Source-derived document; review findings and open questions with the application owner.

States

States

No authoritative, complete state model is available. The following states are bounded reconstructions of source declarations and reported behavior; they are not evidence of a deployed or integrated runtime. Screen states, commarea contents, persistence boundaries, response codes, and transition guards are incomplete E0001 E0013 E0026.

Online session states

The clearest recorded online sequence begins with an unauthenticated sign-on at CICS transaction CC00. COSGN00C displays the sign-on map, validates credentials against USRSEC, redisplays an error on failed validation, exits on PF3, and routes an authenticated ADMIN user to COADM01C; other authenticated users are routed to COMEN01C using XCTL and a commarea [COSGN00C.cbl; COSGN00.bms; COSGN00.CPY] E0028 E0030 E0034. The evidence therefore supports sign-on, validation failure, sign-on exit, administrator routing, and ordinary-user routing as intended states or transitions.

It does not establish session timeout, lockout, retry limits, identity propagation, authorization enforcement after routing, audit events, or behavior after task failure. Effective controls involving USRSEC, RACF, and user-maintenance programs remain unverified E0016 E0032 E0033.

Account and card interaction states

Recorded journeys include account view, account update, card listing, and card search. Account view reportedly reads cross-reference, account-master, and customer-master information. Account update validates screen and commarea values and may lock and rewrite account and customer records. Reported outcomes include missing-record handling, concurrent-update handling, and customer-update failure E0025 E0029.

These sources support at least the intended states of input display, validation, record lookup, update attempt, successful rewrite, missing data, concurrent update, and dependent customer-update failure. They do not establish whether an update is committed atomically, whether a failed dependent update reverses a prior account change, how locks are released, or what the user sees after each outcome. Exact validation remains uncertain because CSLKPCDY is absent E0029.

Transaction and payment states

Transaction processing is described as validating account and card relationships, limits, expiry, and references, then updating balances or account data and potentially writing rejects to DALYREJS. CBTRN02C visibly performs substantive validation and posting. Claims that CBTRN01C posts transactions are not supported by the visible absence of WRITE, REWRITE, or DELETE operations in that source [COTRN00C.cbl] [COTRN01C.cbl] [COTRN02C.cbl] [CBTRN01C.cbl] [CBTRN02C.cbl].

The supported or intended states are therefore validation in progress, validation rejection, posting attempt, posting completion, and reject handling. The evidence does not establish atomicity, commit or rollback behavior, duplicate suppression, reconciliation, recovery, or the precise boundary between accepted, posted, and rejected data.

Bill payment reportedly checks account existence, positive balance, duplicate transaction ID, and confirmation before creating a transaction and updating a balance. This indicates intended states for account lookup, eligibility validation, duplicate detection, confirmation pending, confirmed payment, and validation failure. Identifier generation and uniqueness, concurrency behavior, non-confirmation behavior, and commit semantics remain unproven E0029.

Batch and file-processing states

Batch intent covers initialization, loading and replacement, posting, interest and fee calculation, statements, reports, imports, exports, indexing, backup, cleanup, and scheduled workflows. CBEXPORT and CBIMPORT are described, but the export layout is unavailable and a possible sequential-versus-indexed file mismatch remains unresolved E0007 E0040 E0045. REPROCT.ctl confirms a REPRO from FILEIN to FILEOUT, but does not establish filtering or validation E0022.

These materials support intended states such as input available, processing, output produced, replacement performed, end-of-file reached, and utility completion. They do not establish partial-update behavior, EOF ordering, abend handling, restart points, rerun safety, compensation, or whether the named jobs execute in the reported order. JOURNAL(NO), RECOVERY(NONE), and ERROROPTION(IGNORE) are configuration risk indicators rather than proof of a particular runtime state or incident E0016 E0032.

External-processing states

Optional authorization processing combines MQ, IMS, DB2, and VSAM declarations. The evidence suggests request, validation or decision, persistence, and error paths, but does not establish a coherent cross-system state transition or atomic outcome. PAUTDTL1 declares 200 bytes while an unload uses LRECL=206; relationships among AUTHFRDS, DBPAUTP0, and differing error handling remain unresolved [COPAUA0C.cbl] [COPAUS2C.cbl] [DBPAUTP0.dbd] [UNLDPADB.JCL] E0009 E0011.

Queue receipt, downstream processing, database update, timeout, retry, duplicate handling, and compensation states are consequently unverified. More generally, queue names, endpoints, contracts, transformations, encodings, and external ownership are unknown E0035 E0046.

Failure, completion, and recovery states

The evidence contains intended error handling for validation failures, missing records, concurrent updates, customer-update failures, rejects, and selected utility conditions. It does not provide a complete failure taxonomy or demonstrate successful compilation, linkage, deployment, connectivity, execution, commit behavior, logging, backup, restoration, or recovery E0001 E0002 E0018 E0038.

Accordingly, “complete,” “committed,” “recovered,” and “safe to rerun” must remain unconfirmed states until execution-based characterization records return codes, datasets, bindings, commareas, commits, logs, external effects, and recovery behavior.

Automated evidence review

States review

The section is appropriately cautious and largely consistent with the supplied evidence. It correctly distinguishes source-level reconstruction from proof of an integrated runtime, and it identifies most major unknowns. The principal issue is that some inferred or nominal states are described as “supported” even though the evidence establishes only declarations, code paths, or reported intent.

Unsupported or overstated claims

• “Successful rewrite,” “posting completion,” “output produced,” “replacement performed,” and “utility completion” are not demonstrated runtime states. The evidence supports attempted operations or declared processing, not successful completion. These should be labeled as intended, declared, or candidate states.
• Account update evidence supports a possible lock and rewrite path, but not that a rewrite succeeds. Use “rewrite attempt” or “rewrite outcome” unless execution evidence exists.
• The transaction section appropriately notes that CBTRN02C visibly validates and posts, but “posting completion” still requires proof of commit, return code, and resulting data.
• The batch section says the materials support “input available” and “end-of-file reached.” REPROCT.ctl establishes a declared REPRO from FILEIN to FILEOUT, but does not prove that input was available, EOF was reached, or output was produced during execution.
• “Bill payment ... before creating a transaction and updating a balance” is supported as reported behavior or intended logic, but not as a proven runtime transition. The qualification should be repeated in that paragraph.
• “The evidence contains intended error handling” is generally fair, but some outcomes appear to come from reported journeys rather than directly observable implementation. Their provenance should be distinguished.

Gaps in the state model

The section correctly notes missing commareas and persistence boundaries, but it should explicitly identify the following unresolved elements:

• Entry and exit conditions for each transaction or screen.
• State identity across XCTL, LINK, task return, and commarea propagation.
• PF-key behavior beyond sign-on, including cancel, back, paging, and retry paths.
• Response codes, map contents, messages, and whether errors redisplay, terminate, or return to a prior state.
• Authentication versus authorization state after routing, including whether authorization is checked again at each function.
• Lock acquisition, lock release, timeout, and deadlock outcomes.
• CICS syncpoint and DB2/VSAM commit boundaries.
• Whether “accepted,” “posted,” “rejected,” and “settled” are distinct transaction states.
• Batch checkpointing, restart/restartability, rerun identity, duplicate suppression, and dataset disposition.
• Message correlation, delivery guarantees, timeout, retry, poison-message, and duplicate handling for MQ or other external processing.
• Recovery state transitions after abend, partial write, unavailable dependency, or operator intervention.

A compact transition matrix would make these gaps more visible, with columns for source, trigger, guard, side effect, persistence boundary, response, and evidence status.

Contradictions and evidence-quality issues

No direct contradiction exists between the opening disclaimer and the later reconstructed flows, because the draft generally calls them “clearest recorded” or “intended.” However, the wording should consistently distinguish:

1. directly visible source behavior;
2. reported behavior or journey descriptions;
3. inferred candidate states; and
4. unverified runtime outcomes.

There are citation-reference inconsistencies that weaken traceability. Examples include <span class="prsd-reference" title="Evidence E0026 retained privately">E0026</span>, <span class="prsd-reference" title="Evidence E0025 retained privately">E0025</span>, and the several citations where the evidence identifier and filename differ, such as E0007 linking to evidence-E0008.md. These may be deliberate aliases, but they should be normalized or explained.

The phrase “complete,” “committed,” “recovered,” and “safe to rerun” as “states” is imprecise. They are better described as verified outcome properties or operational conditions that remain unconfirmed.

Recommended adjustment

Retain the section’s structure, but rename nominal categories as “candidate states” or “declared transitions,” and reserve “supported state” for behavior directly shown by code or execution evidence. Replace claims of successful completion with “attempt,” “declared output,” or “candidate success outcome.” Add a short explicit statement that no state currently has a verified runtime precondition, postcondition, commit boundary, or externally observable result unless separately evidenced.