Constraint-Governed Unfolding Structure
About this pattern
This is a generated FPF pattern page projected from the published FPF source. It is canonical FPF content for this ID; it is not a FPF Reference product feature page.
How to use this pattern
Read the ID, status, type, and normativity first. Use the content for exact wording, the relations for adjacent concepts, and citations to keep active work grounded without pasting the whole specification.
Type: A.22 specialization of
U.StructureStatus: Stable Normativity: Normative unless explicitly marked informative
Use this when a team has a P2S flow card, a P2W carry-through note, an abductive prompt path, an improvement cycle, a narrative ordering, a typing-grounding trace, or a README first-entry seed, and the visible form helps but also misleads. It looks like a route, loop, chain, table, graph, or story, while the useful engineering question is not "which sequence should everyone follow?" but "which admitted records, current structures, typed positions, relation instances, constraints, and guards make each continuation admissible or inadmissible?"
Relations
Content
Use This When
Use this when a team has a P2S flow card, a P2W carry-through note, an abductive prompt path, an improvement cycle, a narrative ordering, a typing-grounding trace, or a README first-entry seed, and the visible form helps but also misleads. It looks like a route, loop, chain, table, graph, or story, while the useful engineering question is not "which sequence should everyone follow?" but "which admitted records, current structures, typed positions, relation instances, constraints, and guards make each continuation admissible or inadmissible?"
When that is the live question, name the object as ConstraintGovernedUnfoldingStructure@Context: an A.22-governed U.Structure whose SlotSpec-grounded positions, relation signatures, exact referenced values, cross-position constraints, invariants, guarded transitions, preserved structures, C.33 adequacy notes, direct governing-pattern exits, admissible next-form kinds, and use boundaries jointly constrain more than one continuation.
Use CGUS only after the candidate structure has more than one typed position and the relations or constraints among those positions affect admissible continuations. A single recommendation, diagram, slogan, pattern list, or document section is not enough.
Problem Frame
FPF often needs to explain how several admitted records, current structures, typed positions, and relations jointly constrain several admissible next forms without turning that explanation into a workflow. A problem card, G.2 source pack, architecture concern, candidate set, evaluation result, cue publication, and current U.Structure can participate through exact governed relations in pattern-use recommendations, candidate structures, rival hypotheses, evidence work, repair proposals, reader-facing narratives, or structure-use return conditions. The point is the recoverable constraint structure, including relation signatures, guards, preserved structures, C.33 loss notes, and direct governing-pattern exits, not a one-input-one-output conversion.
These structures can be architecture-facing, reasoning-facing, narrative-facing, improvement-facing, typing-grounding-facing, evidence-facing, currentness-facing, or first-use-facing. They share one structural need: typed positions are connected by relations and constrained together, so admissible continuations are recoverable only while the relevant structures, C.33 adequacy notes, guards, exits, and governing-pattern boundaries remain visible.
Problem
The problem is that a constraint-governed unfolding structure becomes unrecoverable when one route-shaped or loop-shaped description stands in for it.
First, the structure's typed positions, exact relations, constraints, preserved structures, C.33 adequacy notes, stop boundary, and direct governing patterns disappear behind decorative prose. Words such as "flow", "move", "unfold", "loop", or "route" remain, but no reader can recover what constrains a continuation.
Second, one demonstration of the structure becomes a fake workflow. A teaching sequence, diagram, README entry, prompt example, or happy path is treated as the order of real project work. Method, work plan, performed work, evidence, gate, decision, publication, and architecture claims then become unsupported inferences from displayed order.
Forces
Solution
Select ConstraintGovernedUnfoldingStructure@Context <: U.Structure as a thin A.22 specialization of U.Structure for constraint-governed unfolding across typed positions and exact governed relations.
A constraint-governed unfolding structure is a U.Structure whose typed positions, relation signatures, referenced relation values, constraints, invariants, guarded transitions, preserved structures, C.33 adequacy notes, and governing-pattern exits jointly constrain admissible next forms. It states how admitted starting records and already-current structures participate through exact relations. It makes no displayed-order claim about real work and fixes no cardinality of starting records, starting structures, or resulting records.
Do not read "unfolding" as a chain by default. The unfolding structure may be branching, merging, cyclic, partially ordered, or graph-shaped, and it may leave several alternative next forms live at once. Before the wider structure passes the admission test, a linear chain, seminar order, prompt path, or happy path remains a ProvisionalUnfoldingDemonstrationDescription@Context. After admission, a presentation of one traversal may be a DemonstrativeUnfoldingSlice@Context whose EntityOfConcern is that admitted CGUS.
Constraint-governed unfolding structure
The declared substrate is the structure being unfolded, not a topic label or container. specializedStructureRef is present only when one narrower U.Structure record is current, such as an E.18.3 transformation-flow specialization. That narrower record may point back through its unfoldingStructureRef; the reciprocal references state one generic-to-narrower specialization relation and do not create two unrelated unfolding structures. Accepted starting records and accepted starting structures remain different: a record may describe, publish, or evaluate a structure without becoming that structure. Every referenced entity retains its exact kind and direct governing pattern.
Dependent position, reference, and boundary relations
The two ...KindValue declarations are local closed enumerations, not U-kinds. Position filling ref and kind are both present or both absent. A relation signature is present when the referenced value is a relation. Every boundary names its governing pattern; only return names a conditional receiver.
StructuralInformationAdequacyNote@Context under C.33 carries captured, expected-but-uncaptured, lost, and hidden structure for a declared use. CGUS does not mint parallel loss or hiddenness fields. A use boundary is not permission, gate passage, evidence, assurance, or currentness refresh by itself.
Admission test
A readable chain is not sufficient for admission. Use CGUS only when the current structure recovers all of the following:
Branches or joins that are current remain visible. A cycle shown as "return to the start" is not thereby a chain. One slice may be linear because attention needs one path; the wider structure remains graph-shaped when its relations are graph-shaped.
Provisional demonstrations, admitted-structure descriptions, and demonstrative slices
A presentation may help discover positions and relations before any CGUS exists. Keep that pre-admission object as a C.2.1-conformant episteme about the actual subject-domain object, question, or proposed continuation set:
This local declaration form is an episteme, not a structure slice and not a new root kind. Its C.2.1 identity comes from its exact EntityOfConcern, DescriptionContext, optional grounding holon, ClaimGraph, reference scheme, and edition. entityOfConcernRef names the subject that the explanation is currently about; it may not point to a not-yet-admitted CGUS. Candidate positions and relations are claims to investigate, not admitted ConstraintGovernedUnfoldingPosition@Context or relation instances. At least one unresolved admission coordinate remains present while the description is provisional.
Once every coordinate in 4.2 is recoverable and the wider ConstraintGovernedUnfoldingStructure@Context is admitted, describe that structure without selecting a traversal through it by creating this C.2.1-conformant episteme:
Its EntityOfConcern is the admitted CGUS. Its ClaimGraph may describe branches, joins, cycles, partial orders, positions, relations, constraints, and admissible next forms without choosing one route through them. Carrier, diagram form, table layout, or publication location does not determine its identity. A new edition is required when the described CGUS edition, DescriptionContext, applicable grounding, ClaimGraph, reference scheme, preserved-structure account, adequacy account, declared use, or return boundary changes.
When one presentation selects a traversal or ordering through that admitted structure, create a different post-admission episteme:
The transition does not retype the provisional episteme or any subject-domain result. The admitted slice cites the provisional description only as its derivation basis, names the already-admitted CGUS as EntityOfConcern, and replaces candidate position and relation descriptions with exact admitted structure positions and relation references. Its edition changes when that CGUS edition, included positions, omitted-structure account, traversal or ordering rule, alternatives, use boundary, ClaimGraph, or reference scheme changes; carrier or rendering change alone does not. If admission later fails, the provisional explanation may remain useful under its declared use while the slice claim is withdrawn.
The local mode and presentation-form values are enumerations, not CharacteristicSpaces or U-kinds. Presentation form says how the episteme is rendered; it is not a carrier kind. Add an E.17 publication relation only when publication is current.
The E.18 triple is all present or all absent. When present, it locates this post-admission demonstration in one flow valuation and relates pattern-selection, selected-pattern-application, and downstream-subject-work slices without merging their structures, rows, work occurrences, or results.
Demonstrated pattern-use rows
When a local pattern mantra is admitted as a DemonstrativeUnfoldingSlice@Context, mantra move is bounded Plain wording for one DemonstratedPatternUseRow@Context inside that slice. The row consumes A.6.5 SlotSpec discipline, but A.6.5 does not govern the row's identity. The row is not a root U-kind, an operation, or a work occurrence. It shows one result-bearing conditional continuation. A short repeatable formula that only recalls one pattern's Solution may still be a useful local mantra without containing such rows and without becoming a CGUS.
In publicTemplate mode, exactly the public candidate, question, result, and continuation positions are filled; the project positions are absent. In projectCandidate mode, exactly the project candidate, question, expectation, and continuation positions are filled; the public positions are absent. Applicability, recommendation, WorkPlan, and Work refs appear only when those values already exist.
The result-flow position is always present. An unresolved direct-pattern choice opens a separate nested pattern-selection slice. That slice returns a candidate, finding, or recommendation used by the enclosing row; it does not become the enclosing result-producing structure.
Pre-execution slot-filling scaffold
A provisional demonstration can hold attention on visible candidate positions before execution and before CGUS admission. Each visible position initially points to a subject-domain object, question, or proposed continuation and states which A.22.CGUS admission coordinate remains unresolved. It does not yet point to an admitted ConstraintGovernedUnfoldingPosition@Context.
Fill the scaffold in small passes. First name the visible candidate positions. Then recover the exact objects, kinds, relation signatures, constraints, invariants, guards, preserved structures, C.33 notes, next-form kinds, and stop or return conditions that would satisfy 4.2. Keep every unresolved coordinate explicit in the provisional description. Only after the wider structure is admitted may a separate demonstrative slice replace candidate descriptions with exact structure-position and relation refs.
Minimal first use. Write three visible candidate positions such as candidate, evaluate, and repair; describe the proposed relation that would make repair conditional on an evaluation result; and show both accept candidate and repair candidate as possible continuations. Keep this as a ProvisionalUnfoldingDemonstrationDescription@Context while the exact position kinds, relation instance, guard, preserved structure, or use boundary remains unresolved. It already helps a team hold the branch in attention without asserting the wider CGUS.
After CGUS admission, create a separate DemonstrativeUnfoldingSlice@Context, cite the provisional description as derivation basis, and map only the recovered candidate material to exact admitted positions and relations. The scaffold helps design the wider graph; neither provisional nor admitted presentation asserts project work order or authorizes work.
Bounded names and bridge
Mantra is broader Plain didactic wording for a short repeatable formulation that keeps a local pattern's Solution in attention. The word alone does not recover one universal FPF kind. A.6.P, for example, can publish a local RPR mantra that recalls its repair order without claiming a wider unfolding structure.
Other patterns may keep an established local name such as mnemonic, watchword, or heuristic when that name better tells their readers what the aid does. A.19's common-space comparison mnemonic, A.15.1's CAC mnemonic, and E.8's seven-step heuristic need not be renamed mantra. Conversely, an acronym, title mnemonic, or retrieval label is not a local mantra merely because it is memorable. These are Plain didactic choices interpreted from the local Solution and reader use, not rival FPF kinds.
This pattern governs only the narrower case in which a local mantra presents admissible conditional continuations through a named wider constraint-governed unfolding structure. In that case, mantra may name the admitted DemonstrativeUnfoldingSlice@Context, and mantra move may name one DemonstratedPatternUseRow@Context inside it. Neither label grants method, plan, order, authority, work, or teaching-medium identity.
Ordinary bounded use
In public FPF explanation, call the admitted slice a demonstrative walkthrough. In the bounded seminar context recorded below, mantra is the shorter repeatable name for that same demonstrative episteme. One mantra move is a DemonstratedPatternUseRow@Context: it names the direct pattern, its Solution, the expected result, and the condition for continuing. Outside this admitted CGUS-demonstrative use, interpret a local mantra from the pattern's own Solution and context rather than forcing it into DemonstrativeUnfoldingSlice@Context.
Naming assurance
The following F.18 cards and directional Bridge preserve the lexical and contextual decisions behind those Plain labels. The separate LocalSenseBasisRelation@Context values identify which public pattern episteme or seminar publication episteme supports each local sense. NameCards support naming review; the basis relations support the bounded sense lines. Neither adds a step to CGUS application.
The local relation species and its SlotKind, ValueKind, RefKind, direction, dependence, and identity are declared in F.17:5.1. SeminarExpression.FPFPracticalUse.2026-07-11 is the seminar content as a U.EpistemePublication; the .pptx and extracted Markdown are separate carriers or renderings.
The bridge is directional; shared reference to one governed value does not erase the sense difference. It governs only the two senses of this CGUS-demonstrative value and does not govern every local pattern mantra. The seminar publication expression supplies the teaching problem and the local-sense basis; its carriers do not. Dictionaries supply English lexical and etymological evidence, while F.18 plus reader-use tests decide the bounded names. A changed NameCard therefore reopens naming without silently changing the public or teaching sense. A changed SenseCell address, basis-episteme edition, bounded context, or cited publication unit reopens the corresponding LocalSenseBasisRelation@Context; a changed supported-sense claim or use boundary opens a new LocalSenseBasisRelationDescription@Context edition. F.18 remains the naming procedure.
Direct Governing Pattern Exits
CGUS carries the unfolding structure. It does not absorb stronger claims.
Use the word refresh only when a currentness, telemetry, edition, decay, or slice-local refresh claim is actually current. Otherwise use plain return, stop, split, or repair wording and name the direct governing pattern.
Direct Governing-Pattern Dependent Records
Some CGUS uses need dependent records that keep adjacent method, work, evidence, architecture, description, or publication claims inspectable. A.22.CGUS does not define those record schemas. Reliance on a stronger claim is admitted only when the corresponding CGUS field names its direct governing pattern.
For method and work linkage, use MethodWorkUnfoldingLinkage@Context, governed by A.15, only when a named receiving use relies on that relation remaining inspectable across method, method description, role assignment, capability-fit condition, work plan, readiness, performed work, evidence, assurance, or gate positions. If only one method, work-plan, readiness, performed-work, evidence, assurance, or gate claim is current, use that direct governing record instead.
For architecture use, use the C.32.P2S-owned ArchitectureUnfoldingStructureUse@Project only when a named unfolding structure is being used as architecture-relevant structure in problem-to-structure architecturing. If the current claim is only grounded architecture, structural view, architecture description, decision, ADR-like projection, measurement, eval, or performed realization work, use the direct pattern for that claim.
This keeps A.22.CGUS thin: it governs the constraint-governed unfolding structure and its safe next-use boundary, while A.15, C.30, C.32, evidence, gate, publication, and domain patterns govern the adjacent records that carry stronger claims.
Promoted Core Family Cue Examples
The FPF core may promote a few short family cues when a cue helps readers recover a familiar governing pattern and a common blocked overread. This is an example device, not a maintained list of all CGUS families.
For example, UF.P2S can be useful when an architecture-facing question moves from problem pressure to candidate, selected, expected, or actual structures. The cue points the reader toward C.32.P2S and warns that a P2S card is not itself the architecture decision, architecture description, ADR, or realization work.
For example, UF.IMP can be useful when an object version, evaluation frame, candidate repairs, and re-evaluation are current. The cue points toward E.23 and warns that a retry loop or prompt loop is not quality improvement by shape.
For example, UF.REFRESH can be useful when a G.11 source-currentness relation, telemetry, evidence decay, or edition shift is current. The cue points toward G.11 and warns that a stale reference set is not current authority.
If no promoted cue helps, omit the cue. Do not invent a core UF.* cue merely to make a CGUS use look governed. DPFs and project-local frameworks may carry their own local cue examples when useful, but the governing claim still comes from the local governing-pattern map and the relevant pattern bodies.
Replay and change localization
Replay one CGUS use from its bounded context, unfolded structure, subject EntityOfConcern and kind, current position fillings, exact referenced relation instances, constraints, invariants, guards, preserved structures, C.33 adequacy notes, admissible next-form kinds, and use boundaries. For each selected continuation, recover the relations and guards that admit it and the direct pattern governing any stronger claim. A demonstrative slice is replayable only as one declared presentation of that wider structure.
Localize a change before reopening wider work. A changed relation instance reopens that reference and its dependent guards or continuations. Changed omitted structure reopens the affected C.33 adequacy note and any slice relying on it. A changed presentation changes the demonstrative slice without changing the CGUS unless it reveals missing or false structure. A freshness, edition, telemetry, or decay change is handled by its exact G.11 relation. A changed method, work, evidence, architecture, publication, or formal claim returns to the direct governing pattern for that claim. Rebuild the wider CGUS only when its structure identity, position set, relation structure, constraints, or declared use boundary has changed.
Worked Slices
Architecture P2S slice. A team starts with architecture-relevant problem pressure. The unfolding structure may relate problem pressure, unknown structures, candidate structures, architecture characteristics, one ProjectArchitectureDecision@Context governed by C.32.PAD, realization-work linkage, actual-structure feedback, and return conditions. The P2S flow card can describe those relations, but the decision relation remains governed by C.32.PAD, architecture descriptions by C.30.AD, and planned or performed work by the A.15 family.
Abductive search slice. An inquiry starts from an abductive prompt and a cue set selected for the search. The unfolding structure may relate rival hypotheses, plausibility constraints, hypothesis-generation positions, evidence-return relations, and downstream tests. The structure is not evidence; evidence appears only when an evidence pattern governs the claim.
Improvement-loop slice. A pattern version has an evaluation frame and current evaluation result. The unfolding structure may relate E.22 CandidateImprovementProposalRow@Context values, protected tradeoffs, scale-qualified E.23 ExpectedEvaluationResultChange@Context predictions, one ImprovementLoopDecisionValue, and re-evaluation. The loop is not improvement by shape; E.23 governs repeated improvement only after the object version, evaluation frame, proposal rows, expected result changes, loop decision, and stop or return boundaries are recoverable.
First-entry seed slice. A README entry says "develop or review architecture." That line may seed an entry unfolding among problem-side records, candidate first governed records, likely governing-pattern returns, and next readable outputs. The README line is a seed description, not the project's unfolding structure and not a universal FPF route.
Field-filled scaffold slice. A team has a visible card sequence "problem pressure -> candidate options -> eval -> repair." At first this is a ProvisionalUnfoldingDemonstrationDescription@Context about the cooling-design question and proposed continuations. After every admission coordinate below is recoverable, the team may admit the wider CGUS and create a separate demonstrative slice over it:
The same visible chain helps planning because each position asks for a slot. It does not make the project follow that order and does not authorize work.
Local relation repair slice. Later EvaluationResult@thermal-margin-v2 becomes the current result for the same cooling candidate. Keep the candidate set, structure positions, service-access constraint, maintainable-cooling-path invariant, and return boundaries. Replace only the referenced CandidateEvaluatedByResult relation instance, then re-evaluate RepairAdmissionGuard under its direct governing pattern. If the new result does not satisfy the guard, remove repair candidate from the admissible next forms and update the demonstrative slice that showed that branch; the unrelated accept candidate continuation remains live. A changed result therefore repairs one relation and its dependent guard before it changes a wider graph.
Schema-completion proxy failure. A team counts filled CGUS fields and adds weakly used references until the completion count rises. Update effort then grows, practitioners stop repairing changed relation instances, and wrong next-form choices increase. The count describes field population only; it does not establish recoverability, currentness, or practical value. Remove references without a receiving use, evaluate whether practitioners recover the correct live alternatives and smallest repair, and use [E.13](/generated/patterns/E.13) when field completion is substituting for those outcomes.
Reference-currentness slice. A SoTA pack relies on telemetry and admitted publication editions that can decay. CGUS may relate the current reference set, edition-shift relations, decay triggers, possible deprecation or reship records, and a return boundary. The structure is not the currentness claim; [G.11](/generated/patterns/G.11) governs freshness, telemetry, decay, deprecation, reship, and no-change claims.
Physical-modeling slice. A team models a physical system or another governed EntityOfConcern whose behavior depends on component relations, conservation-like constraints, operating modes, calibration data, and analysis goals. CGUS may relate the model structure, admitted measured data, mode-change relations, compiler boundary, solver boundary, surrogate-substitution relation, and returns to calibration or model-discovery work. In a digital-twin case, the physical entity, digital model, measured-data history, simulation outputs, services, and bidirectional correspondence relations keep their exact kinds and direct governing patterns. A simulation run, generated code, exchange package, AI-assisted model edit, calibration result, and digital-twin publication are separately governed results. Acausal modeling is useful here because it shows that relations and constraints can be stated before a calculation direction is chosen; [C.29](/generated/patterns/C.29), [G.11](/generated/patterns/G.11), [E.23](/generated/patterns/E.23), evidence patterns, and domain DPF patterns govern stronger mathematical, currentness, evaluation, evidence, or domain-validity claims.
Formal-expression boundary slice. A team expresses part of the cooling CGUS as a DCR graph or constraint-solver model to check whether the repair candidate branch is reachable under RepairAdmissionGuard. The expression preserves selected positions, dependency relations, and the guard. It loses direct governing-pattern exits, C.33 adequacy notes, and any relation not encoded in the chosen formalism. Record that preservation and loss under [C.29](/generated/patterns/C.29), use the output only for the declared reachability question, and return to CGUS before selecting the next form. Satisfiability or reachability does not establish that the expression is the CGUS, prescribe performed-work order, prove architecture adequacy, or authorize work.
Method-to-work linkage slice. A method description is admitted because it may realize a governed structure change or change set. CGUS may organize the method relation, work-plan seed, readiness condition, expected structure effect, evidence or gate linkage, and stop condition. It does not authorize work. The method, plan, work-entry readiness, performed work, evidence, assurance, and gate claims remain with A.3, A.15, A.10, B.3, A.20, and A.21.
Bias-Annotation
Conformance Checklist
Common Anti-Patterns And Repairs
Consequences
CGUS gives FPF a way to preserve route-shaped usefulness without turning route-shaped artifacts into workflows. A practitioner can see admitted starting records, current starting structures, constraints, possible next forms, alternatives, and return conditions while still knowing which direct pattern governs method, work, evidence, gate, decision, architecture, publication, refresh, or mathematical use.
The cost is extra kind discipline. CGUS admission depends on named typed positions, exact relation references, cross-position constraints, preserved structures, C.33 adequacy notes where the presentation omits relevant structure, non-admissible overreads, and direct pattern exits. If that is too heavy, the right result is a compact provisional demonstration description; an admitted demonstrative slice becomes available only after the wider CGUS exists.
Rationale
The selected design is a thin A.22 specialization of U.Structure because the recurring object is real but not a new root ontology. Constraint-based process modeling, case-management practice, artifact-centric modeling, acausal modeling, architecture-description practice, and FPF's own pattern use all separate a constraint-bearing structure from a performed trace, work order, view, publication, solver run, or example path. FPF adopts that separation as a constraint-governed unfolding structure and refuses to import one universal process calculus.
Physical modeling makes the same distinction concrete. In acausal modeling, component relations, quantities conserved across connections, and mode conditions can be declared before the model is compiled and solved in one chosen direction. The FPF import is only the general architecture of the move: structure and constraints first; derived calculation, demonstration, calibration, publication, or work use later under direct governing patterns.
CGUS is deliberately close to A.22. It is a U.Structure over a declared substrate in a bounded context. Descriptions, views, graph renderings, route cards, README entries, and examples help humans use it; they do not become it.
SoTA-Echoing
As of 2026-07-11, OCPQ supplies the current research comparator for typed multi-object constraint queries, while Modelica 3.7 and Dyad 3.1.0 supply the current engineering comparator for relation-first acausal models separated from analyses and execution artifacts. The older CMMN, Declare, DCR, and artifact-centric rows provide lineage and known distinctions, not present-day authority by age or official status. These sources changed 4.2 by requiring graph-shaped and many-to-many recovery, 4.3 by separating a demonstration from the wider structure, and the physical-modeling slice by separating reusable relations from analysis and execution. Reopen these adoptions when a newer object-centric constraint method changes the treatment of objects or relations, when the modeling languages change component-relation or analysis separation, or when use evidence shows that the imported distinction no longer prevents chain or execution-artifact overread.
Relations
Specializes: the A.22 use of U.Structure when the selected structure is ConstraintGovernedUnfoldingStructure@Context and its typed positions, exact referenced relations, cross-position constraints, preserved structures, C.33 adequacy notes, admissible next-form kinds, and direct governing-pattern exits are current.
Specialized by: E.18.3 for transformation-flow unfolding structures, and by local blocks in E.18.1, C.32.P2S, B.5.2, A.6.3.NAR, E.23, C.13, B.3.5, and C.3 when their admission tests pass.
Coordinates with: E.11 for public practical-use card expansions, ordinary walkthroughs, and admitted CGUS-demonstrative walkthroughs, E.10.MOVE and C.2.P.DR for lexical and declarative-representation repair, C.18, C.19, and G.5 for archive, front, live-pool, and selected-set claims, G.11 for currentness and refresh claims, and E.17 for publication of provisional descriptions or admitted demonstrative slices.
Does not replace: A.3.1, A.3.2, A.15, A.10, B.3, A.20, A.21, C.30, C.32.PAD, C.32.ADR, C.29, G.11, or any direct governing pattern for stronger claims.
A.22.CGUS:End
Last Updated: 2026-07-09 — this section last modified in upstream FPF commit e2453d1a (github.com/ailev/FPF)