CICS Without RESP/RESP2
Why environment-dependent error paths collapse determinism — and why authority must refuse.
What RESP and RESP2 Do in CICS
In CICS, the RESP and RESP2 options capture execution status
for CICS commands.
EXEC CICS
READ FILE(ACCTFILE)
INTO(WS-ACCT-REC)
RESP(WS-RESP)
RESP2(WS-RESP2)
END-EXEC
These fields allow the program to branch explicitly based on success, recoverable error, or system failure.
The Problem: Missing RESP/RESP2
Many legacy COBOL programs invoke CICS commands
without capturing RESP or RESP2.
EXEC CICS
READ FILE(ACCTFILE)
INTO(WS-ACCT-REC)
END-EXEC
In this case, error handling is delegated to the CICS environment, not expressed in source code.
Why This Breaks Determinism
When RESP/RESP2 is omitted, runtime behavior depends on:
- CICS region configuration
- Transaction isolation level
- System error handlers
- Operational defaults
None of these are derivable from COBOL source artifacts.
Two environments running identical code may exhibit different behavior for the same error condition.
Why Testing Is Not Evidence
It is common to hear:
- “We’ve never seen it fail.”
- “The region is configured consistently.”
- “Ops would catch it.”
These statements describe observed behavior, not provable guarantees.
Authority cannot rely on environmental assumptions that are not encoded in source artifacts.
CICS Migration Failure Modes
When CICS programs without RESP handling are migrated, common failure modes include:
- Silent data corruption
- Unintended transaction rollback
- Inconsistent retry semantics
- Hidden partial commits
These failures often emerge only after traffic patterns or error rates change.
Why Authority Must Refuse
Issuing a GO decision would require assuming that the execution environment enforces specific, consistent error semantics.
That assumption is not provable from source.
Under Production · Regulated · High governance context, missing RESP/RESP2 therefore terminates authority.
Related provability boundaries include dynamic CALL resolution and ALTER control-flow mutation.
What Institutions Do When This Appears
Institutions typically respond by:
- Refactoring to explicit RESP/RESP2 handling
- Isolating CICS interactions behind wrappers
- Documenting refusal and proceeding with partial scope
How This Research Is Used in Governance
Authority records cite this page as the public definition of why CICS commands without RESP handling terminate deterministic guarantees.
This ensures refusals are consistent, auditable, and defensible years later.
Explicit Non-Claims
- No runtime simulation
- No compliance certification
- No probability or scoring
- No operational recommendations
- No prediction of behavior for any specific system
This article describes general provability boundaries associated with missing CICS RESP/RESP2 handling. It does not analyze any specific institution’s code and does not issue a governance decision.