Human-Function Relations as Necessary Conditions for Whole-Person Judgment

An anatomical participation map identifies structures associated with a task; it does not, by itself, establish what a particular person can accomplish, what actually occurred, or which interpretation should change after new evidence. This theoretical study examines whether relations among requirements, bodily potential, actual realization, and consequences constitute necessary conditions for a whole-person reasoning engine. Target questions are specified independently of Unified Ontology of Human Function (UOHF) terminology. An answer-preservation theorem characterizes sufficient representations: situations requiring different answers cannot be merged into identical total accessible inputs. Constructed counterexamples examine task–anatomy mapping, process identification, cross-model interpretation, joint feasibility, future-state change, and evidence withdrawal. A separate finite-model construction demonstrates how qualified evidence and explicit inference rules can produce conditionally sound positive, negative, unresolved, and evidence–model incompatibility judgments. The results establish a question-relative semantic necessity: a system committed to these forms of whole-person judgment must preserve or reconstruct the distinctions relevant to its answers. This does not require a uniquely identifiable software layer, the adoption of UOHF terminology, or the reconstruction of every anatomical and physiological mechanism. Twenty-five synthetic checks, 3,840 representation–answer-table combinations, 768 finite evidence judgments, and 126 dynamic comparisons were executed. These tests verify the stated finite constructions; they do not constitute human-subject validation, clinical efficacy evidence, or proof of general diagnostic accuracy. The study provides a formal foundation for human-function-oriented reasoning within the UOHF, Human Function Task Decomposition and Bidirectional Reasoning (HFTD-BR), and Human Function World Model (HFWM) research programme. The necessity of answer-relevant functional relationships is distinguished from the empirical correctness, computational efficiency, and clinical utility of any particular implementation. Research status: Theoretical preprint, Version 1.3, not peer reviewed. The record includes corresponding English and Chinese manuscripts and reproducibility materials.