6.6 Clause
Emergent behaviour
The group covers behaviour that appears when components or systems coordinate capabilities across knowledge domains. It is a property of the combination, not of any single component, and the draft defines it in clause 3.
What this settles
Emergent behaviour is the hardest capability to evidence and the easiest to ignore. A multi-agent system can produce a result no component was designed to produce, and the description has to make that possible to see.
Who it binds
The organisation, as a method choice. The clause sets no duty, but a system that can act in combination deserves a description at that level.
What to do in your practice
Record the coordination pattern, the domains involved and the tests that exercise the whole system rather than its parts. Include a scenario where agents disagree or loop, and record the observed outcome rather than the intended one.
Evidence an auditor or regulator asks for
| A coordination map with the domains each component contributes. | Shows where combination can change behaviour. |
|---|---|
| A whole-system scenario test including disagreement and loop cases. | Exercises the emergent level, not the parts. |
| An incident or near-miss note at the combination level. | Captures real evidence of the behaviour. |
What has this system done that no single component was designed to do, and where is that recorded?
Common gaps this page catches
- The system is tested component by component only.
- A looping or disagreeing agent scenario has never been run.
- An unexpected outcome is logged against one component, so the pattern is lost.
What to prepare before publication
Write three whole-system scenarios, including one where agents disagree and one where they loop. Record the observed behaviour and add it to the capability claim.
How to test it here
Take one live system rather than a template, find the field or sentence where Emergent behaviour is used, and put this page beside it. Record the answer, the artefact and the date. A glossary entry on its own is an intention; a dated record beside a live artefact is evidence.
What this page does not claim
The page does not reproduce the draft, does not know the descriptor wording that the public preview withholds, and does not certify the system or the organisation. It states the unit at the claim level "capabilities group" and stops where the public record stops.
Common questions
- What does Emergent behaviour mean in ISO/IEC DIS 42102?
- The group covers behaviour that appears when components or systems coordinate capabilities across knowledge domains. It is a property of the combination, not of any single component, and the draft defines it in clause 3.
- What evidence should we keep for 6.6?
- A coordination map with the domains each component contributes. A whole-system scenario test including disagreement and loop cases.
- Is Emergent behaviour a requirement?
- No. The draft is a descriptive framework. It sets no management system requirement and no conformity test. It becomes binding only when a contract, a regulator or a management system adopts it.
Related units
Last updated: · Markdown version · Check your system