\_activity\_reference dependency\_type required\_purpose required\_scopes relevant\_subject\_mapping applicability\_interval dependency\_source dependency\_verdict¶

5.1283. 5.C.6.5. Downstream State Record

DownstreamProcessingState:¶

processing\_activity\_reference consumer\_domain consumer\_instance\_generation last\_observed\_consent\_revision request\_queue\_state api\_operation\_state subscription\_state processing\_job\_state cache\_state derived\_data\_state output\_delivery\_state state\_source observation\_interval source\_coverage¶

ConsentPropagation:¶

transition\_reference target\_consumer notification\_reference submitted\_time receiver\_delivery\_evidence consumer\_processing\_evidence local\_state\_revision related\_operation\_references observed\_resulting\_state unknown\_outcomes¶

5.1285. 5.C.6.7. Processing Impact Assessment

ConsentProcessingImpact:¶

transition\_reference confirmed\_affected\_activities confirmed\_unaffected\_activities potentially\_affected\_activities required\_state\_observations completed\_state\_transitions outstanding\_processing\_operations cached\_and\_derived\_data\_context connectivity\_continuity\_state contradictions unresolved\_conditions assessment\_revision¶

5.1286. 5.C.7. Detailed Operational Procedure - C-V5

The following 44 stages elaborate the Group C common workflow for purpose-scoped consent transitions.¶

The processor receives a provider consent-state revision, event notification, authorized status response, or other source-qualified observation.¶

Output: Candidate consent event.¶

The processor determines the authoritative or reported source and the interface contract governing the record.¶

Output: Source context.¶

5.1289. 5.C-03 - Qualify Event Identity

The processor determines whether the event is original, retransmitted, corrected, or superseded under the source's identity rules.¶

Output: Qualified event reference.¶

The processor identifies the person or user context to which the consent record applies, using permitted mappings.¶

Output: Subject correspondence.¶

5.1291. 5.C-05 - Resolve the Purpose

The processor retains the actual purpose identifier.¶

It does not substitute an unrelated processing purpose merely because the same API supports both.¶

Output: Purpose context.¶

5.1292. 5.C-06 - Resolve the Processing Scopes

The processor obtains the relevant API operations, data categories, and provider-defined scopes.¶

Output: Scope set.¶

5.1293. 5.C-07 - Determine the State Transition

The processor identifies whether consent was granted, denied, withdrawn, expired, corrected, or otherwise changed.¶

Output: Consent transition type.¶

5.1294. 5.C-08 - Establish the Effective-State Context

The processor obtains the supported effective time, source revision, and temporal limitations.¶

Output: Effective-state interval.¶

5.1295. 5.C-09 - Identify Source Monitoring and Completeness Limits

The processor determines what the originating interface actually establishes and whether historical state may be missing.¶

Output: Source coverage.¶

5.1296. 5.C-10 - Identify Relevant Telecommunications Services

The processor obtains the active network sessions and application-facing services that may be associated with the subject.¶

Output: Service inventory.¶

5.1297. 5.C-11 - Identify Processing Activities

The processor enumerates relevant active, pending, or historical data-processing activities.¶

Output: Processing activity inventory.¶

The system associates the changed consent condition with each processing activity's required purpose, scopes, and subject.¶

Output: Dependency graph or equivalent relation.¶

5.1299. 5.C-13 - Evaluate Subject Applicability

The processor determines whether the changed consent concerns the correct user or subscriber generation for each activity.¶

Output: Subject applicability verdict.¶

5.1300. 5.C-14 - Evaluate Purpose Applicability

The processor checks whether the activity's purpose is within the changed consent's scope.¶

Output: Purpose applicability verdict.¶

5.1301. 5.C-15 - Evaluate Scope Applicability

The processor checks whether the activity uses a scope affected by the consent transition.¶

Output: Scope applicability verdict.¶

5.1302. 5.C-16 - Determine the Affected Activity Set

The processor classifies activities as affected, unaffected, or potentially affected under available evidence.¶

Output: Processing impact set.¶

5.1303. 5.C-17 - Identify Independently Governed Activities

Where an authorized responsible system has established a separate applicable processing basis or technical dependency, the processor records it.¶

It does not infer a legal basis by default.¶

Output: Independent basis/dependency context.¶

5.1304. 5.C-18 - Evaluate Underlying Connectivity Dependencies

The processor determines whether the changed consent is a mandatory condition for the underlying network session or only a separate optional processing feature.¶

Output: Connectivity impact assessment.¶

5.1305. 5.C-19 - Acquire Pending API Requests

The processor identifies requests submitted, queued, accepted, completed, or unresolved during the transition.¶

Output: API operation set.¶

5.1306. 5.C-20 - Acquire Event Subscription State

The processor obtains the relevant notification and event-subscription configurations and their status.¶

Output: Subscription state.¶

5.1307. 5.C-21 - Acquire Asynchronous Processing State

The system identifies ongoing jobs, workflows, and queued operations that depend upon the affected purpose.¶

Output: Processing job set.¶

5.1308. 5.C-22 - Identify Cached and Derived Data

The processor obtains permissible provenance information linking relevant stored data to the processing activities.¶

Output: Data correspondence.¶

5.1309. 5.C-23 - Determine Supported Event Ordering

The processor reconstructs consent revisions, processing requests, provider results, and downstream operations under known ordering constraints.¶

Output: Partial transition chronology.¶

5.1310. 5.C-24 - Evaluate Pre-Change Processing

The system identifies processing supported as occurring before the relevant effective-state boundary.¶

Output: Historical processing assessment.¶

5.1311. 5.C-25 - Evaluate In-Flight Processing

The processor identifies operations whose processing time or outcome may straddle the change.¶

Output: In-flight state assessment.¶

5.1312. 5.C-26 - Identify Applicable Existing Processing Controls

The system determines which established processing-management, consent, or authorization mechanisms govern any required transition.¶

Output: Existing control references.¶

The processor obtains delivery, processing, and acknowledgement evidence from affected consumers where available.¶

Output: Propagation status.¶

5.1314. 5.C-28 - Observe Subscription Changes

The system evaluates whether the relevant event subscriptions were cancelled, updated, or remain active.¶

Output: Subscription transition evidence.¶

5.1315. 5.C-29 - Observe Request and Job Effects

The processor obtains evidence concerning pending-request cancellation, completed jobs, stopped jobs, or unknown outcomes.¶

Output: Processing-operation status.¶

5.1316. 5.C-30 - Evaluate Continued Collection

The system evaluates whether additional data collection occurred under the relevant processing scope after the applicable transition.¶

Output: Collection-state assessment.¶

5.1317. 5.C-31 - Evaluate Downstream Processing Continuity

The processor identifies whether existing collected data continued to be processed and under what independently established conditions.¶

Output: Downstream processing assessment.¶

5.1318. 5.C-32 - Evaluate Cached Data State

The processor records the observed state of relevant cached data and any separately defined disposition requirement.¶

Output: Cache-state assessment.¶

5.1319. 5.C-33 - Evaluate Derived Output State

The system determines whether relevant derived outputs were generated, transmitted, retained, or remain unresolved.¶

Output: Derived-output assessment.¶

5.1320. 5.C-34 - Evaluate Remote Consumer Coverage

The processor identifies consumers whose state has been obtained and those remaining unavailable.¶

Output: Downstream coverage report.¶

5.1321. 5.C-35 - Detect Revision Divergence

The system compares source-qualified provider and consumer consent revisions.¶

It does not compare unrelated revision numbers as one global counter.¶

Output: State discrepancy set.¶

5.1322. 5.C-36 - Reconstruct the Possible Processing States

Where observations are incomplete, the processor retains the states compatible with the available evidence.¶

Output: Processing-state envelope.¶

5.1323. 5.C-37 - Evaluate Service Continuity

The processor separately determines whether the underlying connectivity service or unaffected optional features continue.¶

Output: Service continuity result.¶

5.1324. 5.C-38 - Determine Required Cessation Evidence

For the stated processing objective, the processor identifies which source or downstream observations would establish the relevant operational result.¶

Output: Verification requirements.¶

5.1325. 5.C-39 - Evaluate the Scoped Processing Result

The processor determines whether the required processing-state conditions are established, contradicted, or unresolved.¶

Output: Scoped correspondence verdict.¶

5.1326. 5.C-40 - Process Later Grants or Corrections

The processor reevaluates affected activities when the provider supplies a later valid consent revision or correction.¶

Output: Revised applicability state.¶

5.1327. 5.C-41 - Identify Historical Assessments Requiring Revision

The processor determines which earlier conclusions depended upon superseded or corrected event information.¶

Output: Reassessment set.¶

5.1328. 5.C-42 - Reconcile Outstanding Remote Outcomes

The processor obtains available status for unresolved consumer actions without assuming that a timeout proves continued processing.¶

Output: Qualified remote-state result.¶

5.1329. 5.C-43 - Preserve Reconstructible Evidence

The processor records source revisions, affected scopes, processing dependencies, operation histories, observations, and unresolved conditions, subject to appropriate data minimization.¶

Output: Versioned reconstruction history.¶

The processor reports the established consent-state transition and its technical effects upon identified activities and service components.¶

Output: C-V5 purpose-scoped processing reconstruction.¶

5.1331. 5.C.8. Technical Invariants

C5-I01 - A consent state is interpreted for its actual subject, purpose, and scope.¶

5.1333. C5-I03 - Withdrawal for one purpose does not automatically withdraw consent for unrelated purposes.

C5-I04 - OAuth access scope and processing purpose are distinct concepts.¶

5.1334. C5-I05 - A valid access token does not alone establish current consent-based processing validity.

C5-I06 - A previously positive consent check is not a universal future guarantee.¶

C5-I07 - Source consent revision and downstream cached revision may differ.¶

C5-I08 - Consent event delivery is not necessarily downstream application.¶

C5-I09 - A notification acknowledgement does not universally establish processing cessation.¶

C5-I10 - An event's arrival time is not necessarily its effective time.¶

5.1335. C5-I11 - Independent revision namespaces must not be numerically ordered without mapping.

C5-I12 - An earlier grant and a later withdrawal are different historical states.¶

C5-I13 - A later grant need not restore identical prior purposes or scopes.¶

C5-I14 - A rejected update request is not evidence of an applied authoritative consent transition.¶

C5-I15 - Consent subject identity requires a supported mapping.¶

C5-I16 - A reused phone number does not automatically inherit historical consent.¶

C5-I17 - Subscriber and end user are not necessarily identical.¶

C5-I18 - A purpose identifier is not interchangeable with a data category.¶

C5-I19 - One consent condition may relate to several processing activities.¶

C5-I20 - One API may be used for several different purposes.¶

5.1336. C5-I21 - A processing activity's applicable basis cannot be invented by the reconstruction engine.

5.1338. C5-I23 - A request queued before withdrawal is not necessarily processed before withdrawal.

C5-I24 - A response received after withdrawal does not establish the receiver's actual processing time.¶

5.1339. C5-I25 - A cancellation request does not automatically establish cancellation completion.

5.1340. C5-I26 - Removing an event subscription does not automatically remove previously obtained data.

5.1341. C5-I27 - An absent subscription record does not automatically prove no in-flight notifications remain.

C5-I28 - Cache invalidation at one instance does not establish all replicas are current.¶

C5-I29 - Shared caches may support activities with different applicable bases.¶

C5-I30 - A stored data object's presence does not itself establish continued processing.¶

C5-I31 - A transmitted historical output cannot be undone by changing a consent-state record.¶

C5-I32 - Derived data lineage must not be guessed where unavailable.¶

C5-I33 - The retention obligation for historical data is distinct from the consent-state observation.¶

C5-I34 - Missing consumer acknowledgement does not prove continued processing.¶

5.1342. C5-I35 - Successful consumer acknowledgement does not prove global processing cessation.

C5-I36 - Hidden external processing cannot be assumed absent.¶

C5-I37 - An authentic consent record may be stale or incomplete.¶

5.1343. C5-I38 - The absence of a matching consent record has the meaning defined by its source contract.

5.1344. C5-I39 - A user-level change cannot automatically be propagated across unrelated subscriber generations.

C5-I40 - An unaffected service shall not be classified as affected solely by shared infrastructure.¶

C5-I41 - Technical service dependency must be distinguished from legal processing basis.¶

5.1345. C5-I42 - Continued connectivity does not prove continued consent-dependent processing.

5.1346. C5-I43 - A stopped optional API does not necessarily mean the entire application service ended.

C5-I44 - A source status may be correct while downstream status remains unresolved.¶

C5-I45 - A known contradictory state is different from missing evidence.¶

C5-I46 - A complete notification inventory does not necessarily constitute a complete processing inventory.¶

5.1347. C5-I47 - Historical source corrections may require reassessment without changing past physical effects.

5.1348. C5-I48 - A reconstruction verdict does not independently determine legal noncompliance.

5.1349. C5-I49 - A reconstruction verdict does not independently authorize deletion, termination, or other consequential actions.

C5-I50 - Existing purpose-execution-finality mechanisms remain separate from this state reconstruction.¶

C5-I51 - A material unknown state cannot silently become TRUE or FALSE.¶

5.1350. C5-I52 - A claim of complete cessation cannot exceed the actual dependency, consumer, and observation coverage.

5.1351. 5.C.9. Mathematical Formulation

The following equations supplement C-CW-01.¶

They are illustrative and non-limiting.¶

Let a consent condition be identified by:¶

[ c=(u,p,\\sigma,d,g) ]¶

where:¶

| x | (u) is the relevant consent subject; | |---|---| | x | (p) is the processing purpose; | | x | (\\sigma) is the applicable scope set; | | x | (d) is the relevant provider or processing domain; | | x | (g) is the source-qualified generation or revision context. |¶

The tuple is not itself a new authority token.¶

Define:¶

[ C(c,t)\\in {\\mathrm{GRANTED},\\mathrm{WITHDRAWN},¶

\\mathrm{DENIED},\\mathrm{EXPIRED}, \\mathrm{UNKNOWN}}. ]¶

The state is interpreted under the provider's actual consent model.¶

5.1354. 5.C.9.3. Processing Dependency

For processing activity (a), define:¶

[ D(c,a)\\in{T,F,U}. ]¶

The predicate represents whether activity (a) depends upon the identified consent condition.¶

It is not a complete legal-basis determination.¶

5.1355. 5.C.9.4. Affected Processing Set

For a change (\\Delta c), define:¶

{a(\\Delta c,a)\\neq F}. ]¶

The set includes confirmed and potentially affected activities.¶

The established affected subset is:¶

{a(\\Delta c,a)=T}. ]¶

5.1356. 5.C.9.5. Applicability Predicate

A representative predicate is:¶

[ P(\\Delta c,a)= I\_u\\land I\_p\\land I\_\\sigma\\land I\_t, ]¶

where:¶

| x | (I_u): subject correspondence; | |---|---| | x | (I_p): purpose correspondence; | | x | (I_\\sigma): scope correspondence; | | x | (I_t): temporal applicability. |¶

Each predicate is three-valued.¶

A mandatory FALSE term establishes inapplicability.¶

5.1357. 5.C.9.6. Processing-State Vector

For activity (a), let:¶

[ X\_a(t)= (Q\_a,O\_a,S\_a,K\_a,R\_a,V\_a), ]¶

where:¶

| x | (Q_a): pending request and queue state; | |---|---| | x | (O_a): remote operation state; | | x | (S_a): event-subscription state; | | x | (K_a): cached data state; | | x | (R_a): derived or retained data state; | | x | (V_a): observed processing activity state. |¶

These dimensions need not transition atomically.¶

Let:¶

[ t\_c ]¶

represent the established consent-state effective time and:¶

[ t\_i ]¶

the observed processing time at consumer (i).¶

The lag:¶

[ \\Delta\_i=t\_i-t\_c ]¶

may be measured only when the timestamp and causal meanings are sufficiently supported.¶

A positive lag does not by itself prove unauthorized processing.¶

5.1359. 5.C.9.8. In-Flight Request Interval

Let processing operation (o) have possible receiver-processing interval:¶

[ I\_o=[o^-,o^+]. ]¶

Let the consent transition have effective-time interval:¶

[ I\_c=[c^-,c^+]. ]¶

If the intervals overlap, the processing order may remain unresolved without additional causal evidence.¶

5.1360. 5.C.9.9. Partial-Order Representation

Let the established events be:¶

[ E={e\_1,e\_2,\\ldots,e\_n}. ]¶

Define supported order:¶

[ \\prec\\subseteq E\\times E. ]¶

The processor preserves incomparability where no supported order exists.¶

5.1361. 5.C.9.10. Processing Cessation Objective

For the activities (\\mathcal A\_{\\mathrm{required}}) covered by a specified cessation objective, define:¶

\\bigwedge\_{a\\in\\mathcal A\_{\\mathrm{required}}} \\operatorname{Stopped}(a). ]¶

The predicate is three-valued and must use a defined observation meaning.¶

This formula does not claim that the inventory includes every unknown consumer.¶

5.1362. 5.C.9.11. Service Independence

For telecommunications service (s), define:¶

[ N(s,\\Delta c)\\in{T,F,U} ]¶

to represent whether its operation necessarily depends on the changed consent condition.¶

A FALSE result indicates that the specific consent condition is not an established mandatory dependency.¶

It does not universally establish all other service permissions.¶

5.1363. 5.C.9.12. Historical Processing Boundary

For an activity known to have completed at time (t\_a), a supported ordering:¶

[ t\_a<t\_c ]¶

may establish that it occurred before the consent transition.¶

The technical chronology does not independently decide every legal consequence.¶

5.1364. 5.C.9.13. Possible State Set

Let (E\_c) be available source and downstream evidence.¶

Define:¶

[ \\mathcal X(E\_c)= {X\\text{ satisfies the established evidence and model constraints}}. ]¶

Where operation outcomes remain unknown, several states may be possible.¶

5.1365. 5.C.9.14. Dependency-Aware Revision

For evidence correction (\\Delta E), let:¶

{a\\cap \\Delta E\\neq\\varnothing}, ]¶

where (D\_a) is the supporting dependency set of activity (a)'s reconstruction.¶

The results for affected activities may be reevaluated.¶

5.1366. 5.C.9.15. Illustrative Numerical Timeline

Assume an authoritative provider records a withdrawal effective at 10:00:00.¶

Consumer A processes the notification at 10:00:03.¶

Consumer B processes it at 10:00:12.¶

A queued request submitted at 09:59:59 is processed remotely at an unknown instant between 09:59:59 and 10:00:05.¶

The processor can establish distinct downstream notification delays of three and twelve seconds if the timestamps have adequate meaning.¶

It cannot conclusively classify the queued request as pre-withdrawal or post-withdrawal processing without further receiver evidence.¶

5.1367. 5.C.9.16. Illustrative Purpose-Scope Example

Suppose a service has:¶

| x | Activity A: fraud-prevention location verification; | |---|---| | x | Activity B: marketing analysis; | | x | Activity C: ordinary packet connectivity. |¶

A withdrawal specifically affects the marketing purpose.¶

Under a supported activity dependency model:¶

[ D(\\Delta c,A)=F, ]¶

[ D(\\Delta c,B)=T, ]¶

[ D(\\Delta c,C)=F. ]¶

The withdrawal affects Activity B under that model.¶

It does not automatically establish that A or C must terminate.¶

5.1368. 5.C.10. Implementable Pseudocode - C-ALG-06

5.1369. 5.C.10.1. Core Types

ENUM Verdict:¶

COMPATIBLE INCOMPATIBLE¶

UNRESOLVED¶

ENUM ConsentEventKind:¶

GRANT WITHDRAWAL DENIAL EXPIRY CORRECTION UNKNOWN¶

ENUM ProcessingOutcome:¶

ACTIVE\_OBSERVED STOPPED\_OBSERVED PENDING CANCELLED\_OBSERVED OUTCOME\_UNKNOWN¶

TYPE ConsentChange:¶

subject\_reference purpose scopes source source\_revision effective\_context event\_kind evidence\_reference¶

TYPE ProcessingActivity:¶

activity\_reference subject\_context purpose scopes service\_reference operation\_reference downstream\_consumer processing\_state evidence\_references¶

FUNCTION QUALIFY\_CONSENT\_TRANSITION(¶

event, source\_registry ):¶

contract = source\_registry.RESOLVE(¶

event.source, event.source\_revision\_context )¶

identity = CHECK\_SOURCE\_EVENT\_IDENTITY(¶

event, contract )¶

subject = RESOLVE\_PERMITTED\_CONSENT\_SUBJECT(¶

event )¶

purpose = INTERPRET\_PURPOSE(¶

event, contract )¶

scopes = INTERPRET\_SCOPES(¶

event, contract )¶

timing = RESOLVE\_EFFECTIVE\_STATE\_CONTEXT(¶

event, contract )¶

RETURN BUILD\_QUALIFIED\_TRANSITION(¶

identity, subject, purpose, scopes, timing )¶

5.1371. 5.C.10.3. Construct the Processing Dependency Set

FUNCTION IDENTIFY\_RELEVANT\_PROCESSING(¶

consent\_transition, activity\_inventory ):¶

candidates = activity\_inventory.FIND\_BY\_SUBJECT(¶

consent\_transition.subject\_reference )¶

results = []¶

FOR EACH activity IN candidates:¶

subject\_match = CHECK\_SUBJECT(¶

consent\_transition, activity¶

)¶

purpose\_match = CHECK\_PURPOSE(¶

consent\_transition, activity )¶

scope\_match = CHECK\_SCOPES(¶

consent\_transition, activity )¶

temporal = CHECK\_APPLICABILITY\_INTERVAL(¶

consent\_transition, activity )¶

ADD COMBINE\_DEPENDENCY\_VERDICT(¶

subject\_match, purpose\_match, scope\_match, temporal ) TO results¶

RETURN results¶

5.1372. 5.C.10.4. Reconstruct Processing Activity State

FUNCTION RECONSTRUCT\_PROCESSING\_STATE(¶

activity, request\_history, consumer\_status, subscription\_status ):¶

requests = RESOLVE\_REQUEST\_OPERATIONS(¶

activity, request\_history )¶

consumer = RESOLVE\_CONSUMER\_STATE(¶

activity, consumer\_status )¶

subscriptions = RESOLVE\_SUBSCRIPTIONS(¶

activity, subscription\_status )¶

RETURN BUILD\_MULTIDIMENSIONAL\_STATE(¶

requests, consumer, subscriptions )¶

5.1373. 5.C.10.5. Evaluate In-Flight Operations

FUNCTION EVALUATE\_INFLIGHT\_OPERATION(¶

operation, consent\_transition, receiver\_evidence ):¶

order = CHECK\_SUPPORTED\_EFFECTIVE\_ORDER(¶

operation, consent\_transition, receiver\_evidence )¶

result = CHECK\_REMOTE\_OPERATION\_RESULT(¶

operation, receiver\_evidence )¶

IF order unresolved:¶

RETURN UNRESOLVED(¶

"PROCESSING\_ORDER\_UNKNOWN", result )¶

RETURN BUILD\_TIME\_QUALIFIED\_OPERATION\_RESULT(¶

order, result )¶

5.1374. 5.C.10.6. Reconcile Subscription and Notification State

FUNCTION RECONCILE\_EVENT\_SUBSCRIPTIONS(¶

affected\_activities, provider\_status, consumer\_status ):¶

results = []¶

FOR EACH activity IN affected\_activities:¶

provider = GET\_PROVIDER\_SUBSCRIPTION\_STATUS(¶

activity,¶

provider\_status )¶

consumer = GET\_CONSUMER\_PROCESSING\_STATUS(¶

activity, consumer\_status )¶

ADD {¶

activity, subscription\_status: provider, notification\_processing\_status: consumer } TO results¶

RETURN results¶

5.1375. 5.C.10.7. Reconcile Cache and Data Processing

FUNCTION RECONCILE\_DOWNSTREAM\_DATA(¶

activity, data\_lineage\_source, authorized\_disposition\_model ):¶

objects = FIND\_RELEVANT\_DATA\_OBJECTS(¶

activity, data\_lineage\_source )¶

results = []¶

FOR EACH object IN objects:¶

relation = CHECK\_PROVENANCE\_RELATION(¶

object, activity )¶

state = CHECK\_OBSERVED\_DATA\_STATE(¶

object )¶

requirement = GET\_ESTABLISHED\_DISPOSITION\_REQUIREMENT(¶

object, authorized\_disposition\_model )¶

ADD {¶

object, relation,¶

state, requirement } TO results¶

RETURN results¶

The function does not invent deletion obligations or automatically delete the objects.¶

5.1376. 5.C.10.8. Preserve Unaffected Connectivity

FUNCTION EVALUATE\_CONNECTIVITY\_DEPENDENCY(¶

consent\_transition, telecom\_session, service\_dependency\_model ):¶

dependency = service\_dependency\_model.EVALUATE(¶

consent\_transition, telecom\_session )¶

IF dependency == INCOMPATIBLE:¶

RETURN {¶

affected\_by\_this\_consent: FALSE, existing\_session\_state:¶

OBSERVE\_SEPARATELY(telecom\_session) }¶

IF dependency == UNRESOLVED:¶

RETURN UNRESOLVED¶

RETURN {¶

affected\_by\_this\_consent: TRUE, required\_lifecycle\_action:¶

DETERMINED\_BY\_EXISTING\_CONTROLS }¶

5.1377. 5.C.10.9. Evaluate Scoped Cessation

FUNCTION EVALUATE\_SCOPED\_PROCESSING\_CESSATION(¶

required\_activities, activity\_states, coverage\_model ):¶

completeness = CHECK\_ACTIVITY\_INVENTORY\_COVERAGE(¶

required\_activities, coverage\_model¶

)¶

results = []¶

FOR EACH activity IN required\_activities:¶

result = CHECK\_REQUIRED\_STOP\_CONDITION(¶

activity, activity\_states )¶

ADD result TO results¶

RETURN COMBINE\_COVERAGE\_AND\_STATE\_VERDICTS(¶

completeness, results )¶

5.1378. 5.C.10.10. Process Later Consent Revisions

FUNCTION REPROCESS\_CONSENT\_REVISION(¶

new\_revision, dependency\_index ):¶

affected = dependency\_index.FIND\_DEPENDENTS(¶

new\_revision )¶

IF dependency\_index not complete:¶

affected = EXPAND\_ASSESSMENT\_SCOPE()¶

FOR EACH assessment IN affected:¶

revised = RECONSTRUCT\_FROM\_SOURCE\_EVIDENCE(¶

assessment, new\_revision )¶

STORE\_ASSESSMENT\_REVISION(revised)¶

RETURN affected¶

5.1379. 5.C.10.11. Reconcile Remote Unknown State

FUNCTION RECONCILE\_REMOTE\_CONSUMER(¶

consumer, consent\_revision, available\_status ):¶

notification = CHECK\_DELIVERY\_STATUS(¶

consumer, consent\_revision )¶

processing = CHECK\_CONSUMER\_APPLICATION\_STATUS(¶

consumer, consent\_revision )¶

observed\_effects = CHECK\_RELEVANT\_PROCESSING\_EFFECTS(¶

consumer )¶

RETURN {¶

notification, processing, observed\_effects, uncertainty:¶

IDENTIFY\_MISSING\_REQUIRED\_EVIDENCE() }¶

5.1380. 5.C.10.12. Complete Embodiment Algorithm

FUNCTION RECONSTRUCT\_CONSENT\_PROCESSING\_IMPACT(¶

event ):¶

consent = QUALIFY\_CONSENT\_TRANSITION(¶

event, CONSENT\_SOURCE\_REGISTRY() )¶

dependencies = IDENTIFY\_RELEVANT\_PROCESSING(¶

consent, PROCESSING\_ACTIVITY\_INVENTORY() )¶

affected = SELECT\_CONFIRMED\_AND\_POSSIBLE\_DEPENDENTS(¶

dependencies )¶

activity\_results = []¶

FOR EACH activity IN affected:¶

state = RECONSTRUCT\_PROCESSING\_STATE(¶

activity, REQUEST\_HISTORY(),¶

CONSUMER\_STATUS(), SUBSCRIPTION\_STATUS() )¶

in\_flight = EVALUATE\_RELEVANT\_INFLIGHT\_OPERATIONS(¶

activity, consent )¶

downstream = RECONCILE\_DOWNSTREAM\_DATA(¶

activity, DATA\_LINEAGE\_SOURCE(), ESTABLISHED\_DISPOSITION\_MODEL() )¶

ADD {¶

activity, state, in\_flight, downstream } TO activity\_results subscriptions = RECONCILE\_EVENT\_SUBSCRIPTIONS(¶

affected, PROVIDER\_STATUS(), CONSUMER\_STATUS() )¶

connectivity = EVALUATE\_ALL\_RELEVANT\_CONNECTIVITY(¶

consent, TELECOM\_SERVICE\_INVENTORY() )¶

cessation = EVALUATE\_SCOPED\_PROCESSING\_CESSATION(¶

REQUIRED\_AFFECTED\_ACTIVITIES(), activity\_results, COVERAGE\_MODEL() )¶

result = BUILD\_VERSIONED\_CONSENT\_IMPACT\_RESULT(¶

consent, dependencies, activity\_results, subscriptions, connectivity, cessation )¶

STORE\_RECONSTRUCTION(result)¶

RETURN result¶

This is a reconstruction algorithm.¶

It does not independently withdraw consent on the user's behalf, change the authoritative consent record, terminate connectivity, delete downstream data, or authorize a consequential processing operation.¶

5.1381. 5.C.11. Worked Technical Examples

5.1382. 5.C.11.1. Example 1 - Marketing Withdrawal While Connectivity Continues

A mobile subscriber has an active data session.¶

An optional application feature collects subscriber-related information for marketing analytics.¶

The user withdraws consent for that purpose.¶

The processor identifies the marketing activity and the data source upon which it depends.¶

It separately observes the underlying network session.¶

The result may establish that the optional activity is affected while ordinary connectivity remains active.¶

5.1383. 5.C.11.2. Example 2 - Fraud-Prevention Purpose Remains Distinct

An application uses one network API for fraud-prevention processing and another for marketing analytics.¶

The user withdraws marketing consent.¶

The processor does not automatically classify the fraud-prevention activity as affected.¶

Its actual legal basis and processing permission must be independently established.¶

5.1384. 5.C.11.3. Example 3 - Cached Positive Consent Check

An API consumer receives a positive processing-validity response at 09:55.¶

The provider records withdrawal effective at 10:00.¶

At 10:02, the consumer's cache still contains the earlier response.¶

The processor reports the discrepancy between the provider state and cached state.¶

It does not treat the old response as current solely because it was authentic.¶

5.1385. 5.C.11.4. Example 4 - Delayed Withdrawal Notification

The provider records withdrawal at 10:00.¶

A notification arrives at Consumer A at 10:03.¶

Consumer A processes it at 10:05.¶

The processor distinguishes authoritative consent change, message delivery, and consumer application.¶

It does not merge them into a single event at 10:05.¶

5.1386. 5.C.11.5. Example 5 - Several Consumer Replicas

An exposure service operates three replicas.¶

Replica R1 has processed the withdrawal.¶

Replica R2 has not yet acknowledged it.¶

Replica R3's state is unavailable.¶

The processor does not claim global processing cessation merely from R1's status.¶

It retains the three source-qualified states.¶

5.1387. 5.C.11.6. Example 6 - API Request Straddles Withdrawal

A location-verification request is submitted at 09:59:59.¶

The provider records the applicable consent withdrawal at 10:00.¶

The request is processed at an unknown time within a five-second interval covering the transition.¶

The processor cannot conclusively establish whether the relevant processing occurred before or after the effective boundary.¶

It identifies the receiver evidence required for a more precise assessment.¶

5.C.11.7. Example 7 - Event Subscription Cancelled, In-Flight Notification Remains¶

The provider removes an event subscription after withdrawal.¶

A notification generated earlier remains in transit.¶

The processor separately records the subscription deletion and the outstanding message.¶

It does not assume that removing the subscription retroactively cancels every previously generated notification.¶

5.1388. 5.C.11.8. Example 8 - Historical Data Retained

A consumer received valid data before withdrawal.¶

After the withdrawal, the relevant data remains in a repository.¶

The processor distinguishes storage presence from active further processing.¶

The applicable retention and further-processing requirements are determined by the responsible policy and legal context.¶

5.1389. 5.C.11.9. Example 9 - Derived Analytics Output

An analytics result combines several sources, including data collected under a nowwithdrawn consent.¶

The processor identifies the supported data lineage.¶

If the lineage is incomplete, it does not invent which portion of the result depends upon the withdrawn purpose.¶

It records the unresolved dependency.¶

5.1390. 5.C.11.10. Example 10 - Grant after Withdrawal

A user withdraws consent at 10:00 and later grants consent at 11:00 for a narrower scope.¶

A consumer holding a wider earlier scope does not automatically regain all previous processing permissions.¶

The processor evaluates the 11:00 grant as a separate source-qualified revision.¶

5.1391. 5.C.11.11. Example 11 - Different Subject after Mobile-Number Reassignment

A mobile number is reassigned to a new subscriber.¶

An application has an older consent record associated with the previous subscriber.¶

The processor does not transfer the historical consent to the new subscriber merely because the number matches.¶

It requires valid subject-generation correspondence.¶

5.1392. 5.C.11.12. Example 12 - Aggregator Holds an Older Revision

A network API aggregator reports consent revision 18.¶

The operator provider has a newer applicable withdrawal revision in its own source namespace.¶

The processor determines the source relationship rather than comparing arbitrary revision numbers.¶

It reports the aggregator's state as stale only when the applicable correspondence and order are supported.¶

5.1393. 5.C.11.13. Example 13 - Event Subscription and API Requests Have Different Outcomes

A service's event subscription is removed.¶

An already submitted direct API request has an unknown outcome.¶

The processor may establish subscription cessation while retaining uncertainty about the separate API request.¶

5.1394. 5.C.11.14. Example 14 - Optional Service Feature Cannot Continue

An optional location-based feature depends on consent-covered data processing.¶

The applicable consent is withdrawn.¶

The processor identifies the feature's technical dependency.¶

The separately responsible service system determines its applicable behavior.¶

Ordinary packet connectivity is not automatically terminated.¶

5.1395. 5.C.11.15. Example 15 - Alternative Legal Basis Is Asserted

A downstream consumer asserts that one processing activity has an independently applicable legal basis.¶

The reconstruction engine does not make that legal determination.¶

It records the responsible system's determination and the associated scope, source, and uncertainty.¶

It does not automatically use that assertion to continue every affected activity.¶

5.1396. 5.C.11.16. Example 16 - Remote Consumer Unreachable

The provider records withdrawal.¶

A downstream processor is temporarily unreachable.¶

The provider cannot verify the processor's current state.¶

The reconstruction reports the provider change as established and remote processing as unresolved.¶

It does not claim that the processor necessarily continued or stopped.¶

One consent expires under its defined lifetime.¶

Another is explicitly withdrawn earlier.¶

Both may result in an unavailable consent-based processing condition under the applicable model.¶

Their event histories and effective boundaries remain distinct.¶

5.1398. 5.C.11.18. Example 18 - Correction to Effective Time

A provider corrects a consent event's effective timestamp.¶

An earlier assessment classified a processing request as preceding withdrawal.¶

The corrected time causes its processing interval to overlap the withdrawal boundary.¶

The processor revises the assessment to unresolved where necessary, preserving the original historical finding and its supporting record.¶

5.1399. 5.C.11.19. Example 19 - Notification Acknowledged but Cache Still Stale

A consumer acknowledges the withdrawal notification.¶

A separate processing instance still uses an earlier cached state.¶

The processor identifies notification processing as established but global cache convergence as not established.¶

5.1400. 5.C.11.20. Example 20 - Stopped Processing with Unchanged Network Session

A consumer stops an optional device-information processing job.¶

The device's active network session continues.¶

The processor reports both observations without contradiction.¶

5.1401. 5.C.12. Specific Design-Around Alternatives and Implementation Pathways

The following 36 alternatives provide concrete technical implementations.¶

5.1402. C-5-DA-01 - Centralized Consent-Impact Reconciler

Mechanism: One processor maintains the consent-to-processing dependency inventory.¶

Implementation: Provider consent events are mapped to active consumers and service¶

activities.¶

Limitation: Centralization does not guarantee complete consumer visibility.¶

Failure behavior: Unobserved consumers remain unresolved.¶

Test: Withhold one downstream consumer's activity state.¶

5.1403. C-5-DA-02 - Federated Provider-Local Reconstruction

Mechanism: Each participating domain reconstructs its own processing state.¶

Implementation: A coordinator receives scoped status and dependency information.¶

Limitation: Internal processing may be hidden.¶

Failure behavior: No unsupported global cessation assertion.¶

Test: Return only an abstract remote processing-status result.¶

Mechanism: An implementation obtains purpose- and scope-qualified processing-validity¶

information.¶

Implementation: The original API result and its query context are retained.¶

Limitation: A single result need not establish historical or future state.¶

Failure behavior: Later changes require reevaluation.¶

Test: Change consent after an earlier positive check.¶

Mechanism: Existing provider-consent create, update, and retrieve operations supply state¶

information.¶

Implementation: The processor distinguishes requested updates from applied provider state.¶

Limitation: Delegation and supported operations depend upon provider policy.¶

Failure behavior: Rejected changes do not become authoritative state transitions.¶

Test: Attempt an unsupported consent update and verify the authoritative state is unchanged.¶

5.1406. C-5-DA-05 - Provider Event-Subscription Reconstruction

Mechanism: Consent changes are received through provider notifications.¶

Implementation: Event identity and source revisions are retained.¶

Limitation: Delivery can be delayed or duplicated.¶

Failure behavior: Gaps and replay are qualified.¶

Test: Duplicate one withdrawal event.¶

5.1407. C-5-DA-06 - Polling-Based Consent Revision Reconstruction

Mechanism: The processor periodically obtains provider consent status.¶

Implementation: Each observation has a time and scope.¶

Limitation: Changes between polls may be incompletely visible.¶

Failure behavior: The processor does not invent intermediate state history.¶

Test: Change consent twice between successive polls.¶

5.1408. C-5-DA-07 - Event-and-Polling Hybrid

Mechanism: Notifications and state retrieval are combined.¶

Implementation: A current provider read helps reconcile delayed events.¶

Limitation: Both may originate from the same incomplete source.¶

Failure behavior: Shared source limitations are retained.¶

Test: Deliver an older notification after a newer provider query.¶

5.1409. C-5-DA-08 - Event-Sourced Consent Dependency Reconstruction Mechanism: Consent changes and processing events are replayed.

Implementation: Supported event order and generation semantics determine state.¶

Limitation: Missing history may prevent unique reconstruction.¶

Failure behavior: Multiple possible states retained.¶

Test: Remove a material consent revision.¶

5.1410. C-5-DA-09 - Snapshot-and-Delta Consent State

Mechanism: Consumer state is reconstructed from a versioned snapshot and subsequent¶

updates.¶

Implementation: The processor detects missing deltas.¶

Limitation: Snapshot completeness is source-dependent.¶

Failure behavior: Gaps cause unresolved conclusions.¶

Test: Omit one withdrawal delta.¶

5.1411. C-5-DA-10 - Relational Consent-to-Activity Mapping

Mechanism: Consent, purpose, scope, consumer, and activity references are stored in¶

relational tables.¶

Implementation: Time-qualified joins determine affected activities.¶

Limitation: A database relationship does not prove current processing activity.¶

Failure behavior: Observation evidence remains separate.¶

Test: Include an inactive historical consumer mapping.¶

5.1412. C-5-DA-11 - Graph-Based Processing Dependency Mapping

Mechanism: A graph relates consent conditions to processing activities and downstream¶

resources.¶

Implementation: Typed edges identify scope and provenance.¶

Limitation: Graph reachability does not establish all legal or operational consequences.¶

Failure behavior: Unknown edges remain qualified.¶

Test: Add an incomplete shared-cache lineage.¶

5.1413. C-5-DA-12 - Constraint-Based Applicability Reconstruction

Mechanism: A solver evaluates possible dependency and operation states.¶

Implementation: Subject, purpose, scope, and time predicates constrain the result.¶

Limitation: Solver completeness depends upon the supplied model.¶

Failure behavior: Solver exhaustion remains unresolved.¶

Test: Supply ambiguous request-processing time.¶

5.1414. C-5-DA-13 - Source-Scoped Revision Matching

Mechanism: Provider and consumer revisions are maintained under their actual namespaces.¶

Implementation: Cross-source ordering is established only with supported relationships.¶

Limitation: Some states may remain incomparable.¶

Failure behavior: No arbitrary numeric ordering.¶

Test: Provider revision 4 and aggregator revision 90.¶

5.1415. C-5-DA-14 - Interval-Based Consent Applicability

Mechanism: Effective time and processing intervals are represented explicitly.¶

Implementation: Temporal overlap identifies possible ambiguity.¶

Limitation: Timestamp uncertainty may be significant.¶

Failure behavior: Uncertain ordering is preserved.¶

Test: Process a request across an effective-time boundary.¶

5.1416. C-5-DA-15 - Causal Message-Order Reconstruction

Mechanism: Request/response and event dependencies constrain processing order.¶

Implementation: A partial-order model supplements clock information.¶

Limitation: Independent events may remain unordered.¶

Failure behavior: No unsupported total order.¶

Test: Reverse the arrival order of independent notifications.¶

5.1417. C-5-DA-16 - Subscriber-Generation-Aware Consent Mapping

Mechanism: Consent subject mappings are associated with historical subscriber generations.¶

Implementation: Reassignment and device transitions are handled separately.¶

Limitation: External APIs may not expose the necessary mapping.¶

Failure behavior: Inapplicable historical consent is not inherited.¶

Test: Reassign a mobile number.¶

5.1418. C-5-DA-17 - Purpose-Specific Dependency Partitioning

Mechanism: Processing activities are classified by purpose.¶

Implementation: Only applicable dependencies enter the affected set.¶

Limitation: Purposes may be incompletely documented.¶

Failure behavior: Unclassified activities remain unresolved.¶

Test: Withdraw marketing consent while fraud-prevention processing uses another¶

established basis.¶

5.1419. C-5-DA-18 - API-Scope-Specific Dependency Partitioning Mechanism: Individual API operations are mapped to applicable consent scopes.

Implementation: A change affecting one operation does not automatically change all¶

operations.¶

Limitation: Scope mappings are version-dependent.¶

Failure behavior: Unknown mappings are not guessed.¶

Test: Withdraw one scope from a larger permitted scope set.¶

Implementation: Each cache entry retains source and observation context.¶

Limitation: Provider revisions may not be visible externally.¶

Failure behavior: Freshness limitations are reported.¶

Test: Use an earlier positive cache result after withdrawal.¶

5.1421. C-5-DA-20 - Multi-Replica Processing State

Mechanism: Separate consumer replicas report local processing state.¶

Implementation: The processor evaluates coverage of all relevant instances.¶

Limitation: Some replicas may be unobservable.¶

Failure behavior: One successful replica update is not global completion.¶

Test: Update two of three replicas.¶

5.1422. C-5-DA-21 - Asynchronous Job State Reconciliation

Mechanism: Queued and running processing tasks are associated with the relevant consent¶

condition.¶

Implementation: Job submission and effectuation are separate observations.¶

Limitation: Some systems lack historical execution records.¶

Failure behavior: Unknown job outcome remains unresolved.¶

Test: Queue a task before withdrawal and process it afterward.¶

5.1423. C-5-DA-22 - API Request Race Reconstruction Mechanism: In-flight API operations are reconstructed around consent revision boundaries.

Implementation: Receiver status and processing-time evidence are evaluated.¶

Limitation: A client timestamp may not establish receiver processing time.¶

Failure behavior: No unsupported pre/post transition classification.¶

Test: Lose a response for a request spanning withdrawal.¶

5.1424. C-5-DA-23 - Event Subscription Cancellation Correspondence

Mechanism: Subscription removal is associated with affected notification processing.¶

Implementation: Provider and consumer states are recorded separately.¶

Limitation: In-flight notifications may survive subscription removal.¶

Failure behavior: Pending delivery remains explicit.¶

Test: Cancel a subscription with one notification in transit.¶

5.1425. C-5-DA-24 - Cached Data Provenance Reconstruction Mechanism: Cached data is linked to the source and purpose under which it was collected.

Implementation: Object provenance and current processing state are reconstructed.¶

Limitation: Presence alone does not determine the legal disposition.¶

Failure behavior: Retention obligations remain separately sourced.¶

Test: Keep historical cached data after stopping new collection.¶

5.1426. C-5-DA-25 - Derived Data Lineage Reconstruction

Mechanism: Derived outputs are associated with their upstream input data.¶

Implementation: Lineage identifies potentially affected further processing.¶

Limitation: Incomplete lineage may prevent exact scope determination.¶

Failure behavior: Unknown source contributions remain unresolved.¶

Test: Combine multiple input data sources into an aggregate.¶

5.1427. C-5-DA-26 - Shared Resource Dependency Separation

Mechanism: A shared cache or service is used by several activities with different purposes.¶

Implementation: The processor distinguishes logical processing populations from physical¶

shared infrastructure.¶

Limitation: Shared storage can complicate lineage.¶

Failure behavior: No unsupported universal deletion or shutdown.¶

Test: Stop one of two activities sharing a cache.¶

5.1428. C-5-DA-27 - Unaffected Network Connectivity Reconstruction

Mechanism: The underlying telecommunications session is evaluated independently.¶

Implementation: Consent and connectivity dependencies are separately modeled.¶

Limitation: A particular optional service may depend on the affected processing.¶

Failure behavior: No blanket PDU Session termination assumption.¶

Test: Withdraw location-analytics consent while ordinary connectivity remains active.¶

5.1429. C-5-DA-28 - Optional Feature Dependency Reconciliation

Mechanism: An application feature is associated with its required data-processing activity.¶

Implementation: The processor evaluates feature state and downstream processing state¶

separately.¶

Limitation: The broader application may continue through other features.¶

Failure behavior: Feature impairment is not global session failure.¶

Test: Disable an optional location feature without disconnecting network traffic.¶

5.1430. C-5-DA-29 - Aggregator/Operator State Reconciliation Mechanism: The operator's consent state is related to an aggregator's exposed or cached

state.¶

Implementation: Provenance and revision context are maintained.¶

Limitation: The aggregator may not expose all internal processing states.¶

Failure behavior: Unknown downstream actions remain explicit.¶

Test: Delay the aggregator's receipt of an operator withdrawal.¶

5.1431. C-5-DA-30 - Roaming-Context Consent Correspondence

Mechanism: Consent-relevant API processing is associated with the applicable operator and¶

exposure architecture during roaming.¶

Implementation: Home and visited operator roles are evaluated as actually supported.¶

Limitation: Roaming does not universally transfer consent authority.¶

Failure behavior: Unsupported cross-operator assumptions rejected.¶

Test: Roam while retaining consent management in the home operator.¶

5.1432. C-5-DA-31 - Later Grant and Scope Change Reconstruction

Mechanism: A later consent grant is evaluated as a distinct revision.¶

Implementation: New subject, purpose, scope, and effective context are compared with¶

affected activities.¶

Limitation: Earlier requests may not be automatically restorable.¶

Failure behavior: No universal restoration assumption.¶

Test: Grant a narrower scope after withdrawal.¶

Implementation: The dependency index identifies affected historical activities.¶

Limitation: Past processing effects cannot be retroactively undone.¶

Failure behavior: Revised assessment and historical events kept separately.¶

Test: Correct the effective withdrawal time.¶

5.1434. C-5-DA-33 - Read-Only Independent Consent-Impact Monitor Mechanism: A monitoring system reconstructs processing-state consequences without

changing consent or service state.¶

Implementation: It compares authoritative and downstream observations.¶

Limitation: Read-only monitoring does not guarantee complete coverage.¶

Failure behavior: Unknown consumers remain unresolved.¶

Test: Detect one stale downstream replica without modifying it.¶

5.1435. C-5-DA-34 - Privacy-Minimizing Evidence Exchange

Mechanism: Consumers provide limited status rather than raw personal data.¶

Implementation: The reconstruction operates on scoped references and qualified results.¶

Limitation: Some detailed linkage may be unavailable.¶

Failure behavior: Missing mappings are not fabricated.¶

Test: Produce a processing-status result without disclosing raw location history.¶

5.1436. C-5-DA-35 - Integrity-Protected Consent Evidence

Mechanism: Consent and processing-status records may be authenticated under established¶

mechanisms.¶

Implementation: Provenance, revision, and state applicability are checked independently.¶

Limitation: Authenticity does not prove freshness or full downstream effect.¶

Failure behavior: Validly signed stale results remain qualified.¶

Test: Replay an earlier authenticated grant after withdrawal.¶

5.1437. C-5-DA-36 - Optional Advanced Dependency and Temporal Optimization

Mechanism: Graph processing or a constraint solver assists with determining affected¶

activities under timing uncertainty.¶

Implementation: Candidate reconstructions remain subject to mandatory source and¶

processing predicates.¶

Limitation: No generic performance improvement or complete-consumer-visibility¶

guarantee is presumed.¶

Failure behavior: Search exhaustion is unresolved, not proof of cessation or continuation.¶

Test: Compare solver results with an exhaustive small reference model.¶

5.1438. 5.C.13. Specific Design-Around Correspondence

The implementation may use a centralized consent service, a federated provider arrangement, event sourcing, polling, a relational dependency inventory, a graph-based processing model, or a constraint solver.¶

Some implementations may receive a CAMARA consent-status response.¶

Others may receive direct provider state revisions or consent-management notifications.¶

Some may maintain detailed downstream processing lineage.¶

Others may receive only limited consumer status information.¶

A deployment may use source event times, logical revision ordering, or both.¶

These architectures can have different visibility and performance characteristics.¶

The distinctive technical relationship is not the generic existence of consent withdrawal or purpose-scoped authorization.¶

It is the reconstruction of how a versioned, scoped consent change corresponds to¶

independently evolving processing activities, subscriptions, queues, caches, derived data, and active telecommunications services.¶

For claim analysis, the following boundaries are essential:¶

1. Standard consent capture is established prior art. 2. Purpose- and scope-qualified consent checks are already provided by existing APIs. 3. A provider's consent record does not automatically describe all downstream processing. 4. A notification acknowledgement does not establish universal cessation. 5. Subscription removal does not automatically remove cached or historical data. 6. A processing-status result does not itself determine the applicable legal basis. 7. A processing-state discrepancy is not automatically a finding of unlawful conduct. 8. An affected optional data-processing purpose does not automatically require networksession termination. 9. A later grant must be evaluated under its actual revised scope. 10. The present reconstruction does not recreate earlier protected purpose-executionfinality mechanisms.¶

The described mechanisms require operationally precise conditions, evidence sources and specific state semantics. They do not automatically imply equivalent behavior in a different deployment.¶

5.1439. 5.C.14. PHOSITA Reference Implementation

A reference system can be constructed from ordinary software components without live personal data.¶

It may contain:¶

1. A simulated authoritative consent provider. 2. A CAMARA Consent Info-style adapter. 3. A Consent Management-style update adapter. 4. A consent subject and identity-mapping service. 5. A purpose-and-scope dependency repository. 6. An active telecommunications service simulator. 7. A network API consumer simulator. 8. A second independent consumer simulator. 9. A multi-replica consumer deployment. 10. An asynchronous message queue. 11. An event-subscription manager. 12. A pending API-request processor. 13. A cache holding derived consent-status entries. 14. A synthetic data repository. 15. A derived-data lineage service. 16. A notification event generator. 17. An operation and status history repository. 18. A reconstruction engine. 19. A privacy-minimized status reporting interface. 20. An independent test oracle.¶

The test environment should use synthetic users and subscriber references.¶

The oracle shall maintain the actual consent history, processing activity, queue execution, and cache states independently from the reconstruction engine.¶

5.1440. 5.C.15. Detailed PHOSITA Implementation Procedure

Phase 1 - Consent identity domains: Define separate consent subject, mobile subscriber,¶

application user, and service references.¶

Phase 2 - Provider semantics: Implement purpose, scope, record generation, and state¶

transitions.¶

Phase 3 - Multiple purposes: Create at least two processing purposes sharing one active¶

telecommunications service.¶

Phase 4 - Multiple scopes: Associate one purpose with several API scopes.¶

Phase 5 - Processing inventory: Define direct API calls, event subscriptions, queued jobs,¶

and cached data processing.¶

Phase 6 - Dependency model: Map each activity to relevant consent conditions.¶

Phase 7 - Source revision history: Record grants, withdrawals, expiry, and later¶

corrections.¶

Phase 8 - Request-time representation: Separate submission, receipt, execution, and¶

response times.¶

Phase 9 - Notification delay: Introduce delayed downstream propagation.¶

Phase 10 - Message replay: Deliver the same consent-change event more than once.¶

Phase 11 - Reordered messages: Deliver source events out of chronological order.¶

Phase 12 - Multi-replica divergence: Update some consumers but not others.¶

Phase 13 - Cached positive results: Preserve an earlier consent check after a source¶

change.¶

Phase 14 - Pending jobs: Queue operations before withdrawal and process them at¶

controlled later times.¶

Phase 15 - Event subscription removal: Cancel subscriptions while notifications are in¶

flight.¶

Phase 16 - Downstream processing: Record observed processing states independently of¶

notification acknowledgement.¶

Phase 17 - Historical data: Retain synthetic previously obtained data while modeling¶

separate disposition requirements.¶

Phase 18 - Derived outputs: Associate analytics results with selected upstream inputs.¶

Phase 19 - Shared caches: Support different activities using the same physical repository.¶

Phase 20 - Unaffected connectivity: Maintain a simulated network session independent of¶

the withdrawn optional purpose.¶

Phase 21 - Dependent feature impairment: Model an optional feature that cannot¶

continue without its defined processing activity.¶

Phase 22 - Remote outage: Disconnect one downstream consumer during propagation.¶

Phase 23 - Subject reassignment: Reuse a mobile-number reference for a later synthetic¶

subscriber generation.¶

Phase 24 - Later consent grant: Restore a narrower scope without restoring all earlier¶

permissions.¶

Phase 25 - Effective-time correction: Revise one historical event's effective context.¶

Phase 26 - Incomplete inventory: Hide one consumer and verify the reconstruction does¶

not claim complete cessation.¶

Phase 27 - Independent processing basis: Supply a separately qualified determination¶

from a responsible simulated policy authority.¶

Phase 28 - Read-only reconstruction: Confirm the assessment process does not mutate the¶

authoritative consent record.¶

Phase 29 - Restricted outputs: Prevent raw personal-data values from appearing in¶

unnecessary reconciliation reports.¶

Phase 30 - State-envelope calculations: Retain possible outcomes when remote state is¶

unknown.¶

Phase 31 - Revision processing: Recompute affected activity results after corrections.¶

Phase 32 - Fault recovery: Restart the reconstruction process during event processing.¶

Phase 33 - Deterministic testing: Compare each result against independent simulation¶

ground truth.¶

Phase 34 - Source limitation reporting: Record missing evidence and incomplete¶

temporal coverage.¶

Phase 35 - Performance measurements: Measure dependency traversal, reconstruction¶

time, and memory requirements.¶

Phase 36 - Documentation: Report actual test results and limitations, avoiding¶

unsupported claims of real-world compliance or performance.¶

5.1441. 5.C.16. Failure and Adversarial Conditions

F01: A withdrawn purpose does not match the active processing purpose.¶

F02: A consent record concerns a different subscriber generation.¶

F03: A mobile number is reused after reassignment.¶

F04: A positive consent-status cache becomes stale.¶

F05: A withdrawal notification is delayed.¶

F06: An earlier grant notification arrives after a withdrawal notification.¶

F07: A later narrower grant is mistaken for full restoration.¶

F08: A rejected consent-update request is treated as applied.¶

F09: A request is queued before withdrawal and processed afterward.¶

F10: Request response is lost after remote processing.¶

F11: Event subscription cancellation response is lost.¶

F12: Subscription removed but notification remains in flight.¶

F13: Notification delivered but consumer application delayed.¶

F14: One of several consumer replicas remains stale.¶

F15: Provider status changes but aggregator cache does not.¶

F16: Remote consumer is unreachable.¶

F17: A historical data item remains stored.¶

F18: Stored data presence is falsely treated as new processing.¶

F19: An earlier output has already been transmitted.¶

F20: Derived data lineage is incomplete.¶

F21: Two purposes share one cache.¶

F22: One API operation is used for two separate purposes.¶

F23: Different API scopes are conflated.¶

F24: Consent expires rather than being explicitly withdrawn.¶

F25: A source revision is corrected.¶

F26: Timestamps have overlapping uncertainty intervals.¶

F27: Source and aggregator version numbers are incomparable.¶

F28: A signed old consent grant is replayed.¶

F29: A notification acknowledgement is treated as complete cessation.¶

F30: Lack of acknowledgement is treated as definite continued processing.¶

F31: A valid alternate processing basis is asserted without supporting determination.¶

F32: Basic connectivity is incorrectly terminated because optional analytics consent changed.¶

F33: An optional dependent feature is incorrectly classified as unaffected.¶

F34: A remote processing inventory is incomplete.¶

F35: Processing stops but relevant data retention status remains unknown.¶

F36: Consumer state changes after earlier assessment.¶

F37: An application changes purpose while processing remains pending.¶

F38: A subscriber roams during consent propagation.¶

F39: A service provider changes API schema version.¶

F40: A source reports no matching consent record with limited coverage.¶

F41: Reconstruction crashes before checkpoint persistence.¶

F42: Dependency index omits a consumer.¶

F43: A derived record depends on mixed source populations.¶

F44: A controller-specific legal-basis determination is missing.¶

F45: Privacy restrictions prevent raw identity mapping.¶

F46: The processing inventory incorrectly merges unrelated subscriber accounts.¶

F47: A previously completed activity is retroactively classified as never occurring.¶

F48: Solver exhausts its state-search budget.¶

F49: A stopped job is restarted under a later different consent revision.¶

F50: An assessment result is improperly treated as authority to delete or terminate a resource.¶

5.1442. 5.C.17. Representative Proposed Verification Tests

The following tests are proposed laboratory assertions, not reported executed results.¶

5.1443. Test

5.1444. Scenario Expected technical result ID

C5-¶

Valid consent grant Correct source state T001 C5-¶

Valid consent withdrawal Correct transition T002 C5-¶

Consent expiry Expiry distinguished T003¶

C5- T004 C5- T005 C5- T006 C5- T007 C5- T008 C5- T009 C5- T010 C5- T011 C5- T012 C5- T013 C5- T014 C5- T015 C5- T016 C5- T017 C5- T018 C5- T019 C5- T020¶

Consent denial¶

Source correction¶

Duplicate withdrawal event¶

Replayed earlier grant¶

Out-of-order event delivery¶

Unknown source event type¶

Missing consent revision¶

Correct subject identity¶

Different subject identity¶

Mobile-number reassignment¶

Subscriber and end user differ¶

Subject mapping unavailable¶

One purpose withdrawn¶

Unrelated purpose remains unchanged¶

Two purposes use same API¶

One purpose uses several scopes¶

One scope removed¶

Denial state retained¶

Historical revision¶

No duplicate transition¶

No unsupported regression¶

Source ordering respected¶

Qualified uncertainty¶

Incomplete history¶

Applicable mapping¶

Inapplicable result¶

Subscriber generations separated¶

Correct subject semantics¶

Unresolved applicability¶

Scope-specific impact¶

No blanket withdrawal¶

Purpose separation¶

Correct scope set¶

Partial affected set¶

C5- T021 C5- T022 C5- T023 C5- T024 C5- T025 C5- T026 C5- T027 C5- T028 C5- T029 C5- T030 C5- T031 C5- T032 C5- T033 C5- T034 C5- T035 C5- T036 C5- T037¶

Scope identifier missing¶

Purpose identifier changes version¶

OAuth token remains unexpired¶

Consent check positive before withdrawal¶

Consent check negative after withdrawal¶

Earlier cached positive response¶

Consent source and aggregator disagree¶

Source revisions incomparable¶

Effective time differs from delivery¶

Timestamp uncertainty overlaps request¶

Request completed before transition¶

Request completed after transition¶

Request processing time unknown¶

Pending request never submitted¶

Remote request response lost¶

Receiver rejects request¶

Notification delivered¶

Unknown scope¶

Correct mapping version¶

No automatic current consent inference¶

Historical validity context¶

Current provider state¶

Staleness retained¶

Source discrepancy¶

No numeric global order¶

Timing distinction¶

In-flight uncertainty¶

Correct history¶

Correct temporal assessment¶

No invented order¶

Queue versus execution¶

Unknown outcome¶

Rejection established¶

Delivery only¶

C5- T038 C5- T039 C5- T040 C5- T041 C5- T042 C5- T043 C5- T044 C5- T045 C5- T046 C5- T047 C5- T048 C5- T049 C5- T050 C5- T051 C5- T052 C5- T053 C5- T054¶

Defined acknowledgement Notification acknowledged¶

scope¶

Notification applied locally Local revision established¶

Acknowledged notification but processing ongoing Discrepancy identified¶

Notification never delivered Remote state unresolved¶

Subscription successfully removed Subscription status¶

Subscription cancellation pending No false completion¶

In-flight event after cancellation Delivery relation retained¶

Subscription removed, cached data retained Separate state¶

One consumer replica updated No global completion¶

All inventoried replicas updated Scoped convergence¶

One replica state missing Incomplete coverage¶

Replicas use different local revisions Proper mapping¶

New grant arrives after withdrawal Reassessment¶

Later grant narrower than earlier grant No full restoration¶

Later grant for different purpose Separate applicability¶

Rejected grant request No applied grant inference¶

Historical data retained State recorded separately¶

C5- T055 C5- T056 C5- T057 C5- T058 C5- T059 C5- T060 C5- T061 C5- T062 C5- T063 C5- T064 C5- T065 C5- T066 C5- T067 C5- T068 C5- T069 C5- T070 C5- T071¶

Historical data subject to existing disposition rule Correct scope¶

Retention requirement unavailable No invented deletion duty¶

Derived output with complete lineage Supported mapping¶

Derived output with incomplete lineage Unknown affected scope¶

Output transmitted before withdrawal Historical effect retained¶

Output generated after withdrawal Timing assessment¶

Two purposes share cache Processing separation¶

Cache invalidated for only one purpose Scoped result¶

Job stopped under observed condition Cessation evidence¶

Job queue removed but running job unknown Partial result¶

Job restarts after later grant New revision evaluated¶

Connectivity remains active Unaffected service state¶

Optional analytics feature stops Feature-specific effect¶

Underlying PDU Session continues No false termination¶

Separate service basis supplied by authorized system Qualified record¶

Unsupported inference Alternative legal basis merely assumed¶

rejected¶

Roaming during consent change Operator context retained¶

C5- T072 C5- T073 C5- T074 C5- T075 C5- T076 C5- T077 C5- T078 C5- T079 C5- T080 C5- T081 C5- T082 C5- T083 C5- T084 C5- T085 C5- T086 C5- T087 C5- T088¶

Aggregator forwards delayed notification¶

Remote processor unreachable¶

Remote processing stop acknowledged¶

Remote report authentic but stale¶

Processing inventory incomplete¶

Full known inventory supplied¶

Source event correction changes timing¶

Source correction affects different user¶

Source history missing a material event¶

Event-sourced reconstruction¶

Snapshot-and-delta reconstruction¶

Snapshot missing delta¶

Relational dependency mapping¶

Graph-based dependency mapping¶

Solver finds several possible states¶

Solver times out¶

Processing engine crashes¶

Propagation lag¶

Unknown state¶

Scoped result¶

Freshness distinction¶

No global cessation¶

Required coverage evaluated¶

Dependent reassessment¶

Unaffected activities preserved¶

Explicit gap¶

Reference-consistent state¶

Correct revision¶

Incomplete state¶

Expected affected set¶

Equivalent required predicates¶

No false uniqueness¶

Unresolved¶

Replay/recovery¶

C5-¶

Duplicate event after restart T089¶

No duplicate transition interpretation¶

C5-¶

Processing state changes between observations Time-qualified result T090¶

C5- T091 C5- T092¶

Unknown activity dependency¶

Established unrelated activity¶

Potentially affected¶

Unaffected¶

C5- T093 C5- T094¶

Known contradictory consumer status¶

No notification acknowledgement¶

Contradiction retained¶

No false continued-processing finding¶

C5-¶

All required local conditions established Scoped local conclusion T095¶

C5- T096 C5- T097¶

One mandatory remote condition unknown¶

Processing effect already occurred historically¶

Global objective unresolved¶

No retroactive erasure¶

C5-¶

Monitoring system is read-only No consent mutation T098¶

C5- Processing impact established but action¶

No independent effectuation¶

| T099 | unauthorized | |---|---| | C5- | Final result includes affected, unaffected, unknown, |¶

Reconstructible output T100 and connectivity states 5.C.17.1. Proposed Test Evidence¶

An executed test should retain:¶

1. Consent source and schema version. 2. Subject namespace and generation. 3. Purpose and scope identifiers. 4. Original consent record and revision. 5. Effective-time context. 6. Provider notification records. 7. Consumer delivery and application evidence. 8. Relevant session inventory. 9. Processing activity dependency mappings. 10. API request histories.¶

11. In-flight operation outcomes. 12. Event-subscription states. 13. Queue and job states. 14. Cache and derived-data states. 15. Observed downstream processing. 16. Unaffected connectivity conditions. 17. Independent ground-truth processing history. 18. Missing observations. 19. Historical and revised reconstructions. 20. Processing time and memory usage. 21. Data-minimization and identity-disclosure properties.¶

No test is represented as completed without actual execution evidence.¶

5.1445. 5.C.18. Standards and Existing Technology Correspondence

The CAMARA Consent Info API provides purpose- and scope-qualified processing-validity checks.¶

A processor may obtain current source information through the API under its supported contract.¶

The present embodiment does not claim the API's status check or purpose/scope model as newly invented.¶

Reference:¶

https://github.com/camaraproject/ConsentInfo¶

CAMARA Consent Management describes consent creation, update, and retrieval through an optional controlled delegation model for trusted API consumers.¶

The provider remains responsible for its consent storage and management under that architecture.¶

The present embodiment may use the resulting provider state as input.¶

It does not redefine that mechanism.¶

Reference:¶

https://github.com/camaraproject/ConsentManagement¶

5.1448. 5.C.18.3. CAMARA Identity and Consent Management

Existing CAMARA identity and consent guidance distinguishes the subscriber, end user, consent subject, application, API scope, and processing purpose.¶

The embodiment uses these existing identity distinctions when evaluating processing dependencies.¶

Reference:¶

https://github.com/camaraproject/IdentityAndConsentManagement¶

5.1449. 5.C.18.4. GSMA Open Gateway

GSMA Open Gateway guidance addresses consent capture and related API processing arrangements.¶

A deployment may use that architecture for network API exposure and consent status.¶

The present embodiment evaluates the related operational-state effects rather than replacing the guidance.¶

5.1450. 5.C.18.5. Data Protection Frameworks

Applicable privacy laws may require purpose-specific analysis, valid processing bases, and appropriate handling of consent withdrawal.¶

The technical processor does not replace controller-specific legal determinations.¶

In particular, a prior period of consent-based processing and continued processing after withdrawal may have different legal treatment.¶

The embodiment maintains technical chronology and source-qualified state rather than issuing legal judgments.¶

5.1451. 5.C.18.6. 3GPP Network Exposure

A telecommunications deployment may expose network information through established network exposure functions and related APIs.¶

The relevant service subscription or API request semantics determine how downstream operations are reported and cancelled.¶

The present embodiment does not create a new generic network event exposure protocol.¶

5.1452. 5.C.18.7. Standard Processing Infrastructure

Distributed message queues, caching systems, event subscriptions, database replication, consent-status APIs, and data-lineage systems are established technologies.¶

The proposed implementation uses them under their actual contracts.¶

Novelty, if any, would need to reside in sufficiently specific technical cooperation among the corresponding states and reconstruction requirements, not in those constituent mechanisms alone.¶

5.1453. 5.C.19. Specific Claim-Supporting Relationships

Subject to prior-art analysis, potential technical relationships include:¶

Relationship 1 - Versioned consent-to-activity mapping: Associating a source-qualified¶

consent transition with an inventory of purpose- and scope-dependent processing activities.¶

Relationship 2 - Consent-state versus processing-state separation: Distinguishing¶

authoritative consent revision from downstream processing effects.¶

Relationship 3 - In-flight operation reconstruction: Evaluating requests whose possible¶

execution time overlaps the consent transition.¶

Relationship 4 - Event subscription correspondence: Separating subscription removal¶

from pending notifications and consumer processing.¶

Relationship 5 - Cache and replica divergence: Reconstructing inconsistent consent¶

revisions across processing instances.¶

Relationship 6 - Data provenance correspondence: Associating historical and derived¶

data with the affected processing scope.¶

Relationship 7 - Service independence: Distinguishing optional consent-dependent data¶

processing from underlying telecom connectivity.¶

Relationship 8 - Multi-purpose shared-resource partitioning: Identifying which logical¶

activities depend on the withdrawn purpose despite shared infrastructure.¶

Relationship 9 - Federated consumer-state reconciliation: Retaining uncertainty where¶

consumer-internal state is unavailable.¶

5.1454. Relationship 10 - Historical effective-time reconstruction: Distinguishing prior

processing from later activity under source-qualified timing.¶

Relationship 11 - Revision-aware reassessment: Recalculating affected processing-state¶

conclusions after corrected or later consent revisions.¶

Relationship 12 - Read-only processing correspondence: Producing technical state¶

findings without directly changing authorization, network, or data-retention state.¶

This text is an illustrative technical disclosure. Separate formal disclosures and external references follow their applicable processes.¶

5.1455. 5.C.20. Relationship to the Foundational Shared Technical Foundation

The foundational portfolio already addresses processing purpose, data governance, protected authority, execution-finality, and related technical controls.¶

The present embodiment does not characterize the basic requirement for purpose-specific authorization or execution-time protection as newly introduced.¶

Its incremental drafting focus concerns the reconstruction of downstream processing-state¶

consequences during an active telecommunications service, particularly where consent records, API operations, subscriptions, caches, derived data, and network services evolve asynchronously.¶

Potential additions for closer comparison include:¶

(a) purpose-scope dependency inventory at the active session level;¶

(b) source-qualified consent revision mapping to in-flight network API operations;¶

(d) multi-replica and cache divergence reconstruction;¶

(e) event subscription and queued-job outcome correspondence;¶

(f) derived-data provenance under changed consent;¶

(g) preservation of independent telecommunications service continuity;¶

(h) federated remote-state uncertainty; and¶

(i) selective reevaluation after corrected or renewed consent.¶

The exact extent to which these features are already present in the earlier as-filed materials remains a matter for document-level comparison.¶

5.1456. 5.C.21. Particular Technical Effects

Depending upon implementation and evidence availability, the embodiment may provide:¶

(a) more accurate identification of processing activities affected by a consent change;¶

(b) reduced incorrect termination of unaffected connectivity services;¶

(d) improved reconstruction of delayed processing-state transitions;¶

(e) better handling of in-flight API requests;¶

(f) clearer differentiation between event-subscription removal and outstanding notifications;¶

(g) improved identification of unresolved downstream consumer state;¶

(h) improved tracking of multi-replica divergence;¶

(i) more accurate separation of historical processing from later processing;¶

(j) improved provenance for cached and derived data;¶

(k) reduced incorrect propagation across reassigned subscriber identities;¶

(l) improved distinction among multiple purposes and API scopes;¶

(m) compatibility with existing consent and network exposure APIs;¶

(n) better evidence for independently governed processing-state decisions; and¶

(o) more reproducible historical assessment after later source corrections.¶

These are potential technical effects rather than completed experimental findings.¶

The embodiment does not claim that the reconstruction alone guarantees legal compliance, prevents every unauthorized downstream processing event, or proves deletion of all distributed data copies.¶

5.1457. 5.C.22. Non-Limiting Implementation Character

The embodiment may be implemented through conventional processors, consentmanagement services, network API exposure platforms, application gateways, event streams, data-processing systems, databases, caches, and monitoring services.¶

It may operate within one provider or across cooperating domains.¶

A consent change may apply to one purpose or several.¶

One processing activity may use several API scopes.¶

A network session may remain active when optional processing is affected.¶

A consumer may receive an event late.¶

A queued request may have an unknown processing result.¶

A cache may hold an earlier consent-state observation.¶

A derived record may have multiple input sources.¶

A consumer may be unreachable.¶

A later grant may use narrower scopes.¶

A corrected effective time may change the supported historical interpretation.¶

The processor represents these states according to actual source evidence.¶

No global atomic update across all consumers is presumed.¶

No complete visibility into hidden third-party processing is guaranteed.¶

No particular programming language, network operator, database, consent API, AI model, cryptographic primitive, or device manufacturer is essential to every implementation.¶

The disclosed reconstruction does not itself grant or withdraw consent, provide a new legal basis, or authorize consequential network or data-processing operations.¶

5.1458. 5.C.23. Conclusion

The central technical subject of Embodiment 5.C is evidence-qualified reconstruction of how a purpose-scoped consent-state transition corresponds to the ongoing and pending processing activities associated with an active telecommunications service.¶

The embodiment distinguishes:¶

1. Authoritative consent state from downstream cached consent state. 2. Processing purpose from API access scope. 3. Subscriber identity from consent subject identity. 4. Consent revision from notification delivery. 5. Notification delivery from consumer processing. 6. API request submission from actual processing. 7. Subscription removal from in-flight event delivery. 8. Processing cessation from historical data retention. 9. Data collection from derived-data processing. 10. Consent-dependent optional features from independent connectivity. 11. A later grant from restoration of an earlier grant. 12. Technical inconsistency from a legal compliance conclusion. 13. State reconstruction from authority to execute consequential changes.¶

The system identifies the relevant consent transition, constructs its supported processing dependencies, reconstructs downstream activity and data states, evaluates source and timing uncertainty, preserves unrelated network services, and produces a reproducible scopequalified result.¶

Where sufficient evidence supports processing cessation or another required state, the processor reports that conclusion under the relevant scope.¶

Where material downstream evidence is missing, it retains an unresolved result.¶

Where a particular activity is demonstrably unrelated to the changed consent, it does not impose a fictional dependency.¶

5.1459. This completes Embodiment 5.C without repeating established CAMARA consent APIs,

generic privacy-law requirements, or the foundational purpose-execution-finality invention.¶

5.1460. EMBODIMENT 6.C - PARTIAL OPERATOR FAILURE, DISTRIBUTED SESSION RELEASE, RESIDUAL NETWORK-RESOURCE RECONCILIATION, AND

5.1461. DEFERRED CHARGING-SETTLEMENT RECONSTRUCTION

5.1462. 6.C.1. Embodiment Identification and Technical Scope

Invention Group: C - Programmable Telecommunications Session Lifecycle and Cross-¶

Operator Operational-State Consistency.¶

Embodiment Number: 6.C - Sixth and Final Embodiment of GROUP C.¶

Technical Title: Systems and Methods for Reconstructing Distributed Telecommunications¶

Session Termination Across Partial Operator Failures, Incomplete Network-Resource Cleanup, Uncertain Remote Release Outcomes, and Deferred Charging or Settlement Records.¶

Common Workflow: C-CW-01.¶

Principal Workflow Variation: C-V6 - Partial Operator Failure, Session Release, and¶

Deferred Settlement Reconstruction.¶

Embodiment Algorithm: C-ALG-07.¶

Implementation Alternatives: C-6-DA-01 through C-6-DA-36.¶

Proposed Verification Tests: C6-T001 through C6-T100.¶

5.1463. Relationship to Prior Group C Embodiments:

| x | 1.C: Subscriber-association and SIM-related changes affecting active sessions. | |---|---| | x | 2.C: Home-routed, local-breakout, and interoperator session responsibility correspondence. |¶

| x | 3.C: Concurrent session operations, resource reservations, and usage-state reconstruction. | |---|---| | x | 4.C: Service effects, usage measurements, charging records, and accounting correspondence. | | x | 5.C: Purpose-scoped consent changes and affected processing activities. |¶

6.C.1.1. General Technical Subject¶

The present embodiment describes a telecommunications state-reconstruction system configured to evaluate the outcome of a session termination, release, migration cleanup, or resource deallocation operation when one or more participating operator domains, network functions, accounting components, or communication channels experience partial failure.¶

A telecommunications session may have several distinct representations.¶

A mobility or session-management function may hold a logical session context.¶

A home-network function may retain a separate corresponding context.¶

A visited-network function may maintain an intermediate session context.¶

One or more user-plane functions may hold session-specific packet-processing rules, usagereporting rules, or other resource state.¶

A policy or resource-control system may retain associated allocations.¶

A charging function may maintain an open charging session.¶

A record-processing or billing system may possess some, but not all, relevant usage reports.¶

The release of one representation does not necessarily establish the release of all others.¶

During normal operation, supported telecommunications procedures coordinate the relevant transitions.¶

However, partial function failure, message loss, stale state, delayed network responses, counter-generation changes, and deferred charging reports may make the resulting state difficult to establish from one component's observations.¶

The present embodiment reconstructs the technically supported relationships among:¶

1. The logical session requiring release or closure. 2. The particular operator or network-function contexts associated with that session. 3. The scope of each requested release. 4. The original operation and its receiver-side processing state. 5. The control-plane resources affected. 6. The user-plane rules and resource allocations affected. 7. The applicable release ordering and dependencies. 8. The status of function-local cleanup. 9. The status of complete session termination.¶

10. The occurrence and scope of any function failure. 11. The original and replacement network-function generations. 12. The remaining usage measurements. 13. The reporting obligations associated with the relevant charging period. 14. The charging session's initial, intermediate, and final state. 15. The creation, transfer, or processing of charging records. 16. Any outstanding operator or interoperator accounting information. 17. The degree to which final settlement is observable. 18. The inconsistencies and unknown outcomes that remain after attempted reconciliation.¶

The processor may determine that the telecommunications service has terminated while certain resources or accounting obligations remain unresolved.¶

It may establish that an operator-local context has been released while the corresponding home-network logical session continues under a supported mobility procedure.¶

It may determine that a user-plane session has been deleted following partial failure while the control plane has not yet reconciled the state.¶

It may also establish that operational cleanup is complete while the final usage or billing process remains outstanding.¶

These possibilities are represented independently.¶

6.C.1.2. Principal Technical Distinction¶

The central mechanism is failure-aware distributed closure correspondence.¶

The processor evaluates six separate closure dimensions.¶

Dimension A - Logical closure: Whether the applicable logical telecommunications¶

session was terminated under the selected procedure.¶

Dimension B - Local control-context closure: Whether each required function-local¶

session context was released, transferred, or appropriately retained.¶

Dimension C - User-plane resource closure: Whether the relevant forwarding, buffering,¶

measurement, and other associated network resources reached the required state.¶

Dimension D - Usage-measurement closure: Whether the usage information required for¶

the relevant session and accounting periods has been collected or adequately accounted for under the applicable reporting model.¶

Dimension E - Charging-session closure: Whether the applicable charging function has¶

processed the required final charging interaction or equivalent supported termination state.¶

Dimension F - Downstream accounting or settlement: Whether subsequent accounting,¶

charging-data transfer, rating, settlement, or other selected obligations are established as complete.¶

A TRUE result for Dimension A does not imply TRUE for Dimensions B through F.¶

The result may be a vector containing established, incompatible, and unresolved elements.¶

6.C.1.3. Distinction from Standard Session Release¶

Existing 3GPP specifications already define PDU Session release, session-management context release, PFCP session deletion, usage reports associated with particular release events, and converged charging termination.¶

These procedures are not newly invented by this embodiment.¶

The proposed contribution concerns the reconstruction and consistency evaluation of their observed outcomes when the corresponding operations are partially executed, partially reported, or distributed across unavailable functions.¶

6.C.1.4. Distinction from Existing Execution-Finality Inventions¶

The embodiment does not reintroduce protected execution authority, non-bearer capabilities, virtual identity, jurisdiction tokens, or Finality Sink enforcement.¶

It does not provide a new permission to delete a session or alter accounting records.¶

Its reconstruction may identify a remaining release requirement.¶

The actual release remains subject to the applicable existing procedure and independently applicable authorization controls.¶

5.1464. 6.C.2. Particular Technical Problem Space

5.1465. 6.C.2.1. Local Context Release Is Not Necessarily Full Session Release

A particular session-management release operation may be scoped to an intermediate or visited session context.¶

A supported procedure may intentionally retain the home-side logical PDU Session.¶

A processor that interprets any local release as global termination can incorrectly conclude that the session is closed.¶

5.1466. 6.C.2.2. Full Session Release Requires Its Actual Applicable Scope

A complete PDU Session release may involve several participating network functions and resources.¶

The required actions depend upon the architecture.¶

The processor constructs the closure requirements from the applicable procedure rather than assuming every session always includes the same function set.¶

5.1467. 6.C.2.3. A Home Operator Can Be Unreachable During Release

The visited operator may initiate or observe a local procedure while the home-side interface is unavailable.¶

The visited state can be known while the home result remains uncertain.¶

A communication failure does not prove either successful or unsuccessful remote processing.¶

5.1468. 6.C.2.4. A Visited Operator Can Fail after Home-Side Release

The home network may establish a logical termination.¶

The visited network may retain a stale context or unavailable resource state.¶

The processor must not infer complete visited cleanup solely from the home result.¶

5.1469. 6.C.2.5. A Release Request Can Be Applied before Its Response Is Lost

The receiving function may complete its relevant release operation.¶

The response may fail in transport.¶

A local timeout is therefore consistent with several possible remote outcomes.¶

The processor must distinguish local request failure from remote effect failure.¶

5.1470. 6.C.2.6. Retrying a Release May Have Contract-Specific Behavior

A repeated release operation may be accepted, rejected, recognized as already completed, or processed under another defined interface behavior.¶

A generic assumption of exactly-once execution is not justified.¶

The processor preserves the original request identity and receiver semantics.¶

5.1471. 6.C.2.7. A Release Can Be Acknowledged before All Effects Are Observable

A session-management function may return a successful status under its defined contract.¶

A separate resource observer may still lack evidence of the required user-plane state.¶

The processor interprets the response precisely, rather than imposing an invented universal acknowledgement meaning.¶

5.1472. 6.C.2.8. User-Plane Failure Can Cause Independent Session Deletion

A user-plane function may detect an internal error or partial failure and initiate deletion or release of a PFCP session under an applicable standardized procedure.¶

The control-plane function may subsequently need to reconcile its corresponding session context.¶

The processor must distinguish user-plane-initiated deletion from control-plane-initiated release.¶

5.1473. 6.C.2.9. Partial User-Plane Failure Need Not Destroy Every Session

A UPF may experience a failure affecting only selected PFCP sessions.¶

Other sessions and resources may remain operational.¶

The processor evaluates failure and cleanup at the proper resource scope.¶

It does not automatically infer total UPF failure.¶

5.1474. 6.C.2.10. A User-Plane Session May Be Deleted While the Logical Session Is Still Recorded

The user-plane function may remove its PFCP session.¶

A session-management function may retain the logical PDU Session context temporarily or until the failure is reconciled.¶

The two states can differ.¶

5.1475. 6.C.2.11. A Logical Session Can Be Released while Residual Rules Persist

A control-plane session release may be established.¶

Some associated forwarding or measurement resources may remain present or their deletion status may be unknown.¶

The processor distinguishes logical termination from resource cleanup.¶

5.1476. 6.C.2.12. Resource Presence Does Not Establish Active Traffic

A stale user-plane resource or database record may remain after the service is no longer usable.¶

Its presence alone does not prove that packets continued flowing.¶

The processor requires appropriate traffic or applied-state evidence when actual use is material.¶

5.1477. 6.C.2.13. Resource Absence Does Not Always Prove a Specific Release Operation Caused It

A user-plane resource may disappear because of process restart, resource expiry, local failure, or another operation.¶

A later observation of absence may establish the resource's current state without conclusively attributing it to a particular release request.¶

5.1478. 6.C.2.14. Network Function Restart Can Reuse Local Identifiers

A newly started function may allocate a local session reference previously used by an older generation.¶

The processor requires source and generation qualification.¶

An old release must not be associated with an unrelated new session merely because an identifier matches.¶

5.1479. 6.C.2.15. Replacement SMFs May Reconstruct or Take Over Session State

Depending upon the supported deployment and procedures, a replacement control-plane function may assume relevant session responsibilities.¶

It may also initiate cleanup of selected sessions.¶

The processor distinguishes legitimate takeover from creation of a new logical session or accidental duplicate release.¶

5.1480. 6.C.2.16. Resource Cleanup May Be Partial

A session may have multiple user-plane resources.¶

Some may be deleted successfully.¶

Others may remain pending.¶

A single successful deletion response is not sufficient to conclude that all required resources were released.¶

5.1481. 6.C.2.17. Certain Resources May Be Correctly Retained

An operator may retain a context or resource under a supported transition or recovery procedure.¶

The processor must identify which resources are actually required to be removed.¶

It must not classify every surviving resource as a leak.¶

5.1482. 6.C.2.18. Release Dependencies May Be Ordered

A selected procedure may require certain status collection, resource operations, or context transitions before other cleanup steps.¶

The processor models the required dependencies.¶

It does not impose an invented universal order when the standard permits alternatives.¶

5.1483. 6.C.2.19. A Release Can Race with Session Modification

An extension, QoS change, mobility update, or resource reassignment may be pending when release is initiated.¶

The resulting state depends upon the actual receiver and procedure semantics.¶

The processor must not assume that the requests commute.¶

5.1484. 6.C.2.20. Release Can Race with Network Function Recovery

A function may restart while a release is pending.¶

The recovered function may reconstruct the earlier session or learn that it has already terminated.¶

The processor uses supported state and generation evidence to distinguish these outcomes.¶

5.1485. 6.C.2.21. A Session May Be Released but Final Usage Remains Unreported

The user-plane resource can be deleted while the corresponding usage report is still in transit or unavailable.¶

The processor distinguishes release completion from measurement completeness.¶

Applicable PFCP procedures can generate usage reports during resource removal or UPFinitiated session release.¶

The processor interprets report triggers, original measurement identity, and source state according to the actual PFCP contract.¶

It does not assume that every release produces an identical report format or nonzero measurement.¶

5.1487. 6.C.2.23. A Zero or Absent Usage Measurement May Have Several Meanings

A report may contain no measurement because no qualifying nonzero usage was available under that reporting rule.¶

Another deployment may have missing or incomplete measurements.¶

The processor distinguishes source-defined zero measurement from absent evidence.¶

5.1488. 6.C.2.24. A Final Report Can Be Delivered More Than Once

A reporting function may retransmit an earlier usage record.¶

If both deliveries represent one original measurement, they must not contribute twice to a usage total.¶

5.1489. 6.C.2.25. Final Usage May Overlap Earlier Intermediate Reports

An intermediate usage report and a release-related report may describe overlapping counter ranges or different report intervals.¶

The processor must determine whether the final record supplements, replaces, or overlaps earlier measurements.¶

5.1490. 6.C.2.26. Counter Reset Can Obscure Final Usage

A reporting function may restart before issuing its final measurement.¶

A counter may reset or its source generation may change.¶

The processor cannot blindly subtract values from incompatible generations.¶

5.1491. 6.C.2.27. Charging Closure Can Lag Behind User-Plane Release

A network function may complete the required resource deletion.¶

A charging consumer may subsequently send a final charging request.¶

The processor does not require these events to occur atomically.¶

5.1492. 6.C.2.28. Final Charging Operation Is Distinct from Final Billing

A converged charging release may close a charging session and report final usage.¶

Subsequent charging-data processing, record export, rating, invoicing, or settlement may remain pending.¶

The processor must distinguish them.¶

5.1493. 6.C.2.29. Charging Receiver Failure Can Cause Unknown Finalization

A charging consumer may send a final request.¶

The charging function may apply the request before failing to return a response.¶

The processor cannot conclude that final charging failed merely because the initiator timed out.¶

5.1494. 6.C.2.30. Repeated Final Charging Requests Can Cause Ambiguous Effects

A consumer may retry a final request after an unknown outcome.¶

The correct treatment depends upon the receiver's native retry, duplicate detection, and session-state semantics.¶

The reconstruction does not invent universal exactly-once charging behavior.¶

5.1495. 6.C.2.31. Charging Records Can Be Produced after Network Termination

A record-processing system may generate or receive a CDR after the underlying network session has ended.¶

The later record does not establish that traffic continued until the record-creation or delivery time.¶

5.1496. 6.C.2.32. Partial Charging Records Can Be Valid

A charging system may produce partial records for a continuing session or separate intervals.¶

The processor must not treat each partial record as a complete independent session charge without examining its sequence and source semantics.¶

5.1497. 6.C.2.33. Final Accounting May Require More Than One Report

A session may involve several UPFs, rating groups, service identifiers, accesses, or operator contexts.¶

Its required charging information may be distributed across multiple reports.¶

The processor determines which partitions are mandatory for the selected accounting objective.¶

5.1498. 6.C.2.34. Roaming Can Introduce Additional Settlement Stages

A home operator and visited operator may have distinct usage, wholesale charging, or interoperator settlement records.¶

An established local charging closure does not automatically prove completion of those subsequent arrangements.¶

5.1499. 6.C.2.35. A Remote Operator May Retain an Undelivered Record

A visited operator may have generated a relevant usage or settlement record.¶

The home operator may not yet have received it.¶

The processor distinguishes record generation, transport, acceptance, and downstream processing.¶

5.1500. 6.C.2.36. Charging Record Transfer Can Be Duplicated

A charging data record may be transmitted or recovered more than once under an existing transfer mechanism.¶

The processor must distinguish repeated delivery from new usage or an additional financial obligation.¶

5.1501. 6.C.2.37. A Charging Record Can Be Corrected after Closure

A late correction may replace or adjust an earlier usage or charging record.¶

The processor preserves historical revisions and recalculates affected accounting results.¶

It does not retroactively alter the physical traffic that occurred.¶

5.1502. 6.C.2.38. Financial Settlement Has Its Own Contract

Whether financial settlement is complete depends upon the applicable clearing, billing, payment, or interoperator system.¶

The network-session reconstruction engine must not invent settlement semantics.¶

It may record a qualified settlement status if the appropriate system provides one.¶

5.1503. 6.C.2.39. An Empty Charging Queue Does Not Necessarily Prove Accounting Completion

A queue may be empty because records have been processed, dropped, moved, or are awaiting generation elsewhere.¶

The processor requires adequate source coverage and status evidence.¶

5.1504. 6.C.2.40. An Unreachable Operator Is Not an Empty Operator State

A failure to query the remote network must not be interpreted as evidence that the remote session or resources are absent.¶

The processor represents the state as unknown under the available observation scope.¶

5.1505. 6.C.2.41. Different Operators May Use Incomparable Revision Counters

A visited function may report revision 200.¶

A home function may report revision 20.¶

The processor cannot infer that the visited state is globally newer merely from these values.¶

5.1506. 6.C.2.42. Delayed Messages Can Reopen Apparent Uncertainty

A release may appear complete under the available observations.¶

A later message may reveal an omitted resource or earlier charging record.¶

The processor must preserve revision history and reevaluate affected conclusions.¶

5.1507. 6.C.2.43. A Finality Claim Must Identify Its Objective

A system may accurately report:¶

| x | logical session released; | |---|---| | x | required user-plane resources removed; | | x | usage coverage incomplete; | | x | charging session closed; and | | x | settlement pending. |¶

That is not contradictory.¶

The word "final" must identify which specified state objective has been established.¶

5.1508. 6.C.2.44. Compensating Operations Are Not Necessarily Reversals

If a session release was inadvertently applied, reestablishing connectivity may create a new logical session.¶

It does not necessarily restore the former session's identity or historical state.¶

The processor distinguishes compensation from true rollback.¶

5.1509. 6.C.2.45. Failure Recovery Is Not Evidence of Prior Correctness

A network may eventually return to a working condition.¶

That does not prove all intermediate release or charging effects were correct.¶

Historical discrepancies remain relevant.¶

5.1510. 6.C.2.46. A Reconciliation Result Does Not Grant Remediation Authority

The processor may identify a potentially stale resource or duplicate accounting record.¶

It does not independently gain authority to remove the resource or alter the charging account.¶

Those actions require separately applicable controls.¶

5.1511. 6.C.3. Specific Technical Contribution Sought

The embodiment provides a failure-aware distributed closure reconstruction procedure configured to:¶

1. Resolve the logical session and its generation. 2. Identify the applicable home, visited, intermediate, and user-plane functions. 3. Determine the correct session-management architecture. 4. Obtain the release request and its documented scope. 5. Distinguish local-context release from complete session termination. 6. Establish required release participants and their responsibilities. 7. Identify the relevant source and target network-function generations. 8. Reconstruct local and remote release operation histories. 9. Identify submitted, accepted, applied, rejected, and unknown operations. 10. Preserve receiver-contract-specific retry and status semantics. 11. Identify function failures or communication partitions affecting observation. 12. Determine which session contexts are required to disappear or remain. 13. Identify required user-plane resource cleanup. 14. Distinguish current resource absence from proof of a particular release operation. 15. Identify UPF-initiated deletion or partial-failure procedures. 16. Reconcile release-related usage reports with earlier measurements. 17. Preserve reporting-rule and counter-generation relationships. 18. Detect duplicates, corrections, and overlapping usage records. 19. Determine whether required final usage coverage is established. 20. Associate usage with the correct charging-session and rating context. 21. Distinguish final charging submission from receiver-side processing. 22. Identify charging-session closure separately from network closure. 23. Associate charging records with their source measurements. 24. Identify outstanding charging-data transfer or accounting stages. 25. Distinguish local charging completion from interoperator settlement. 26. Preserve unknown remote state when an operator is unavailable. 27. Reevaluate closure results following delayed or corrected evidence. 28. Identify residual resources that require separately authorized attention. 29. Preserve the reconstruction history needed for technical audit. 30. Produce a multidimensional closure result without itself executing remediation.¶

The procedure does not establish universal atomicity across operator domains.¶

It provides an evidence-qualified representation of the states that are actually supportable.¶

5.1512. 6.C.4. Representative Technical Architecture

5.1513. 6.C.4.1. Logical Session Resolver

Associates the selected session with the applicable subscriber and session namespace.¶

The resolver distinguishes a logical PDU Session from function-local contexts and PFCP session identities.¶

5.1514. 6.C.4.2. Release Scope Classifier

Interprets the actual release operation and its target.¶

Possible classifications include local SM context release, a broader session release, userplane resource deletion, or another supported procedure.¶

The classification follows the relevant interface contract.¶

5.1515. 6.C.4.3. Operator Responsibility Resolver

Determines which home, visited, intermediate, and network-function contexts participate in the selected session.¶

It does not assume that every deployment has identical roles.¶

5.1516. 6.C.4.4. Release Dependency Model

Identifies the mandatory control, resource, reporting, and cleanup conditions for the applicable procedure.¶

5.1517. 6.C.4.5. Operation Lifecycle Collector

Obtains original release requests, responses, status notifications, retries, and known operation outcomes.¶

5.1518. 6.C.4.6. Failure Context Detector

Identifies network-function restart, partial failure, operator unavailability, communication loss, or other relevant failure conditions.¶

5.1519. 6.C.4.7. Source-Generation Registry

Maintains operator, function, PFCP session, and resource generations.¶

It prevents a stale reference from being associated with an unrelated newer instance.¶

5.1520. 6.C.4.8. Control-Plane State Observer

Obtains applicable session-management context information.¶

It distinguishes local release from logical session termination.¶

5.1521. 6.C.4.9. User-Plane Resource Observer

Obtains available observations of PFCP sessions, forwarding rules, usage-reporting rules, and associated resources.¶

5.1522. 6.C.4.10. Resource Cleanup Evaluator

Determines which resources require release and whether the required cleanup has been established.¶

It distinguishes legitimately retained resources.¶

5.1523. 6.C.4.11. Usage Reporting Collector

Obtains applicable intermediate, final, and release-related usage records.¶

5.1524. 6.C.4.12. Counter and Report Lineage Evaluator

Determines source identity, counter generation, retransmission, correction, and overlap relationships.¶

5.1525. 6.C.4.13. Final Usage Coverage Evaluator

Determines whether the required measurement populations and intervals are adequately represented.¶

5.1526. 6.C.4.14. Charging Context Resolver

Associates network usage with the corresponding charging-session, service, and rating references.¶

5.1527. 6.C.4.15. Charging Operation Tracker

Distinguishes charging Create, Update, Release, and other relevant supported operations.¶

It retains receiver-side outcome uncertainty.¶

5.1528. 6.C.4.16. Charging Record Correspondence Repository

Relates original measurements, charging operations, partial records, final records, and corrections.¶

5.1529. 6.C.4.17. Interoperator Accounting Adapter

Obtains available home or visited operator record status.¶

It respects information-disclosure boundaries.¶

5.1530. 6.C.4.18. Deferred Settlement Status Interface

Obtains the relevant accounting or settlement status where the selected objective includes it and an authorized interface exists.¶

It does not assume a universal settlement protocol.¶

5.1531. 6.C.4.19. Contradiction and Unknown-State Evaluator

Distinguishes unavailable evidence, actual incompatible state, and supported state convergence.¶

5.1532. 6.C.4.20. Reconstruction Revision Manager

Reevaluates affected conclusions when delayed messages or corrections arrive.¶

5.1533. 6.C.4.21. Optional Existing Remediation Interface

Provides findings to a separately authorized network or charging-control system.¶

This interface does not create a new execution-finality mechanism.¶

5.1534. 6.C.5. Necessary Embodiment-Specific Interpretations

The Group C common definitions remain applicable.¶

5.1535. 6.C.5.1. Distributed Release Objective

A defined collection of logical, function-local, resource, and related state conditions required for the selected release procedure.¶

5.1536. 6.C.5.2. Local Release Scope

A release affecting a specified network-function context rather than necessarily terminating the full logical session.¶

5.1537. 6.C.5.3. Residual Network Resource

A resource whose continued presence or uncertain cleanup remains relevant following a session transition.¶

It is not automatically an unauthorized resource.¶

5.1538. 6.C.5.4. Release Outcome Envelope

The set of possible resulting states compatible with the established requests, failures, acknowledgements, and resource observations.¶

5.1539. 6.C.5.5. Usage Closure State

The degree to which required network usage has been measured and reconciled under the applicable reporting scope.¶

5.1540. 6.C.5.6. Charging Closure State

The observed state of the relevant charging session under its existing interface semantics.¶

5.1541. 6.C.5.7. Deferred Accounting Obligation

A reporting, record-processing, or related accounting condition that remains pending after the relevant network operation.¶

It need not be a financial debt.¶

5.1542. 6.C.5.8. Settlement Correspondence

The supported relationship between earlier usage and charging records and the downstream accounting or settlement state.¶

5.1543. 6.C.5.9. Closure Vector

A multidimensional result describing distinct operational and accounting closure requirements.¶

5.1544. 6.C.6. Representative Data Structures

5.1545. 6.C.6.1. Distributed Session Closure Context

DistributedSessionClosure:¶

logical\_session\_id session\_namespace session\_generation subscriber\_context roaming\_architecture home\_operator\_reference visited\_operator\_references participating\_function\_references applicable\_release\_procedure release\_objective original\_session\_state requested\_release\_scope relevant\_resource\_generations source\_evidence¶

5.1546. 6.C.6.2. Release Operation Record

ReleaseOperation:¶

operation\_id logical\_session\_reference operation\_namespace source\_function destination\_function original\_request\_parameters requested\_release\_scope applicable\_receiver\_contract request\_submission\_context receiver\_acknowledgement remote\_processing\_result related\_status\_queries retry\_relationships¶

operation\_outcome unknown\_conditions¶

5.1547. 6.C.6.3. Function Failure Record

FunctionFailureContext:¶

failure\_id function\_reference function\_generation affected\_session\_references affected\_resource\_references failure\_type observed\_failure\_interval availability\_status recovery\_generation surviving\_state\_evidence missing\_history source\_reliability¶

5.1548. 6.C.6.4. Resource Cleanup Requirement

ResourceCleanupRequirement:¶

requirement\_id logical\_session\_reference resource\_id resource\_namespace resource\_generation resource\_type associated\_function applicable\_procedure expected\_final\_state legitimate\_retention\_condition release\_operation\_reference observed\_current\_state observation\_scope cleanup\_verdict¶

ReleaseUsageRecord:¶

report\_id original\_measurement\_reference source\_function source\_generation pfcp\_session\_reference reporting\_rule\_reference usage\_report\_trigger measured\_population measurement\_interval units¶

counter\_generation measured\_quantity retransmission\_reference correction\_reference release\_relationship source\_evidence¶

5.1550. 6.C.6.6. Charging Closure Context

ChargingClosure:¶

charging\_session\_reference charging\_session\_generation charging\_consumer charging\_function relevant\_service\_identifiers rating\_contexts preceding\_charging\_operations final\_charging\_operation reported\_final\_usage receiver\_response processing\_outcome final\_record\_references unresolved\_usage charging\_closure\_verdict¶

5.1551. 6.C.6.7. Deferred Accounting Record

DeferredAccounting:¶

accounting\_record\_id source\_operator destination\_system source\_record\_generation original\_usage\_references charging\_context\_reference accounting\_period record\_type generation\_status transport\_status acceptance\_status rating\_or\_processing\_status settlement\_status\_if\_available correction\_relationship outstanding\_conditions¶

5.1552. 6.C.6.8. Closure Reconstruction Result

DistributedClosureReconstruction:¶

reconstruction\_id logical\_session\_reference release\_scope¶

source\_and\_target\_operator\_contexts logical\_session\_closure local\_context\_closure user\_plane\_cleanup usage\_measurement\_closure charging\_session\_closure downstream\_accounting\_closure settlement\_status known\_residual\_resources potentially\_outstanding\_operations unknown\_remote\_states contradictions required\_additional\_evidence supporting\_provenance reconstruction\_revision¶

5.1553. 6.C.7. Detailed Operational Procedure

The following 48 stages implement C-V6.¶

5.1554. 6.C-01 - Receive the Release or Failure Event

The processor obtains a release request, network failure report, session termination event, or related reconciliation trigger.¶

Output: Candidate closure event.¶

5.1555. 6.C-02 - Resolve Logical Session Identity

The processor identifies the session namespace, subscriber context, and generation.¶

It does not rely on one unqualified local session number.¶

Output: Qualified logical identity.¶

5.1556. 6.C-03 - Classify the Session Architecture

The processor identifies the applicable home-routed, local-breakout, non-roaming, or other architecture.¶

Output: Architecture context.¶

5.1557. 6.C-04 - Identify Participating Functions

The processor enumerates the relevant control and user-plane functions under that architecture.¶

Output: Responsibility set.¶

5.1558. 6.C-05 - Interpret Release Scope

The processor determines whether the event requests local-context cleanup, full session release, or another defined operation.¶

Output: Release scope.¶

5.1559. 6.C-06 - Obtain the Applicable Procedure

The processor identifies the relevant standard or deployment procedure and required capabilities.¶

Output: Procedure model.¶

5.1560. 6.C-07 - Determine Initial Session State

The system reconstructs the known pre-release logical and resource state.¶

Output: Initial state.¶

5.1561. 6.C-08 - Identify Release Dependencies

The processor identifies mandatory participating functions, release ordering, and required resource effects.¶

Output: Dependency set.¶

5.1562. 6.C-09 - Identify Legitimately Retained Contexts

The processor determines which contexts should remain under a local-only release or supported transition.¶

Output: Retention set.¶

5.1563. 6.C-10 - Construct Required Cleanup Set

The processor identifies resources actually required to reach a terminal state.¶

Output: Cleanup set.¶

5.1564. 6.C-11 - Obtain Original Release Operations

The system retrieves relevant original requests, parameters, targets, and source references.¶

Output: Operation history.¶

5.1565. 6.C-12 - Identify Duplicate and Retry Relationships

Repeated requests are classified under the receiver's supported semantics.¶

Output: Retry classification.¶

5.1566. 6.C-13 - Identify Function Failures

The system determines whether function failure, process restart, partial resource failure, or communication loss affected the transition.¶

Output: Failure context.¶

5.1567. 6.C-14 - Qualify Function Generations

The processor associates observations with the correct function generation.¶

Output: Generation mapping.¶

5.1568. 6.C-15 - Establish Known Request Ordering

The processor reconstructs supported request and response dependencies without imposing arrival order as universal effect order.¶

Output: Partial operation order.¶

5.1569. 6.C-16 - Evaluate Receiver Acknowledgements

The system interprets responses under their actual operation contracts.¶

Output: Acceptance status.¶

5.1570. 6.C-17 - Identify Unknown Remote Outcomes

The processor retains operations for which the receiver-side effect is not sufficiently established.¶

Output: Unknown operation set.¶

5.1571. 6.C-18 - Query Supported Remote Status

Where available, the processor obtains native status or current resource observations.¶

Output: Additional operation evidence.¶

5.1572. 6.C-19 - Observe Home-Side Logical State

The processor obtains the relevant home-network session state where applicable.¶

Output: Home state.¶

5.1573. 6.C-20 - Observe Visited or Intermediate State

The processor obtains the relevant visited/intermediate function context.¶

Output: Local context state.¶

5.1574. 6.C-21 - Determine Logical Closure

The processor evaluates whether full logical session termination is established under the selected objective.¶

Output: Logical closure verdict.¶

5.1575. 6.C-22 - Determine Local Context Closure

The processor evaluates the required local function-context release independently.¶

Output: Local closure verdict.¶

5.1576. 6.C-23 - Obtain User-Plane Resource State

The system retrieves applicable PFCP and other user-plane observations.¶

Output: Resource state.¶

5.1577. 6.C-24 - Identify UPF-Initiated Failure or Release

The processor determines whether a user-plane function initiated its own session deletion or partial-failure procedure.¶

Output: UPF event classification.¶

5.1578. 6.C-25 - Evaluate Resource Generation

The processor checks that observations refer to the intended resource and function generations.¶

Output: Qualified resource identity.¶

5.1579. 6.C-26 - Evaluate Each Required Cleanup Resource

For each required resource, the processor determines whether its terminal state is established, incompatible, or unresolved.¶

Output: Per-resource cleanup results.¶

5.1580. 6.C-27 - Evaluate Residual Resources

The processor distinguishes legitimate retention, stale records, unknown cleanup, and established unexpected persistence.¶

Output: Residual resource assessment.¶

5.1581. 6.C-28 - Determine User-Plane Closure

The processor combines mandatory cleanup results for the relevant objective.¶

Output: User-plane closure verdict.¶

5.1582. 6.C-29 - Identify Final Usage Sources

The processor determines which reporting rules and measurement sources are relevant to session termination.¶

Output: Final usage source set.¶

5.1583. 6.C-30 - Retrieve Release-Related Usage Reports

The system obtains applicable intermediate, terminal, or failure-triggered usage records.¶

Output: Usage collection.¶

5.1584. 6.C-31 - Qualify Report Identity and Trigger

The processor interprets original measurement identity, release trigger, source generation, and measurement meaning.¶

Output: Report qualification.¶

5.1585. 6.C-32 - Reconcile Duplicates and Corrections

The processor excludes duplicate contributions and applies supported corrections.¶

Output: Measurement lineage.¶

5.1586. 6.C-33 - Reconcile Counter Generations

The processor distinguishes compatible cumulative positions from reset or replaced counters.¶

Output: Counter state.¶

5.1587. 6.C-34 - Reconcile Measurement Coverage

The processor determines whether all required traffic populations and intervals are adequately represented.¶

Output: Coverage result.¶

5.1588. 6.C-35 - Determine Final Usage State

The system calculates supported usage quantities and retains unresolved intervals or populations.¶

Output: Usage closure verdict.¶

5.1589. 6.C-36 - Resolve Charging Session Identity

The processor identifies the corresponding charging context and rating references.¶

Output: Charging mapping.¶

5.1590. 6.C-37 - Retrieve Charging Operation History

The processor obtains the relevant initial, intermediate, and final charging operations.¶

Output: Charging operation set.¶

5.1591. 6.C-38 - Evaluate Final Charging Submission

The processor determines whether the required final charging interaction was submitted.¶

Output: Submission state.¶

5.1592. 6.C-39 - Evaluate Charging Receiver Outcome

The processor distinguishes accepted, processed, rejected, and unknown final charging states.¶

Output: Charging closure verdict.¶

5.1593. 6.C-40 - Retrieve Downstream Accounting Records

The processor obtains applicable charging records, exports, corrections, or acknowledgements.¶

Output: Accounting record set.¶

5.1594. 6.C-41 - Reconcile Original and Derived Records

The processor identifies which charging records represent original usage, partial records, final records, retransmissions, or derived aggregates.¶

Output: Record lineage.¶

5.1595. 6.C-42 - Evaluate Interoperator Accounting Scope

Where roaming is relevant, the processor identifies required home and visited accounting information.¶

Output: Interoperator accounting assessment.¶

5.1596. 6.C-43 - Evaluate Deferred Settlement State

If required by the selected objective and available under a supported interface, the processor determines settlement status.¶

Output: Settlement result.¶

5.1597. 6.C-44 - Construct the Closure Vector

The processor combines logical, local context, resource, usage, charging, and downstream accounting verdicts without collapsing their meanings.¶

Output: Multidimensional closure result.¶

5.1598. 6.C-45 - Identify Contradictions and Missing Evidence

The processor records inconsistent observations and required additional evidence.¶

Output: Discrepancy report.¶

5.1599. 6.C-46 - Process Late Reports and Corrections

The processor identifies and reevaluates affected conclusions when new source evidence arrives.¶

Output: Revised result.¶

5.1600. 6.C-47 - Preserve Reconstructible Closure History

The system stores operation references, source generations, resource outcomes, report lineage, charging status, and remaining uncertainty.¶

Output: Closure evidence history.¶

5.1601. 6.C-48 - Produce the Final C-V6 Reconstruction

The processor reports the established closure dimensions, unresolved obligations, and associated evidence.¶

It does not independently perform further release, charging alteration, or settlement.¶

Output: Distributed session and accounting closure reconstruction.¶

5.1602. 6.C.8. Technical Invariants

C6-I01 - Local session-context release is not automatically global PDU Session release.¶

C6-I02 - Release semantics must follow the actual operation contract.¶

C6-I03 - The participating function set depends upon the applicable architecture.¶

C6-I04 - A home-side release result does not automatically establish visited-side resource cleanup.¶

C6-I05 - A visited-side result does not automatically establish home-side logical termination.¶

5.1603. C6-I06 - Function-local session identifiers are not globally unique without qualification.

C6-I07 - Function generation and logical session generation are distinct.¶

C6-I08 - A release request does not itself establish remote application.¶

C6-I09 - A lost response does not prove release failure.¶

C6-I10 - A successful acknowledgement must be interpreted only within its defined scope.¶

5.1604. C6-I11 - Repeated release requests do not universally guarantee exactly-once effectuation.

C6-I12 - An unavailable remote function is not evidence of absent state.¶

C6-I13 - A source revision number cannot be globally ordered against an unrelated operator revision.¶

C6-I14 - A restarted function's reused identifier must not be confused with the prior generation.¶

C6-I15 - UPF-initiated session deletion is distinct from SMF-initiated release.¶

C6-I16 - A partial UPF failure does not necessarily affect every PFCP session.¶

C6-I17 - Logical termination and user-plane deletion are distinct state dimensions.¶

C6-I18 - A stale resource record does not prove active packet forwarding.¶

C6-I19 - Resource absence does not necessarily establish release-operation attribution.¶

C6-I20 - Legitimately retained resources must not be classified as leaks.¶

5.1605. C6-I21 - Complete cleanup requires the mandatory resource set, not merely one successful result.

5.1606. C6-I22 - Source and target transition operations may have required ordering constraints.

C6-I23 - Release and modification operations need not commute.¶

C6-I24 - A recovered function may hold a different state from the failed instance.¶

5.1607. C6-I25 - Final usage reports are interpreted under their actual reporting-rule semantics.

C6-I26 - An absent usage report does not universally imply zero usage.¶

C6-I27 - A valid zero measurement is distinct from missing measurement evidence.¶

C6-I28 - A retransmitted final report is not new usage.¶

C6-I29 - A final report is not necessarily independent of prior intermediate reports.¶

C6-I30 - Counter subtraction requires compatible source generations.¶

C6-I31 - Multi-UPF usage must be assessed for overlap and gaps.¶

C6-I32 - Resource cleanup does not automatically establish usage completeness.¶

C6-I33 - Usage completeness does not automatically establish charging-session closure.¶

C6-I34 - Charging-session closure does not automatically establish final billing.¶

C6-I35 - Final billing does not automatically establish interoperator settlement.¶

C6-I36 - A lost charging response does not prove remote nonprocessing.¶

C6-I37 - Charging retry behavior depends upon the receiver's actual contract.¶

C6-I38 - A late charging record does not establish continued network activity.¶

C6-I39 - A partial record is not automatically a complete independent session charge.¶

C6-I40 - Charging record transfer and receiver processing are separate states.¶

C6-I41 - A duplicate transferred CDR is not automatically a new liability.¶

C6-I42 - Corrected charging records require appropriate historical linkage.¶

C6-I43 - An empty local queue does not prove remote accounting completion.¶

5.1608. C6-I44 - The meaning of financial settlement is determined by its actual system contract.

C6-I45 - A remote outage must not be converted into a negative state observation.¶

C6-I46 - Multiple possible remote outcomes may remain compatible with the evidence.¶

5.1609. C6-I47 - A demonstrated failed mandatory condition is distinct from an unknown condition.

C6-I48 - A current successful state does not erase an earlier transitional discrepancy.¶

C6-I49 - A compensating new session is not necessarily a rollback of the original session.¶

C6-I50 - Closure predicates must identify the particular objective and scope.¶

5.1610. C6-I51 - A later correction may change an assessment without changing historical physical events.

5.1611. C6-I52 - Source authentication does not establish completeness or current applicability.

5.1612. C6-I53 - The reconstruction engine does not independently authorize network remediation.

5.1613. C6-I54 - The reconstruction engine does not independently authorize billing corrections.

C6-I55 - Existing protected execution-finality mechanisms remain separate.¶

C6-I56 - No closure guarantee exceeds the actual standards, operator contracts, and evidence coverage.¶

5.1614. 6.C.9. Mathematical Specification

The following expressions supplement the mathematical formulation of C-CW-01.¶

5.1615. 6.C.9.1. Distributed Closure State

For session (s), define:¶

[ X\_s=(L,H,V,U,M,C,A,Z) ]¶

where:¶

| x | (L): logical session state; | |---|---| | x | (H): applicable home-side state; | | x | (V): applicable visited or intermediate state; | | x | (U): user-plane resource state; | | x | (M): usage-measurement completion; | | x | (C): charging-session state; | | x | (A): downstream accounting or settlement state; | | x | (Z): unresolved operations and observation limitations. |¶

The components are independently evaluated.¶

5.1616. 6.C.9.2. Closure Objective

For selected objective (J), let (P\_J) be its mandatory predicates.¶

Define:¶

[ F\_J(X\_s)=\\bigwedge\_{p\\in P\_J}p(X\_s). ]¶

A narrower objective may require only local-context release.¶

A broader objective may require logical termination, all relevant resource cleanup, and complete final usage.¶

The stated objective controls which predicates are mandatory.¶

5.1617. 6.C.9.3. Three-Valued Closure Logic

For each predicate:¶

[ p\\in{T,F,U}. ]¶

Use three-valued conjunction:¶

| x | Any required FALSE yields FALSE. | |---|---| | x | All required TRUE yields TRUE. | | x | Otherwise the result is UNKNOWN. |¶

This prevents incomplete evidence from becoming an unsupported success claim.¶

5.1618. 6.C.9.4. Architecture-Qualified Closure Set

Let:¶

[ R(s,a) ]¶

be the set of resources requiring release for session (s) under procedure (a).¶

The set is not universal across all roaming architectures.¶

5.1619. 6.C.9.5. Resource Cleanup

Define:¶

\\bigwedge\_{r\\in R(s,a)} \\operatorname{Released}(r). ]¶

A resource correctly retained under the procedure is excluded from the release-required set.¶

5.1620. 6.C.9.6. Local versus Global Release

Let:¶

[ C\_{\\mathrm{local}} ]¶

represent completion of the specified local-context release.¶

Let:¶

[ C\_{\\mathrm{global}} ]¶

represent completion of the full logical session release.¶

In general:¶

[ C\_{\\mathrm{local}}=T \\not\\Rightarrow C\_{\\mathrm{global}}=T. ]¶

The implication requires additional procedure-specific evidence.¶

5.1621. 6.C.9.7. Unknown Remote Outcome

For release operation (o) with unknown receiver result, define a possible-state set:¶

[ \\mathcal X\_o= {X\_{\\mathrm{applied}}, X\_{\\mathrm{unapplied}}, X\_{\\mathrm{partial}},\\ldots}. ]¶

Subsequent status and resource evidence can eliminate incompatible possibilities.¶

5.1622. 6.C.9.8. Supported Partial Order

Let (O) be the set of release and related operations.¶

Define:¶

[ \\prec\\subseteq O\\times O ]¶

as the established causal or protocol order.¶

The processor does not impose a total order where the evidence supports only partial ordering.¶

5.1623. 6.C.9.9. Source and Target Resource Intervals

Let:¶

[ I\_r=[t\_r^-,t\_r^+] ]¶

represent a supported resource state interval.¶

Let:¶

[ I\_o=[t\_o^-,t\_o^+] ]¶

represent a possible operation processing interval.¶

Their overlap does not by itself prove the operation caused the resource state.¶

5.1624. 6.C.9.10. Measurement Coverage

Let (I\_s) be the interval requiring final usage reconstruction.¶

Let (I\_i) be the valid measurement interval for report (i).¶

For a complete interval objective:¶

[ I\_s\\subseteq \\bigcup\_i I\_i. ]¶

Compatible population and duplication semantics are also required.¶

5.1625. 6.C.9.11. Nonduplicative Usage

For disjoint, compatible usage populations (P\_i):¶

[ U=\\sum\_i U(P\_i). ]¶

Where measurements overlap, the processor must account for the overlap or retain an unresolved result.¶

5.1626. 6.C.9.12. Cumulative Counter Derivation

For compatible cumulative counter positions:¶

[ \\Delta U=c\_2-c\_1. ]¶

The calculation is valid only where the source, counter generation, unit, and ordering conditions permit it.¶

5.1627. 6.C.9.13. Charging Closure

Let:¶

C\_{\\mathrm{request}} \\land C\_{\\mathrm{receiver}} \\land C\_{\\mathrm{required\\ usage}}. ]¶

This illustrative predicate represents a defined charging-closure objective.¶

It does not imply downstream billing or settlement completion.¶

5.1628. 6.C.9.14. Deferred Accounting Closure

Let:¶

C\_{\\mathrm{records}} \\land C\_{\\mathrm{processing}} \\land C\_{\\mathrm{required\\ corrections}} ]¶

for a selected accounting objective.¶

Financial settlement may be a separate predicate where applicable.¶

5.1629. 6.C.9.15. Overall Closure Vector

Define:¶

[ \\mathbf{C}s= *(* *C{\\mathrm{logical}},* C\_{\\mathrm{local}}, C\_{\\mathrm{resources}}, C\_{\\mathrm{usage}}, C\_{\\mathrm{CHF}}, C\_{\\mathrm{accounting}},¶

C\_{\\mathrm{settlement}} ). ]¶

A single scalar result may be derived only after specifying the intended objective.¶

5.1630. 6.C.9.16. Recovery Revision

Let (X^{(v)}) be a reconstruction at revision (v).¶

Following new evidence (\\Delta E):¶

\\operatorname{Reconstruct}(E^{(v)}\\cup\\Delta E). ]¶

The newly reconstructed state may differ without changing the historical operation outcomes.¶

5.1631. 6.C.9.17. Numerical Example - Partial Release

Suppose a session has one home context, one visited context, and three release-required userplane resources.¶

The observed results are:¶

| x | Home logical session: RELEASED. | |---|---| | x | Visited context: RELEASED. | | x | Resource R1: RELEASED. | | x | Resource R2: RELEASED. | | x | Resource R3: UNKNOWN. |¶

Then:¶

[ C\_{\\mathrm{logical}}=T ]¶

and:¶

[ C\_{\\mathrm{local}}=T, ]¶

but:¶

[ C\_{\\mathrm{resources}}=U. ]¶

The processor cannot establish complete resource cleanup.¶

5.1632. 6.C.9.18. Numerical Example - Final Usage

Suppose compatible, nonoverlapping measurement intervals contribute:¶

| x | 300 MB before a reporting transition; | |---|---| | x | 180 MB after the transition; | | x | 40 MB during a final release-related interval. |¶

Then:¶

[ U=300+180+40=520\\ \\mathrm{MB}. ]¶

If the final 40 MB report is retransmitted, total usage remains 520 MB.¶

If the first two intervals overlap or use incompatible counter semantics, the result requires further reconciliation.¶

5.1633. 6.C.9.19. Numerical Example - Deferred Charging

Assume the logical session and all required user-plane resources are confirmed released at 14:00.¶

The final charging request is processed at 14:02.¶

A charging record is generated at 14:03.¶

Its delivery to a downstream accounting system remains unconfirmed until 14:08.¶

This does not establish active network operation until 14:08.¶

It illustrates independently timed operational and accounting transitions.¶

5.1634. 6.C.10. Implementable Pseudocode - C-ALG-07

5.1635. 6.C.10.1. Core Types

ENUM Verdict:¶

TRUE FALSE UNKNOWN¶

ENUM ReleaseScope:¶

LOCAL\_CONTEXT FULL\_LOGICAL\_SESSION USER\_PLANE\_RESOURCE OTHER\_SUPPORTED¶

UNKNOWN\_SCOPE¶

ENUM OperationOutcome:¶

SUBMITTED ACCEPTED APPLIED REJECTED PARTIAL UNKNOWN\_OUTCOME¶

TYPE ClosureResult:¶

logical\_session local\_contexts user\_plane\_resources usage\_measurements charging\_session accounting\_records settlement unresolved\_conditions¶

5.1636. 6.C.10.2. Qualify Release Scope

FUNCTION QUALIFY\_RELEASE(¶

operation, procedure\_registry ):¶

contract = procedure\_registry.RESOLVE(¶

operation.interface, operation.procedure\_version )¶

scope = contract.INTERPRET\_RELEASE\_SCOPE(¶

operation.original\_parameters )¶

RETURN {¶

operation\_identity:¶

QUALIFY\_OPERATION\_IDENTITY(operation), scope, required\_roles:¶

contract.REQUIRED\_PARTICIPANTS(scope), required\_effects:¶

contract.REQUIRED\_EFFECTS(scope) }¶

5.1637. 6.C.10.3. Construct Required Closure Resources

FUNCTION CONSTRUCT\_CLEANUP\_REQUIREMENTS(¶

session,¶

architecture, procedure, resource\_inventory ):¶

resources = resource\_inventory.FIND\_ASSOCIATED(¶

session )¶

requirements = []¶

FOR EACH resource IN resources:¶

disposition = procedure.REQUIRED\_DISPOSITION(¶

architecture, resource )¶

ADD {¶

resource, required\_disposition: disposition, identity\_generation:¶

resource.generation } TO requirements¶

RETURN requirements¶

5.1638. 6.C.10.4. Reconcile Release Operations

FUNCTION RECONCILE\_RELEASE\_OPERATIONS(¶

operations, receiver\_evidence ):¶

results = []¶

FOR EACH operation IN operations:¶

contract = RESOLVE\_RECEIVER\_CONTRACT(operation)¶

response = INTERPRET\_RESPONSE(¶

operation, contract )¶

remote = CHECK\_REMOTE\_STATUS(¶

operation, receiver\_evidence )¶

outcome = COMBINE\_OPERATION\_EVIDENCE(¶

response, remote, contract )¶

ADD {¶

operation, outcome } TO results¶

RETURN results¶

5.1639. 6.C.10.5. Evaluate Function Failure

FUNCTION EVALUATE\_FUNCTION\_FAILURE(¶

function, failure\_history, current\_inventory ):¶

failure = FIND\_RELEVANT\_FAILURE(¶

function, failure\_history )¶

generation = RESOLVE\_FUNCTION\_GENERATION(¶

function, current\_inventory )¶

surviving\_state = OBSERVE\_SURVIVING\_CONTEXTS(¶

function )¶

RETURN {¶

failure, generation, surviving\_state, missing\_history:¶

IDENTIFY\_UNAVAILABLE\_HISTORY() }¶

5.1640. 6.C.10.6. Evaluate Resource Cleanup

FUNCTION EVALUATE\_CLEANUP(¶

requirements, observations ):¶

results = []¶

FOR EACH requirement IN requirements:¶

IF requirement.requires\_retention:¶

CONTINUE identity = CHECK\_RESOURCE\_GENERATION(¶

requirement, observations )¶

status = CHECK\_CURRENT\_RESOURCE\_STATE(¶

requirement, observations )¶

ADD COMBINE\_RESOURCE\_VERDICT(¶

identity, status ) TO results¶

RETURN THREE\_VALUED\_AND(results)¶

5.1641. 6.C.10.7. Reconcile PFCP Release-Related Reports

FUNCTION QUALIFY\_RELEASE\_USAGE(¶

reports, pfcp\_contracts, session\_mapping ):¶

qualified = []¶

FOR EACH report IN reports:¶

contract = pfcp\_contracts.RESOLVE(report)¶

source = CHECK\_SOURCE\_GENERATION(report)¶

session = CHECK\_PFCP\_SESSION\_CORRESPONDENCE(¶

report, session\_mapping )¶

trigger = INTERPRET\_USAGE\_REPORT\_TRIGGER(¶

report, contract )¶

measurement = INTERPRET\_MEASUREMENT(¶

report, contract )¶

ADD {¶

report, source, session, trigger, measurement } TO qualified¶

RETURN qualified¶

5.1642. 6.C.10.8. Derive Final Usage

FUNCTION DERIVE\_FINAL\_USAGE(¶

usage\_reports, required\_coverage ):¶

lineage = CLASSIFY\_REPORT\_DUPLICATES\_AND\_CORRECTIONS(¶

usage\_reports )¶

measurements = SELECT\_VALID\_ORIGINAL\_CONTRIBUTIONS(¶

usage\_reports, lineage )¶

compatible = PARTITION\_BY\_SOURCE\_AND\_COUNTER\_SEMANTICS(¶

measurements )¶

totals = DERIVE\_NONOVERLAPPING\_USAGE(¶

compatible )¶

coverage = EVALUATE\_REQUIRED\_COVERAGE(¶

measurements, required\_coverage )¶

RETURN {¶

totals, coverage, unresolved\_measurements: IDENTIFY\_INCOMPATIBLE\_OR\_MISSING() }¶

5.1643. 6.C.10.9. Reconcile Final Charging

FUNCTION RECONCILE\_FINAL\_CHARGING(¶

charging\_context, operation\_history, receiver\_status ):¶

final\_operation = FIND\_APPLICABLE\_RELEASE\_OPERATION(¶

charging\_context, operation\_history )¶

IF final\_operation unavailable:¶

RETURN UNKNOWN( "FINAL\_CHARGING\_OPERATION\_NOT\_ESTABLISHED" )¶

response = INTERPRET\_CHARGING\_RESPONSE(¶

final\_operation )¶

applied = CHECK\_SUPPORTED\_RECEIVER\_STATUS(¶

final\_operation, receiver\_status )¶

RETURN COMBINE\_CHARGING\_LIFECYCLE(¶

response, applied )¶

5.1644. 6.C.10.10. Reconcile Accounting and Settlement

FUNCTION RECONCILE\_DEFERRED\_ACCOUNTING(¶

usage, charging, accounting\_records, selected\_objective ):¶

lineage = RELATE\_RECORDS\_TO\_SOURCE\_USAGE(¶

usage, accounting\_records )¶

processing = EVALUATE\_ACCOUNTING\_RECORD\_STATUS(¶

accounting\_records )¶

settlement = UNKNOWN¶

IF selected\_objective requires settlement:¶

settlement = QUERY\_SUPPORTED\_SETTLEMENT\_STATUS(¶

accounting\_records )¶

RETURN {¶

lineage, processing, settlement, missing\_requirements:¶

IDENTIFY\_OUTSTANDING\_ACCOUNTING() }¶

5.1645. 6.C.10.11. Evaluate Multidimensional Closure

FUNCTION EVALUATE\_CLOSURE\_VECTOR(¶

logical, local, resources, usage, charging, accounting ):¶

RETURN {¶

logical\_closure: logical, local\_context\_closure: local, resource\_cleanup: resources, usage\_closure: usage, charging\_closure: charging, accounting\_closure: accounting.processing, settlement:¶

accounting.settlement }¶

5.1646. 6.C.10.12. Complete Embodiment Algorithm

FUNCTION RECONSTRUCT\_DISTRIBUTED\_SESSION\_CLOSURE(¶

session\_reference, closure\_objective ):¶

session = RESOLVE\_LOGICAL\_SESSION(¶

session\_reference )¶

architecture = CLASSIFY\_SESSION\_ARCHITECTURE(¶

session )¶

release = QUALIFY\_RELEASE(¶

RELEVANT\_RELEASE\_OPERATION(), PROCEDURE\_REGISTRY() )¶

requirements = CONSTRUCT\_CLEANUP\_REQUIREMENTS(¶

session, architecture, release, RESOURCE\_INVENTORY() )¶

operations = RECONCILE\_RELEASE\_OPERATIONS(¶

OPERATION\_HISTORY(), RECEIVER\_EVIDENCE() )¶

failures = EVALUATE\_RELEVANT\_FUNCTION\_FAILURES(¶

FUNCTION\_HISTORY() )¶

logical = EVALUATE\_LOGICAL\_SESSION\_STATE(¶

session, operations, failures )¶

local = EVALUATE\_REQUIRED\_LOCAL\_CONTEXTS(¶

session, operations, failures )¶

resources = EVALUATE\_CLEANUP(¶

requirements, RESOURCE\_OBSERVATIONS() )¶

usage\_reports = QUALIFY\_RELEASE\_USAGE(¶

USAGE\_REPORTS(), PFCP\_CONTRACTS(), SESSION\_MAPPING() )¶

usage = DERIVE\_FINAL\_USAGE(¶

usage\_reports,¶

REQUIRED\_MEASUREMENT\_COVERAGE() )¶

charging = RECONCILE\_FINAL\_CHARGING(¶

CHARGING\_CONTEXT(), CHARGING\_OPERATION\_HISTORY(), CHARGING\_RECEIVER\_STATUS() )¶

accounting = RECONCILE\_DEFERRED\_ACCOUNTING(¶

usage, charging, ACCOUNTING\_RECORDS(), closure\_objective )¶

vector = EVALUATE\_CLOSURE\_VECTOR(¶

logical, local, resources, usage, charging, accounting )¶

verdict = EVALUATE\_SCOPED\_OBJECTIVE(¶

closure\_objective, vector )¶

result = BUILD\_VERSIONED\_CLOSURE\_RESULT(¶

session, release, failures, operations, vector, verdict, REQUIRED\_MISSING\_EVIDENCE() )¶

STORE\_RECONSTRUCTION(result)¶

RETURN result¶

The procedure is read-only with respect to consequential network and financial state.¶

5.1647. 6.C.11. Worked Technical Examples

5.1648. 6.C.11.1. Example 1 - V-SMF-Only Release

A home-routed session has both home and visited contexts.¶

A supported release operation explicitly targets only the visited-side context.¶

The visited function releases its local context.¶

The home-side logical session remains applicable.¶

The reconstruction reports successful local closure rather than global session termination.¶

5.1649. 6.C.11.2. Example 2 - Full Release with Remote Operator Unreachable

A visited operator initiates the applicable complete session release.¶

Its local state is removed.¶

The home operator becomes unreachable.¶

The processor reports local closure as established and home-side logical closure as unresolved.¶

It does not assume the remote session was released or retained.¶

5.1650. 6.C.11.3. Example 3 - Release Applied but Response Lost

A release request reaches a network function and is applied.¶

The response is lost.¶

A later status query indicates the relevant context is absent.¶

The processor can establish the current context state.¶

Attribution to the original release remains dependent upon the available operation evidence.¶

5.1651. 6.C.11.4. Example 4 - Partial UPF Failure

A UPF supports sessions S1, S2, and S3.¶

An internal failure causes S2 to be deleted under a supported PFCP procedure.¶

S1 and S3 continue.¶

The processor reconstructs the effect for S2 without declaring that the entire UPF failed.¶

5.1652. 6.C.11.5. Example 5 - PFCP Release with Final Usage

A PFCP session is removed.¶

The applicable procedure produces a report containing nonzero usage.¶

The processor associates the report with its original measurement and relevant session.¶

It then distinguishes usage receipt from charging-session finalization.¶

5.1653. 6.C.11.6. Example 6 - No Nonzero Usage in Release Report

A release-related reporting procedure indicates that no nonzero usage report is available under its defined conditions.¶

The processor interprets that status within the applicable reporting contract.¶

It does not infer that every possible traffic source measured zero usage for all time.¶

5.1654. 6.C.11.7. Example 7 - Three Resources, One Unknown

A session requires cleanup of R1, R2, and R3.¶

R1 and R2 are confirmed released.¶

R3's status is unavailable.¶

The processor reports partial cleanup evidence and unresolved complete resource closure.¶

5.1655. 6.C.11.8. Example 8 - Stale Resource Database Entry

The resource repository still contains a reference to an earlier PFCP session.¶

A current resource observer establishes that the matching resource generation is absent.¶

The processor distinguishes a stale repository entry from current network-resource presence.¶

5.1656. 6.C.11.9. Example 9 - Unexplained Resource Presence

The logical session is released.¶

A required user-plane resource remains installed beyond the applicable procedure's expected state.¶

The processor identifies the mismatch.¶

It does not automatically delete the resource.¶

5.1657. 6.C.11.10. Example 10 - Replacement SMF

A failed SMF is replaced.¶

The replacement obtains session context under the supported recovery model.¶

It later initiates resource cleanup for selected sessions.¶

The processor associates the new function generation with the correct logical sessions.¶

It avoids confusing reused local identifiers with older sessions.¶

5.1658. 6.C.11.11. Example 11 - Release Races with Modification

A session modification and release are submitted close together.¶

The receiver applies the release first.¶

The modification subsequently fails under the applicable state rules.¶

The processor records the observed ordering rather than assuming both requests succeeded.¶

5.1659. 6.C.11.12. Example 12 - Charging Release after Resource Cleanup

The user-plane session is deleted at 12:00.¶

The final charging request is submitted at 12:01.¶

The charging function processes it at 12:02.¶

The processor reports network closure and charging closure at their separately established stages.¶

5.1660. 6.C.11.13. Example 13 - Charging Response Lost

The final charging request is processed.¶

Its response is lost.¶

The initiator times out.¶

The processor retains unknown remote charging state until adequate receiver or record evidence is obtained.¶

5.1661. 6.C.11.14. Example 14 - Duplicate Final Usage

A final 90 MB usage report is delivered twice.¶

The processor establishes that both deliveries reference the same original measurement.¶

The corresponding contribution remains 90 MB.¶

5.1662. 6.C.11.15. Example 15 - Final Report Overlaps Earlier Report

An intermediate usage report measures 400 MB cumulatively.¶

A later final cumulative report measures 520 MB.¶

Under compatible source semantics, additional usage since the earlier position is 120 MB.¶

The processor does not automatically add 400 MB and 520 MB as separate increments.¶

5.1663. 6.C.11.16. Example 16 - Counter Reset Before Release

A user-plane function restarts after reporting 600 MB.¶

Its new counter generation later reports 35 MB.¶

The processor treats the two generations separately.¶

It does not calculate a negative 565 MB increment.¶

5.1664. 6.C.11.17. Example 17 - Operational Closure, Accounting Pending

The logical session is terminated.¶

All required user-plane resources are released.¶

The usage history has a missing interval.¶

The charging session remains open.¶

The processor reports operational closure established and accounting closure unresolved.¶

5.1665. 6.C.11.18. Example 18 - Charging Closed, Settlement Pending

The charging function processes the final usage and closes its relevant context.¶

The downstream billing system has not yet completed its own processing.¶

The processor reports charging closure separately from final billing or settlement.¶

5.1666. 6.C.11.19. Example 19 - Late CDR Transfer

A CDR describes traffic measured on Monday.¶

It is transmitted to a downstream system on Tuesday.¶

The processor assigns the traffic to Monday's relevant interval.¶

It does not infer network activity on Tuesday from the transfer event.¶

5.1667. 6.C.11.20. Example 20 - Home and Visited Charging Information

A roaming session terminates.¶

The home operator has relevant charging records.¶

A visited operator record has not yet been delivered.¶

The processor identifies the applicable outstanding interoperator accounting evidence without inventing a completed settlement.¶

5.1668. 6.C.11.21. Example 21 - Billing Correction after Session End

An original record reports 800 MB.¶

A later source correction establishes 770 MB under the same relevant measurement scope.¶

The processor revises the corresponding usage result and dependent records.¶

The physical session termination history remains unchanged.¶

5.1669. 6.C.11.22. Example 22 - New Session as Compensation

A release is completed unexpectedly.¶

The operator establishes a new session to restore service.¶

The application regains connectivity.¶

The processor reports service recovery while distinguishing the new logical session from the terminated original.¶

5.1670. 6.C.11.23. Example 23 - Empty Queue with Missing Remote Record

The local accounting queue is empty.¶

The remote operator's final usage record remains unavailable.¶

The processor does not equate local queue emptiness with completed interoperator accounting.¶

5.1671. 6.C.11.24. Example 24 - Mixed Final Closure Vector

A reconstructed state is:¶

logical\_session\_closure = TRUE visited\_context\_closure = TRUE user\_plane\_cleanup = TRUE final\_usage\_coverage = UNKNOWN charging\_session\_closed = TRUE billing\_records\_complete= UNKNOWN interoperator\_settlement= UNKNOWN¶

The system reports an established network termination with unresolved accounting obligations.¶

It does not misrepresent the entire event as either wholly failed or wholly finalized.¶

5.1672. 6.C.12. Specific Design-Around Alternatives and Implementation Pathways

The following 36 alternatives provide implementation-specific disclosures.¶

5.1673. C-6-DA-01 - Centralized Distributed-Closure Reconciler

Mechanism: One processor collects session, resource, and accounting state.¶

Implementation: It reconstructs required closure dimensions using source-qualified¶

identities.¶

Limitation: Central access does not guarantee remote visibility.¶

Failure behavior: Unknown operator state remains unresolved.¶

Test: Disconnect the visited operator's status source.¶

5.1674. C-6-DA-02 - Federated Operator-Local Closure

Mechanism: Each operator produces its own qualified release and resource result.¶

Implementation: A coordinator evaluates the permitted boundary information.¶

Limitation: Internal resource details may be hidden.¶

Failure behavior: No invented global closure.¶

Test: Exchange abstract local results without exposing full internal session records.¶

5.1675. C-6-DA-03 - Home-Centric Release Reconstruction

Mechanism: The home-side logical session is the principal reconstruction reference.¶

Implementation: Visited resources are associated through supported correspondence.¶

Limitation: Visited cleanup may remain invisible.¶

Failure behavior: Remote dimensions remain unknown.¶

Test: Confirm H-SMF release while withholding V-UPF status.¶

5.1676. C-6-DA-04 - Visited-Centric Release Reconstruction

Mechanism: The visited network reconstructs its own session and resource termination.¶

Implementation: Home-side state is treated as a separate dependent context.¶

Limitation: Remote logical state may be unavailable.¶

Failure behavior: Local closure is not promoted to global termination.¶

Test: Release V-SMF context while retaining H-SMF session.¶

5.1677. C-6-DA-05 - Architecture-Specific Release Model

Mechanism: The system determines closure requirements under the actual roaming or non-¶

roaming architecture.¶

Implementation: Mandatory participants are generated from the selected procedure model.¶

Limitation: Procedure registry correctness matters.¶

Failure behavior: Unsupported architecture assumptions are rejected.¶

Test: Compare home-routed and LBO release requirements.¶

5.1678. C-6-DA-06 - Local-versus-Full Release Interpreter

Mechanism: Release scope is extracted from the actual interface parameters.¶

Implementation: Local context release and full session release have different required¶

predicates.¶

Limitation: Not all interfaces expose identical scope indicators.¶

Failure behavior: Ambiguous scope remains unresolved.¶

Test: Compare a V-SMF-only release with full session termination.¶

5.1679. C-6-DA-07 - Event-Sourced Closure Reconstruction

Mechanism: Release and accounting events are replayed from source histories.¶

Implementation: Original event identity and order are retained.¶

Limitation: Missing history can prevent unique reconstruction.¶

Failure behavior: State envelopes remain open.¶

Test: Omit the remote release response.¶

5.1680. C-6-DA-08 - Snapshot-and-Delta Closure Reconstruction

Mechanism: A saved session/resource state is combined with later updates.¶

Implementation: Source revisions and generations are checked.¶

Limitation: Snapshot and delta gaps can obscure state.¶

Failure behavior: Reconstruction remains incomplete.¶

Test: Remove one resource deletion delta.¶

5.1681. C-6-DA-09 - Relational Closure-State Repository

Mechanism: Session, operator, function, resource, and charging states are stored as related¶

records.¶

Implementation: Time-qualified joins reconstruct the closure vector.¶

Limitation: A database join does not prove remote application.¶

Failure behavior: Missing resource observations remain unresolved.¶

Test: Insert a stale resource reference.¶

5.1682. C-6-DA-10 - Graph-Based Closure Dependency Model

Mechanism: Typed edges represent logical and cleanup dependencies.¶

Implementation: The graph identifies required closure targets and supporting evidence.¶

Limitation: Graph reachability is not proof of release.¶

Failure behavior: Incomplete edges produce qualified results.¶

Test: Omit one required cleanup dependency.¶

5.1683. C-6-DA-11 - Constraint-Based Possible-State Reconstruction

Mechanism: A solver represents unknown remote release outcomes.¶

Implementation: Established status and resource evidence eliminate incompatible¶

possibilities.¶

Limitation: Model completeness and solver resources matter.¶

Failure behavior: Timeout is UNKNOWN.¶

Test: Withhold all remote acknowledgements but supply selected resource observations.¶

5.1684. C-6-DA-12 - Partial-Order Release Reconstruction

Mechanism: Operations are ordered by supported causal or protocol relationships.¶

Implementation: Unordered operations retain alternative resulting states.¶

Limitation: Some event relationships may remain incomparable.¶

Failure behavior: No fabricated global chronology.¶

Test: Reorder status notifications from independent functions.¶

5.1685. C-6-DA-13 - Source-Generation-Aware Recovery

Mechanism: Resource and function identities are qualified by generation.¶

Implementation: Old and replacement processes have distinct references.¶

Limitation: Source generation metadata may be incomplete.¶

Failure behavior: Ambiguous reuse remains unresolved.¶

Test: Reuse a local session ID after SMF restart.¶

5.1686. C-6-DA-14 - Lost-Response Release Reconciliation

Mechanism: Native status and resource observations clarify an unknown release outcome.¶

Implementation: The original request and receiver contract are retained.¶

Limitation: Status history may expire.¶

Failure behavior: No unsupported retry-success assumption.¶

Test: Apply release and drop its response.¶

5.1687. C-6-DA-15 - Receiver-Native Retry Interpretation

Mechanism: Repeated requests are processed according to documented receiver behavior.¶

Implementation: Original parameters and operation references are compared.¶

Limitation: Duplicate handling may have a limited retention horizon.¶

Failure behavior: Exactly-once effectuation is not presumed.¶

Test: Repeat a release after an unknown outcome.¶

5.1688. C-6-DA-16 - UPF-Initiated Partial-Failure Release

Mechanism: User-plane-initiated PFCP session deletion is recognized as a distinct event.¶

Implementation: Source reports and release-related measurements are correlated with¶

control-plane state.¶

Limitation: Some reports may be lost.¶

Failure behavior: Unknown control-plane reconciliation remains explicit.¶

Test: Trigger a selected UPF session deletion while preserving other sessions.¶

5.1689. C-6-DA-17 - Resource-by-Resource Cleanup Mechanism: Every mandatory resource has an independent cleanup verdict.

Implementation: The result aggregates only the required resource set.¶

Limitation: Resource inventory may be incomplete.¶

Failure behavior: Missing mandatory observations prevent global success.¶

Test: Release two of three resources.¶

5.1690. C-6-DA-18 - Legitimate Retention Exception Mechanism: Procedure-allowed retained resources are excluded from the cleanup-required

set.¶

Implementation: Resource disposition follows applicable transition semantics.¶

Limitation: Retention rules are procedure-specific.¶

Failure behavior: Unexpected persistence remains separately evaluated.¶

Test: Retain a permitted intermediate context while releasing other resources.¶

5.1691. C-6-DA-19 - Independent Resource-State Verification

Mechanism: Current user-plane state is checked independently of release responses.¶

Implementation: Resource generation and observation scope are compared.¶

Limitation: State absence does not always establish cause.¶

Failure behavior: Causal attribution remains qualified.¶

Test: Delete a resource through a different process and observe the same terminal state.¶

5.1692. C-6-DA-20 - Recovery-Takeover Reconciliation

Mechanism: A replacement control function reconstructs and reconciles earlier session state.¶

Implementation: Predecessor and successor function generations are mapped.¶

Limitation: Takeover capability is deployment-dependent.¶

Failure behavior: Unsupported continuity is not assumed.¶

Test: Replace an SMF and release selected surviving PFCP sessions.¶

5.1693. C-6-DA-21 - Release-versus-Modification Conflict Reconstruction

Mechanism: Concurrent operations are evaluated under their actual state dependencies.¶

Implementation: Possible receiver orders are preserved where unresolved.¶

Limitation: Remote processing order may be unavailable.¶

Failure behavior: No invented commutativity.¶

Test: Race a QoS modification with full release.¶

5.1694. C-6-DA-22 - PFCP Final Usage Correspondence Mechanism: Release-related usage reports are mapped to the correct original measurement.

Implementation: Reporting rule, source generation, trigger, and session identity are retained.¶

Limitation: Report coverage may be incomplete.¶

Failure behavior: Missing usage remains unknown.¶

Test: Generate final PFCP usage during session deletion.¶

5.1695. C-6-DA-23 - Zero-versus-Missing Usage Classification Mechanism: Source-defined zero or absent measurements are distinguished from reporting

failure.¶

Implementation: Trigger and reporting rule semantics determine interpretation.¶

Limitation: The source may not cover all traffic populations.¶

Failure behavior: Unsupported zero totals are rejected.¶

Test: Compare a valid zero-measurement result with a lost report.¶

5.1696. C-6-DA-24 - Duplicate and Corrected Final Usage

Mechanism: Final reports are classified by original measurement identity and correction¶

lineage.¶

Implementation: Duplicates contribute once and corrections revise earlier quantities.¶

Limitation: Stable source identity may be absent.¶

Failure behavior: Exact reconciliation remains unresolved where necessary.¶

Test: Deliver one final report twice and later correct it.¶

5.1697. C-6-DA-25 - Multi-UPF Final Measurement Reconciliation

Mechanism: Reports from several UPFs are associated with one session and their traffic¶

populations.¶

Implementation: Valid nonoverlapping measurements are aggregated.¶

Limitation: Resource migration may cause overlap or gaps.¶

Failure behavior: Ambiguous unique usage remains unresolved.¶

Test: Release a session after traffic passes through two reporting functions.¶

5.1698. C-6-DA-26 - Charging-Session Release Reconstruction

Mechanism: The final Nchf charging interaction is tracked independently of network release.¶

Implementation: Original request, receiver status, and related usage are associated.¶

Limitation: Charging closure may not establish downstream billing.¶

Failure behavior: Lost response remains unknown.¶

Test: Close the charging session after user-plane cleanup.¶

5.1699. C-6-DA-27 - Charging Retry and Duplicate Protection Mechanism: Final charging retries are evaluated under the receiver's own contract.

Implementation: Operation identity and source request references are compared.¶

Limitation: Idempotency may have limited scope.¶

Failure behavior: No universal exactly-once claim.¶

Test: Retry the final charging request following response loss.¶

5.1700. C-6-DA-28 - Deferred CDR Transfer Reconciliation

Mechanism: Charging record generation and transfer are tracked separately.¶

Implementation: Source record, transport, receiver acknowledgement, and processing states¶

are maintained.¶

Limitation: The downstream record may be unavailable.¶

Failure behavior: Record transfer remains unresolved.¶

Test: Generate a CDR but delay its delivery.¶

5.1701. C-6-DA-29 - Partial Record Lineage Mechanism: Partial and final charging records are associated with their proper record

sequence and underlying usage.¶

Implementation: Derived or repeated quantities are not automatically counted twice.¶

Limitation: Incomplete sequence information may prevent exact totals.¶

Failure behavior: Missing lineage is flagged.¶

Test: Supply several partial records and a final aggregate.¶

5.1702. C-6-DA-30 - Deferred Interoperator Accounting Mechanism: Home and visited accounting records are reconciled under the actual settlement

requirements.¶

Implementation: Each operator's source and record state are separately tracked.¶

Limitation: Interoperator record exchange may be delayed.¶

Failure behavior: Local completion is not global settlement.¶

Test: Close local charging while withholding a remote usage record.¶

5.1703. C-6-DA-31 - Financial Settlement Status Adapter

Mechanism: The processor obtains settlement state from the actual settlement or accounting¶

system.¶

Implementation: Settlement scope and record references are preserved.¶

Limitation: No universal telecom settlement interface is assumed.¶

Failure behavior: Unavailable status is UNKNOWN.¶

Test: Provide completed billing with pending interoperator settlement.¶

5.1704. C-6-DA-32 - Historical Charging Correction Reconciliation

Mechanism: Corrections to earlier reports or CDRs trigger dependent recalculation.¶

Implementation: Record lineage and version history are retained.¶

Limitation: Downstream adjustments may follow separate rules.¶

Failure behavior: The physical session history remains distinct from revised accounting.¶

Test: Correct usage after charging-session closure.¶

5.1705. C-6-DA-33 - Read-Only Closure Verifier

Mechanism: An independent system reconstructs operational and accounting state.¶

Implementation: It identifies residual obligations without modifying them.¶

Limitation: Independent processing does not guarantee complete evidence.¶

Failure behavior: Unknown domains remain unresolved.¶

Test: Detect one residual resource without submitting a deletion request.¶

5.1706. C-6-DA-34 - Crash-Resilient Reconstruction

Mechanism: State checkpoints and event history support recovery of the reconciliation¶

processor.¶

Implementation: Original operation and report identities prevent incorrect duplicate¶

interpretation.¶

Limitation: Missing source history may prevent exact recovery.¶

Failure behavior: Gaps remain explicit.¶

Test: Crash after processing a final report but before checkpoint completion.¶

5.1707. C-6-DA-35 - Integrity-Protected Multi-Domain Evidence

Mechanism: Source records may be authenticated or integrity-protected.¶

Implementation: Provenance validation is separated from semantic, temporal, and coverage¶

validation.¶

Limitation: A valid signature does not prove a release completed globally.¶

Failure behavior: Authentic stale records remain qualified.¶

Test: Replay a signed old release status after a new function generation appears.¶

5.1708. C-6-DA-36 - Optional Hybrid Constraint and Dependency Optimization

Mechanism: A state solver or dependency optimizer assists in reconstructing closure under¶

multiple possible remote outcomes.¶

Implementation: Mandatory procedure and observation constraints remain controlling.¶

Limitation: Solver complexity may be significant and model completeness is required.¶

Failure behavior: Solver timeout is unresolved rather than success or impossibility.¶

Test: Compare optimized reconstruction with exhaustive small-state reference scenarios.¶

5.1709. 6.C.13. Technical Design-Around Correspondence

The alternatives disclose several ways to implement distributed closure reconstruction.¶

A centralized controller may collect all accessible status.¶

A federated system may obtain only qualified operator-local results.¶

A home-side implementation may reconstruct the logical session from its own state and limited visited information.¶

A visited-side implementation may evaluate local cleanup while preserving uncertainty about home-side state.¶

A relational database can maintain structured session and accounting references.¶

A graph can represent required release dependencies.¶

A constraint solver can retain several possible remote outcomes.¶

An event-sourced implementation can replay historical operations.¶

A snapshot-and-delta implementation can reconstruct versioned state when its source history is adequate.¶

The principal technical relationship is multidimensional correspondence among release¶

scope, logical session state, resource cleanup, final usage, charging closure, and deferred accounting obligations under partial function availability.¶

The embodiment does not depend upon one universal global transaction.¶

It does not assume exactly-once remote processing.¶

It does not replace the native 3GPP release and charging operations.¶

It does not require every operator to expose its internal data.¶

However, its conclusions are limited by the source and coverage evidence actually available.¶

A design that confirms only the home-side logical release does not thereby establish visitedside resource cleanup.¶

A design that confirms user-plane resource deletion does not thereby establish final charging completeness.¶

A design that confirms charging-session release does not thereby establish downstream financial settlement.¶

A design that detects a residual resource does not automatically obtain authority to remove it.¶

The described mechanisms require operationally precise conditions, evidence sources and specific state semantics. They do not automatically imply equivalent behavior in a different deployment.¶

5.1710. 6.C.14. PHOSITA Reference Implementation

A practical laboratory system may contain:¶

Home operator simulator: Maintains logical session and relevant home-side state.¶

Visited operator simulator: Maintains the visited-side session context and independent¶

response behavior.¶

Intermediate function simulator: Represents an applicable I-SMF or another intermediate¶

context.¶

SMF simulator: Implements selected supported session-management operations.¶

UPF simulator A: Maintains PFCP sessions and related resources.¶

UPF simulator B: Provides a second reporting/resource context.¶

Partial-failure generator: Causes selective UPF or control-function failure.¶

Operation transport simulator: Supports request loss, response loss, retries, and delayed¶

notification.¶

Release scope registry: Encodes documented local or full release behavior.¶

Resource inventory: Maintains independently observable resource generations.¶

PFCP-style usage reporter: Produces source-qualified intermediate and release-related¶

reports.¶

Charging consumer simulator: Generates initial, update, and final charging operations.¶

Charging function simulator: Maintains independent receiver-side charging state.¶

CDR generator: Produces original, partial, final, and corrected accounting records.¶

Record transfer simulator: Models delayed, duplicate, and lost record delivery.¶

Settlement state simulator: Provides a separate contract-defined accounting or settlement¶

result.¶

Reconstruction processor: Computes the closure vector from available observations.¶

Fault-injection harness: Generates crashes, communication partitions, stale records, and¶

partial resource deletion.¶

Independent test oracle: Holds actual simulated state without being exposed to the¶

reconstruction processor.¶

The laboratory system may run on a single computer.¶

It need not connect to a live telecommunications or billing network.¶

The implementation must distinguish simulated standards behavior from actual conformance to a deployed 3GPP implementation.¶

5.1711. 6.C.15. Detailed PHOSITA Implementation Procedure Phase 1 - Session identities: Define logical, local-context, PFCP, charging, and resource

identifiers separately.¶

Phase 2 - Architecture: Implement home-routed and local-breakout variants with¶

appropriate participating functions.¶

Phase 3 - Release scope: Model local-only and full-session release semantics.¶

Phase 4 - Procedure requirements: Define mandatory participating functions and resource¶

effects.¶

Phase 5 - Resource inventory: Populate one session with several resources.¶

Phase 6 - Request lifecycle: Implement submission, acknowledgement, application,¶

rejection, and unknown outcome.¶

Phase 7 - Lost response: Allow remote release to occur while the initiator times out.¶

Phase 8 - Retry semantics: Implement the selected receiver's actual duplicate/retry¶

behavior.¶

Phase 9 - Remote outage: Disconnect a simulated operator during release.¶

Phase 10 - Function restart: Replace an SMF or UPF and change its generation.¶

Phase 11 - Local-reference reuse: Reuse an identifier under a different generation.¶

Phase 12 - Partial UPF failure: Delete selected PFCP sessions but retain others.¶

Phase 13 - UPF-initiated reporting: Produce relevant release-related usage reports.¶

Phase 14 - Resource-by-resource cleanup: Record each required resource's state.¶

Phase 15 - Legitimate retention: Preserve one resource permitted by the selected¶

procedure.¶

Phase 16 - Unexpected persistence: Retain one resource that should have been released.¶

Phase 17 - Missing resource state: Withhold one required observation.¶

Phase 18 - Concurrent modification: Race a session modification with release.¶

Phase 19 - Counter reporting: Implement cumulative and interval usage.¶

Phase 20 - Release-related measurement: Generate relevant final measurement records.¶

Phase 21 - Duplicate reports: Transmit one original report several times.¶

Phase 22 - Corrections: Supersede an earlier measurement.¶

Phase 23 - Counter reset: Restart the usage reporter and assign a new generation.¶

Phase 24 - Multi-UPF measurement: Distribute traffic across two reporting functions.¶

Phase 25 - Coverage gaps: Omit one required measurement interval.¶

Phase 26 - Charging creation: Establish a charging-session context.¶

Phase 27 - Intermediate charging: Submit usage updates.¶

Phase 28 - Charging release: Submit a final charging interaction under the selected¶

contract.¶

Phase 29 - Lost charging acknowledgement: Process a final update remotely and discard¶

the response.¶

Phase 30 - CDR generation: Produce a related charging record.¶

Phase 31 - Record transfer: Deliver the CDR asynchronously.¶

Phase 32 - Duplicate record transfer: Resend a previously generated record.¶

Phase 33 - Deferred settlement: Keep the settlement system pending after charging¶

closure.¶

Phase 34 - Interoperator status: Independently delay one operator's accounting data.¶

Phase 35 - Read-only closure reconstruction: Compute the full state without modifying¶

network or financial resources.¶

Phase 36 - Historical correction: Recalculate affected results after a corrected record.¶

Phase 37 - Reconstruction crash recovery: Restart during event processing and verify¶

recovery.¶

Phase 38 - Constraint cross-check: Compare selected results against exhaustive¶

simulation states.¶

Phase 39 - Complete verification: Run the proposed test suite against independent ground¶

truth.¶

Phase 40 - Report results: Document actual correctness, unknown cases, false closures,¶

double counting, latency, and resource consumption.¶

No completed experiment or benchmark improvement is asserted here.¶

5.1712. 6.C.16. Failure and Adversarial Conditions

F01: Local release mistaken for full session release.¶

F02: Home-side release result unavailable.¶

F03: Visited-side release result unavailable.¶

F04: Remote release applied but acknowledgement lost.¶

F05: Repeated release request with uncertain original outcome.¶

F06: Function restart during release.¶

F07: Old identifier reused by a replacement function.¶

F08: UPF partially fails and deletes selected sessions.¶

F09: UPF resource remains after logical termination.¶

F10: Stale repository record remains after actual resource deletion.¶

F11: One of several required resources is not released.¶

F12: Resource legitimately retained by the procedure.¶

F13: Release races with resource modification.¶

F14: Recovery races with pending release.¶

F15: Release response is authentic but stale.¶

F16: Source and target operator versions are incomparable.¶

F17: A failed remote query is misinterpreted as resource absence.¶

F18: PFCP final usage report is lost.¶

F19: PFCP release report contains no nonzero measurement.¶

F20: Final usage report is duplicated.¶

F21: Final usage overlaps an intermediate report.¶

F22: Counter resets during release.¶

F23: Source UPF changes generation.¶

F24: Multi-UPF reports overlap in traffic population.¶

F25: Final measurement interval has a gap.¶

F26: Final charging request submitted after resource cleanup.¶

F27: Final charging response lost after processing.¶

F28: Final charging retry has unknown receiver state.¶

F29: Charging session closed but CDR generation delayed.¶

F30: CDR generated but not transferred.¶

F31: CDR delivered twice.¶

F32: Partial CDR mistaken for complete independent usage.¶

F33: Historical CDR corrected.¶

F34: Local billing complete while interoperator record pending.¶

F35: Settlement status unavailable.¶

F36: Empty queue mistaken for complete settlement.¶

F37: Late record delivery mistaken for continued network activity.¶

F38: New compensating session mistaken for original session restoration.¶

F39: Technical discrepancy interpreted as automatic billing fraud.¶

F40: Unresolved cleanup incorrectly triggers unauthorized deletion.¶

F41: Reconstruction processor crashes during final-report processing.¶

F42: Dependency graph omits one required resource.¶

F43: Source event timestamp uncertainty changes causal ordering.¶

F44: Remote operator reconnects with corrected history.¶

F45: One function reports release while another reports active resource.¶

F46: Solver times out with multiple possible remote states.¶

F47: A release-related usage report is attributed to the wrong session generation.¶

F48: Resource absence is incorrectly attributed to the release request.¶

F49: Charging closure is incorrectly promoted to financial settlement.¶

F50: A later correction changes accounting conclusions but not the historical network¶

release.¶

5.1713. 6.C.17. Representative Proposed Verification Test Suite

The following 100 tests are proposed. They are not claimed as executed or passed.¶

5.1714. Test ID

C6- T001 C6- T002 C6- T003 C6- T004 C6- T005¶

5.1715. Controlled scenario

Valid logical session release¶

Valid local SM context release¶

V-SMF-only release¶

Full home-routed session release¶

LBO session release¶

5.1716. Expected technical behavior

Correct logical state¶

Local scope recognized¶

No false H-SMF termination¶

Required contexts evaluated¶

Correct architecture roles¶

C6- T006 C6- T007 C6- T008 C6- T009 C6- T010 C6- T011 C6- T012 C6- T013 C6- T014 C6- T015 C6- T016 C6- T017 C6- T018 C6- T019 C6- T020 C6- T021 C6- T022¶

Unknown architecture No invented roles¶

Source operation lacks release scope Unknown scope¶

Valid release scope supplied Correct classification¶

Home operator unreachable Remote state UNKNOWN¶

Visited operator unreachable Local state limited¶

Release submitted without response No false completion¶

Remote release applied, response lost Current state reconciled¶

Receiver definitively rejects release Rejection established¶

Duplicate release request Receiver contract applied¶

Retry with changed parameters Operation identity evaluated¶

Status query resolves original outcome State envelope narrowed¶

Status history expired Outcome remains UNKNOWN¶

SMF restart during release Generation handled¶

UPF restart during release Resource generation handled¶

Local identifier reused No stale identity merge¶

Replacement SMF assumes session Supported continuity evaluated¶

Replacement SMF deletes selected PFCP sessions Correct resource targeting¶

C6- T023 C6- T024 C6- T025 C6- T026 C6- T027 C6- T028 C6- T029 C6- T030 C6- T031 C6- T032 C6- T033 C6- T034 C6- T035 C6- T036 C6- T037 C6- T038 C6- T039¶

Partial UPF failure affects one session¶

Total UPF failure¶

UPF-initiated PFCP deletion¶

SMF-initiated PFCP deletion¶

Control context released, UPF remains¶

UPF deleted, logical session remains¶

Three required resources released¶

Two of three resources released¶

One resource state unavailable¶

Legitimately retained resource¶

Unexpected resource persistence¶

Stale database resource reference¶

Resource absent due to separate failure¶

Release races with modification¶

Release races with mobility¶

Release races with function recovery¶

Home and visited revision counters differ¶

Unaffected sessions preserved¶

Appropriate affected scope¶

Correct event origin¶

Separate origin¶

Partial closure¶

Distinct states¶

Resource closure TRUE¶

Partial closure¶

Cleanup UNKNOWN¶

No false cleanup failure¶

Discrepancy identified¶

Current state distinguished¶

No unsupported operation attribution Noncommutative effects evaluated¶

Procedure-specific state¶

Partial order evaluated¶

No global numeric order¶

C6- T040 C6- T041 C6- T042 C6- T043 C6- T044 C6- T045 C6- T046 C6- T047 C6- T048 C6- T049 C6- T050 C6- T051 C6- T052 C6- T053 C6- T054 C6- T055 C6- T056¶

Delayed release notification¶

Replayed earlier release status¶

Source clock offset¶

PFCP release emits nonzero usage¶

PFCP release reports no nonzero usage¶

PFCP report trigger semantics differ¶

Release usage report missing¶

Final usage report duplicated¶

Final usage report corrected¶

Final and intermediate reports overlap¶

Cumulative final counter¶

Counter reset before release¶

Counter wrap with known modulus¶

Counter wrap semantics unknown¶

Two UPFs measure same traffic¶

Two UPFs measure disjoint traffic¶

Multi-UPF overlap unknown¶

Historical state preserved¶

Staleness detected¶

Interval uncertainty¶

Measurement captured¶

Contract-specific interpretation¶

Correct classification¶

No fabricated zero¶

No double count¶

Historical revision¶

No unsupported addition¶

Valid difference¶

Generation separation¶

Defined interpretation¶

Usage UNKNOWN¶

Overlap identified¶

Valid aggregation¶

Unique usage unresolved¶

C6- T057 C6- T058 C6- T059 C6- T060 C6- T061 C6- T062 C6- T063 C6- T064 C6- T065 C6- T066 C6- T067 C6- T068 C6- T069 C6- T070 C6- T071 C6- T072 C6- T073¶

Final usage interval gap¶

Complete source measurement coverage¶

Reporting-rule identity reused¶

Report belongs to wrong PFCP session¶

Charging session created¶

Intermediate charging update¶

Final Nchf release submitted¶

Final Nchf release processed¶

Final Nchf response lost¶

Charging receiver status resolves timeout¶

Charging receiver history unavailable¶

Final charging request duplicated¶

Different charging contexts share local ID¶

Required final usage not yet available¶

Usage complete, charging pending¶

Charging closed, resource still present¶

Resource released, charging still open¶

Incomplete coverage¶

Usage closure supported¶

Generation mapping¶

Attribution rejected¶

Initial state¶

Correct stage¶

Submission recorded¶

Charging closure evaluated¶

Unknown outcome¶

Updated result¶

UNKNOWN maintained¶

Retry semantics¶

Generation separation¶

Usage closure incomplete¶

Separate dimensions¶

C6- T074 C6- T075 C6- T076 C6- T077 C6- T078 C6- T079 C6- T080 C6- T081 C6- T082 C6- T083 C6- T084 C6- T085 C6- T086 C6- T087 C6- T088 C6- T089 C6- T090¶

Final CDR generated Record generation established¶

CDR generated but not delivered Transfer pending¶

CDR delivered and acknowledged Scoped transfer state¶

CDR acknowledgement lost Receiver state uncertainty¶

CDR transferred twice Duplicate handling¶

Partial CDR sequence complete Correct lineage¶

Partial CDR sequence gap Incomplete accounting¶

Final CDR derived from partial records No double count¶

CDR correction after closure Historical recalculation¶

CDR creation after network termination No false ongoing use¶

Home charging complete, visited record pending Interoperator UNKNOWN¶

Visited record delivered late Historical association¶

Settlement pending after local billing Separate settlement state¶

Settlement complete under actual contract Scoped completion¶

Settlement status unavailable UNKNOWN¶

Local accounting queue empty but remote record¶

No false closure pending¶

New session established after release Distinct logical identity¶

C6-¶

Event-sourced reconstruction with full history Oracle-consistent result T091¶

C6- T092 C6- T093 C6- T094 C6- T095¶

Event-source history missing material release¶

Snapshot/delta reconstruction with version gap¶

Graph model misses resource dependency¶

Constraint solver finds several states¶

State envelope retained¶

Qualified history¶

No false global closure¶

No false uniqueness¶

C6- T096 C6- T097 C6- T098¶

Constraint solver times out¶

Reconstruction processor crashes after report processing¶

Late evidence changes accounting result¶

UNKNOWN¶

Replay without duplicate contribution¶

Dependency recalculation¶

C6-¶

Residual cleanup needed but not authorized T099¶

| C6- | Complete closure vector with mixed TRUE and | |---|---| | T100 | UNKNOWN |¶

6.C.17.1. Test Evidence Requirements¶

Each executed test should retain:¶

No independent effectuation¶

Accurate final reconstruction¶

1. Original logical session identity. 2. Operator and network-function namespaces. 3. Session and resource generations. 4. Applicable release procedure. 5. Original release requests. 6. Release scope and parameters. 7. Receiver acknowledgement and processing evidence. 8. Failure and restart events. 9. Home, visited, and intermediate context observations. 10. Required cleanup resources. 11. Legitimate retention conditions. 12. Current user-plane resource state. 13. PFCP usage-reporting rule configuration. 14. Report trigger and counter semantics. 15. Original, duplicated, and corrected usage records. 16. Measurement intervals and source generations.¶

17. Expected and reconstructed final usage. 18. Charging-session identity. 19. Initial, intermediate, and final charging operations. 20. Charging receiver evidence. 21. CDR generation and transfer states. 22. Accounting and settlement status where applicable. 23. Missing observations and unknown outcomes. 24. Historical reconstruction revisions. 25. Independent simulator ground truth. 26. Processing time and resource use.¶

The test oracle must remain independent of the reconstruction logic.¶

Passing a user-plane cleanup test does not prove charging closure.¶

Passing a charging-closure test does not prove interoperator settlement.¶

A reconstructed residual resource does not by itself establish authorization to remove it.¶

5.1717. 6.C.18. Standards and Existing Technology Correspondence

6.C.18.1. 3GPP TS 23.502¶

TS 23.502 provides established PDU Session management and mobility procedures.¶

The relevant session release and network-function transition rules determine which logical and resource states must change.¶

The present embodiment does not redefine those procedures.¶

6.C.18.2. 3GPP TS 29.502¶

TS 29.502 specifies the Nsmf\_PDUSession service and related context operations.¶

Applicable release procedures may distinguish local intermediate or visited contexts from wider logical session release.¶

The processor uses those established semantics to determine which closure objectives are appropriate.¶

6.C.18.3. 3GPP TS 29.244¶

TS 29.244 defines PFCP session and usage-reporting behavior.¶

Its procedures include control/user-plane resource deletion, usage reporting, and applicable handling of UPF-initiated release under partial-failure conditions.¶

The present embodiment may reconstruct those existing effects.¶

It does not invent PFCP session deletion or the corresponding usage-report triggers.¶

6.C.18.4. 3GPP TS 32.291¶

TS 32.291 defines existing converged-charging service operations.¶

The Create, Update, and Release operations have specified charging lifecycle roles.¶

The present embodiment uses their responses and observed outcomes as charging-state evidence.¶

It does not invent those operations or universal exactly-once charging behavior.¶

6.C.18.5. 3GPP TS 32.255¶

TS 32.255 addresses 5G data-connectivity charging.¶

It includes relevant network usage and charging information for PDU Sessions and network functions.¶

The present embodiment may use these records for final usage and charging correspondence.¶

6.C.18.6. 3GPP TS 32.295¶

TS 32.295 concerns Charging Data Record transfer.¶

Its existing mechanisms and related record-processing behavior may provide evidence of CDR transfer under an applicable deployment.¶

The present embodiment distinguishes transfer status from downstream billing or financial settlement.¶

5.1718. 6.C.18.7. Other Operator Charging Systems

Conventional billing mediation, record processing, rating, clearing, and settlement systems may contribute further evidence.¶

The exact processing and settlement contracts depend upon the deployment.¶

The present embodiment does not assert one universal commercial settlement protocol.¶

5.1719. 6.C.19. Specific Claim-Supporting Relationships

Subject to substantive prior-art and earlier-disclosure examination, the following technical relationships may support later claims.¶

Relationship 1 - Architecture-qualified closure objective: Constructing mandatory¶

release requirements from the applicable logical session and network-function architecture.¶

Relationship 2 - Local-versus-global release correspondence: Distinguishing local-¶

context cleanup from full logical session termination.¶

Relationship 3 - Partial-failure state reconstruction: Evaluating distributed release¶

outcomes when participating functions become unreachable or restart.¶

Relationship 4 - Generation-qualified resource cleanup: Associating required cleanup¶

with the correct function and resource generations.¶

Relationship 5 - UPF-initiated release correspondence: Relating independent user-plane¶

deletion to subsequent control-plane state and related usage reports.¶

Relationship 6 - Per-resource closure verification: Evaluating the complete required¶

cleanup set while preserving legitimate retention.¶

Relationship 7 - Unknown remote operation reconciliation: Retaining possible applied,¶

unapplied, and partial outcomes until sufficient receiver or resource evidence becomes available.¶

Relationship 8 - Final usage coverage: Relating release-related usage reports to the¶

session's complete required accounting interval and traffic population.¶

Relationship 9 - Charging-versus-network closure: Separately evaluating final charging¶

processing and physical network resource deletion.¶

Relationship 10 - Deferred charging-record lineage: Relating original usage¶

measurements, final charging operations, partial records, and later record transfer.¶

5.1720. Relationship 11 - Interoperator settlement uncertainty: Preserving incomplete

downstream accounting status despite established local network closure.¶

Relationship 12 - Versioned multidimensional closure: Maintaining a reconstructible¶

closure vector and revising affected results upon later evidence.¶

These are potential claim-building relationships.¶

They are not assertions that 3GPP release, PFCP reporting, charging termination, or generic distributed state reconciliation are individually novel.¶

5.1721. 6.C.20. Relationship to the Foundational Shared Technical Foundation

The earlier disclosures include telecommunications, cross-domain governance, protected state, and execution-finality mechanisms.¶

The present embodiment does not recast previously disclosed protected authority or atomic effectuation controls as new.¶

Its proposed incremental focus is the technical reconstruction of operational and¶

accounting closure across partially failed or disconnected telecommunications domains.¶

Potentially relevant implementation distinctions include:¶

(a) constructing architecture-specific closure requirements; (b) distinguishing local session-context release from global logical termination; (c) reconstructing unknown remote release outcomes; (d) tracking resource generations after network-function failure; (e) associating UPF-initiated deletion with control-plane context state; (f) independently evaluating required resource cleanup; (g) reconciling release-related usage and counter state; (h) distinguishing final usage coverage from charging-session closure; (i) tracking delayed charging record transfer and accounting obligations; (j) preserving uncertainty about interoperator settlement; and (k) maintaining versioned closure assessments after late corrections.¶

The exact overlap with earlier as-filed materials remains to be determined through documentlevel comparison.¶

5.1722. 6.C.21. Particular Technical Effects

Depending upon the implementation and available evidence, the embodiment may provide:¶

1. More accurate distinction between local and global release. 2. Improved reconstruction of partial operator failures. 3. Reduced unsupported assumptions about remote operation outcomes. 4. Better handling of network-function restart and identifier reuse. 5. More accurate identification of outstanding user-plane resources. 6. Reduced false classification of legitimately retained resources as leaks. 7. Improved association of UPF-initiated deletion with session state. 8. Better reconciliation of terminal usage reports.¶

9. Reduced double counting of duplicated or overlapping usage. 10. Improved handling of counter resets during failure. 11. Clearer distinction between network and charging closure. 12. Improved tracking of delayed charging-record transfer. 13. Better recognition of incomplete interoperator accounting. 14. More reproducible historical charging revisions. 15. Improved identification of unresolved release obligations. 16. More accurate separation of service recovery from original session continuity. 17. Better evidence for independently governed remediation and accounting correction.¶

These are possible technical effects.¶

No particular reduction in outage duration, overbilling, session leaks, processing costs, or settlement delays is claimed without executed measurements.¶

5.1723. 6.C.22. Non-Limiting Implementation Character

The present embodiment may be implemented through conventional telecommunications network functions, operator management systems, charging systems, database processors, event streams, and resource-observation mechanisms.¶

It may operate within one operator or across cooperating domains.¶

The logical session may use home-routed roaming, local breakout, or another applicable architecture.¶

The release may affect only a local context or the entire logical session.¶

A network function may be available, unavailable, restarted, or partially failed.¶

A user-plane resource may be released, retained, or unresolved.¶

A final usage report may be delivered, duplicated, corrected, or missing.¶

The charging session may close after the network session ends.¶

A charging record may be generated after termination and transferred later.¶

Interoperator accounting may remain incomplete after local charging closure.¶

The processor preserves these distinctions.¶

No global atomic operation across independent operators is presumed.¶

No universal exactly-once release or charging guarantee is presumed.¶

No complete remote visibility is guaranteed.¶

No particular vendor, database, AI model, cryptographic primitive, or programming language is required.¶

The reconstruction does not itself authorize network resource deletion, quota issuance, financial adjustment, or payment settlement.¶

5.1724. 6.C.23. Conclusion

The central technical subject of Embodiment 6.C is evidence-qualified reconstruction of distributed telecommunications session and accounting closure under partial operator failure, incomplete resource cleanup, and deferred reporting or settlement.¶

The embodiment distinguishes:¶

1. Local-context release from global session release. 2. Request submission from receiver-side application. 3. Lost response from remote nonapplication. 4. Control-plane termination from user-plane cleanup. 5. Function restart from logical session replacement. 6. Partial UPF failure from complete user-plane failure. 7. Resource absence from release-operation attribution. 8. Legitimate retention from residual cleanup failure. 9. Intermediate usage from terminal usage. 10. Duplicate reports from independent measurements. 11. Final usage completeness from charging-session closure. 12. Charging-session closure from billing and settlement. 13. Late record delivery from ongoing network activity. 14. Current service recovery from original session continuity. 15. Technical reconciliation from authority to perform remediation.¶

The disclosed system constructs the required closure obligations under the applicable network architecture, associates them with source-qualified operations and resources, evaluates final usage and charging evidence, and maintains independent closure verdicts.¶

Where a required condition is established, the processor reports the result within its actual scope.¶

Where a mandatory condition is contradicted, the inconsistency is preserved.¶

Where remote functions, resource observations, usage measurements, charging operations, or settlement records remain unavailable, the corresponding result remains unresolved.¶

5.1725. This completes Embodiment 6.C and thereby concludes the six-embodiment Group C

technical disclosure sequence without repeating generic 3GPP release and charging procedures or the foundational protected execution-finality architecture.¶

Synthetic scenario	Median (us)	P95 (us)	Samples
session qualification	0.331	0.470	1500
roaming home visited	0.991	1.032	1500
meter generation delta	0.741	0.791	1500
sixteen reservations	0.851	0.891	1500
eight lifecycle predicates	2.414	2.534	1500

Property	Recorded value
Programming language	Python 3 (recorded interpreter 3.13.5)
Libraries	Python standard library only (unittest, dataclasses, statistics, time, argparse, json)
Benchmark platform	Linux-6.18.57-x86_64-with-glibc2.41; processor model not recorded
Test framework	Python unittest with synthetic data created in the tests
Automated test methods	87 passed; zero failures or errors; parameterized subtests evaluate additional cases
Checkpoints in this document	40 of 40: C-CP-081 to C-CP-120 (source items 81 to 120)
Partial synthetic executable analogues	32 of 40 (not full implementation)
No demonstrated executable analogue	8 of 40 (integration verification required)
Recheck date	30 October 2026 (author recheck, not third-party validation)
Timing unit	microseconds, in-process Python function elapsed time

Test class	Methods	Evaluated behavior
EvidenceLogicTests	12	Three-valued mandatory predicate conjunction; missing or invalid evidence; identity matching; contradictory required attributes; genuinely irrelevant predicates ignored.
IdentityTimeTests	15	Subscriber, PDU session and anchor identifiers and generations; missing epochs; inverted event intervals; event ordering, overlap and equal boundaries.
TrustAndRoamingTests	12	Subscriber trust withdrawal or acceptance before or after operations; ambiguous timing; home and visited context continuity; partial release, full release, relocation and mismatched generations.
QoDTests	15	Requested versus installed QoD and resource values; API-only success; missing operation epoch; bounded duration extensions; concurrent delete; reservation capacity; invalid inputs.
UsageTests	14	Meter delta across samples; counter resets; source and counter generations; usage-report rule identity; overlapping measurement intervals; duplicate reports; aggregation limits.
ChargingAndRecoveryTests	19	Charge-record availability versus final settlement; amount and currency validation; correction lineage and revision monotonicity; purpose-withdrawal timing; deferred liabilities; historical revisions.
Total	87	Synthetic unittest methods; subtest vectors run inside their parent method.

Scenario	Calls	Median	P95	P99
session_qualification	1500	0.331	0.470	0.501
roaming_home_visited	1500	0.991	1.032	1.423
meter_generation_delta	1500	0.741	0.791	0.831
sixteen_reservations	1500	0.851	0.891	0.932
eight_lifecycle_predicates	1500	2.414	2.534	2.984