  In the lambda calculus a term is solvable iff it is operationally relevant.
Solvable terms are a superset of the terms that convert to a final result
called normal form. Unsolvable terms are operationally irrelevant and can be
equated without loss of consistency. There is a definition of solvability for
the lambda-value calculus, called v-solvability, but it is not synonymous with
operational relevance, some lambda-value normal forms are unsolvable, and
unsolvables cannot be consistently equated. We provide a definition of
solvability for the lambda-value calculus that does capture operational
relevance and such that a consistent proof-theory can be constructed where
unsolvables are equated attending to the number of arguments they take (their
"order" in the jargon). The intuition is that in lambda-value the different
sequentialisations of a computation can be distinguished operationally. We
prove a version of the Genericity Lemma stating that unsolvable terms are
generic and can be replaced by arbitrary terms of equal or greater order.
