Proof Obligation Names (Rodin User Manual)

Next is a table describing the names of context proof obligations:

Well-definedness of an Axiom	$m$ / WD	$m$ is the axiom name
Well-definedness of a Derived Axiom	$m$ / WD	$m$ is the axiom name
Derived Axiom	$m$ / THM	$m$ is the axiom name

Next is a table showing the name of machine proof obligations:

Well-definedness of an Invariant	$v$ / WD	$v$ is the invariant name
Well-definedness of a Derived Invariant	$m$ / WD	$m$ is the invariant name
Well-definedness of an event Guard	$t$ / $d$ / WD	$t$ is the event name $d$ is the action name
Well-definedness of an event Action	$t$ / $d$ / WD	$t$ is the event name $d$ is the action name
Feasibility of a non-det. event Action	$t$ / $d$ / FIS	$t$ is the event name $d$ is the action name
Derived Invariant	$m$ / THM	$m$ is the invariant name
Invariant Establishment	INIT. / $v$ / INV	$v$ is the invariant name
Invariant Preservation	$t$ / $v$ / INV	$t$ is the event name $v$ is the invariant name

Next are the proof obligations concerned with machine refinements:

Guard Strengthening	$t$ / $d$ / GRD	$t$ is the concrete event name $d$ is the abstract guard name
Guard Strengthening (merge)	$t$ / MRG	$t$ is the concrete event name
Action Simulation	$t$ / $d$ / SIM	$t$ is the concrete event name $d$ is the abstract action name
Equality of a preserved Variable	$t$ / $v$ / EQL	$t$ is the concrete event name $v$ is the preserved variable

Next are the proof obligations concerned with the new events variant:

Well definedness of Variant	VWD
Finiteness for a set Variant	FIN
Natural number for a numeric Variant	$t$ / NAT	$t$ is the new event name
Decreasing of Variant	$t$ / VAR	$t$ is the new event name

Finally, here are the proof obligations concerned with witnesses:

Well definedness of Witness	$t$ / $p$ / WWD	$t$ is the concrete event name $p$ is parameter name or a primed variable name
Feasibility of non-det. Witness	$t$ / $p$ / WFIS	$t$ is the concrete event name $p$ is parameter name or a primed variable name

Remark: At the moment, the deadlock freeness proof obligation generation is missing. If you need it, you can generate it yourself as a derived invariant saying the the disjunction of the abstract guards imply the disjunction of the concrete guards.