#FPF Ontology-Premise Reconciliation

A.7.2 · Stable · Architectural (A) · Normative · Part A - Kernel Architecture Cluster

#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: Architectural (A) Status: Stable Normativity: Normative

Use this pattern when two or more dated applications of current FPF methods or patterns yield ontology-claim or decision epistemes whose claims or practical consequences cannot jointly support the same receiving claim or consequence in the same scope. Trace each result to the exact pattern or method clauses, premises, and accepted source-use occurrences that the application actually used; a difference between texts alone is not a conflict. One material contradiction is enough; recurrent conflict is not required.

#Keywords

• dated FPF applications
• result claims or decisions
• same receiving claim or consequence
• exact used clauses and premises
• actual source-use relations
• context split
• optional convergence.

#Relations

#Content

#Use this when

Use this pattern when two or more dated applications of current FPF methods or patterns yield ontology-claim or decision epistemes whose claims or practical consequences cannot jointly support the same receiving claim or consequence in the same scope. Trace each result to the exact pattern or method clauses, premises, and accepted source-use occurrences that the application actually used; a difference between texts alone is not a conflict. One material contradiction is enough; recurrent conflict is not required.

The first useful move is to name the smallest receiving ontology claim and, for each dated application, the result claim or decision, the practical consequence it would support, and the exact clause, premise, or source use on which it relied. If the result claims or consequences differ by scope, stop with a context split instead of forcing agreement.

Not this pattern when. A vocabulary difference, unlike source function, or different subject with no shared practical consequence is not a premise conflict. Use A.7.1 for one engineering ontology defect, C.2.P/E.10 for wording use, direct evidence or formal owners for missing warrant, and source-currentness owners for stale editions.

The primary reader is an FPF maintainer, architecture steward, or pattern author responsible for a material cross-pattern contradiction. This pattern is a U.MethodDescription; an admitted U.System performs dated reconciliation U.Work under a distinct current U.RoleAssignment for an FPF author or maintainer role. The pattern episteme, reader, performing system, assignment, work, source uses, and returned FPF decision remain distinct.

#Problem frame

Neighboring FPF pattern and method epistemes can state different premises about existence, constitution, identity, dependence, obtaining, representation, agency, or formal projection. A dated application of a role-method clause may yield a decision claim that assignment work or a policy-valid instituting act must occur before responsibility obtains, while an application of a relation-method clause may yield a claim that a signed chart constitutes that same assignment. Both texts may be internally clear, yet the application results select different responsible systems for one maintenance action.

The governed concern is one bounded reconciliation of exact FPF receiving claims and their practical consequences. The ordinary result can be compatibility, separation, non-composition, no-conflict stop, or unresolved escalation. Convergence is not mandatory.

#Problem

A premise catalogue does not repair dated applications whose result claims conflict. Prestige ranking of sources can hide the receiving claim, while broad foundation rewriting can damage unrelated pattern decisions. Conversely, treating different source functions as automatically incomparable can leave a real same-claim contradiction unresolved.

Reconciliation must recover what each work occurrence actually used, what source content bore on the receiving claim, which direct owners decide evidence and currentness, and which smallest FPF decision must reopen.

#Forces

#Solution

#Recover the exact conflict

1. Name the smallest disputed receiving ontology claim and its current edition.
2. For each dated application, name its resulting ontology-claim or decision episteme, the practical consequence the receiving use would take from it, and the exact method clause, premise, or source-use occurrence on which the work relied.
3. Recover the exact FPF claim epistemes, dated application-work occurrences, direct kinds and relations, A.7.CP reasoning-basis occurrences, source-use occurrences, scope, and currentness.
4. Test whether the result claims support incompatible answers to the same receiving claim or practical consequence in the same scope. If not, return noConflictStop or contextSplit.
5. Compare exact source content through direct evidence, formal-semantics, domain, scope, and currentness owners. Do not rank source labels.
6. Translate candidate distinctions into FPF objects and constructive consequences. Test them against subject evidence and only the A7CP-* claims used by the reconciliation work.
7. Reopen the smallest FPF decision set, preserve unaffected direct-owner decisions, and repair the method clause or direct-owner decision that caused the dated applications to yield incompatible results. Run enough of the affected application again to obtain a checked result; do not stop at rewriting a premise list.
8. Return one declared result with affected use, stop, and reopen condition.

#Use one closed reconciliation result set

The result episteme uses exactly one local disposition:

• reconciledCompatibility — repaired clauses and checked application results now support compatible use for the named claim and scope;
• contextSplit — the claims or constructions are valid only in different named contexts or scopes;
• doNotCompose — both may remain current, but their outputs must not be combined for the named use;
• unresolvedEscalation — evidence or decision authority is insufficient, with the exact blocked use and receiving owner named;
• noConflictStop — the apparent conflict disappears after claim, consequence, or scope recovery.

These are reconciliation-result dispositions, not new U-kinds. Compatible co-use is demonstrated only when warranted. A current conflict does not have to end in one winner.

#Record claim-relative source use

OntologyClaimSourceUseRelation@Context records how one dated ontology-decision or reconciliation work occurrence actually consumes one source episteme for one receiving ontology claim. It is local to this use and does not create a universal source-authority relation.

OntologySourceUseFunctionValue ::=
  formulateReceivingClaim
  | constrainReceivingClaim
  | testOrStressReceivingClaim
  | interpretFormalOrImplementationSemantics
  | compareReceivingAlternatives
  | traceLineage

OntologySourceUseDispositionValue ::=
  adopt | adapt | reject | comparatorOnly | lineageOnly | unresolved

ReceivingClaimChangeDispositionValue ::=
  changed | unchanged | undeterminedPendingResolution

OntologyClaimSourceUseRelation@Context <: U.Relation

RelationSignature:
  SourceEpistemeSlot:
    SlotKind: SourceEpistemeSlot
    ValueKind: U.Episteme
    refMode: U.EpistemeRef
  ReceivingOntologyClaimSlot:
    SlotKind: ReceivingOntologyClaimSlot
    ValueKind: U.Episteme
    refMode: U.EpistemeRef
  OntologyDecisionWorkSlot:
    SlotKind: OntologyDecisionWorkSlot
    ValueKind: U.Work
    refMode: WorkRef

semanticDirection: SourceEpistemeSlot -> ReceivingOntologyClaimSlot
  through the named OntologyDecisionWorkSlot

RelationOccurrenceQualifiers:
  sourceUseScope: U.ClaimScope
  useFunction: OntologySourceUseFunctionValue
  sourceContentSliceRef?: U.EpistemeRef
  sourceContentKindRef?: U.KindRef
  modelUseStructureRef?: U.StructureRef
  sourceCurrentnessResultRef?: U.EpistemeRef
  receivingClaimCurrentnessResultRef?: U.EpistemeRef
  landedFPFDecisionRef?: U.EpistemeRef
  evidenceUseRelationRefs[]?: U.EntityRef
  disposition?: OntologySourceUseDispositionValue
  blockedOverreadRef?: U.EpistemeRef
  receivingClaimChangeDisposition?: ReceivingClaimChangeDispositionValue

OccurrenceIdentity:
  <exact source-episteme edition,
   exact receiving-claim edition,
   exact ontology-decision work occurrence,
   useFunction,
   sourceUseScope,
   maximalContinuousUseInterval>

The source participant is the exact source episteme and edition consumed. The receiving participant is the exact ontology-claim episteme and edition being formulated, constrained, tested, interpreted, compared, or traced. The work participant is the dated ontology-decision U.Work: its already admitted holder U.System performs that work under an exact current U.RoleAssignment. When an F.6 performedBy(W, RA) attribution is cited, RA.HolderSystemSlot must resolve to that same system; the assignment neither supplies the system nor performs the work.

The minimal occurrence needs only those three exact participants, useFunction, sourceUseScope, and the derived maximal continuous interval during which the named work actually consumes content from that source episteme for that receiving claim. Citation, access, bibliography membership, prestige, publication status, or co-location alone is insufficient. If the work consumes only a separately identified claim or content episteme inside the source, sourceContentSliceRef names that slice; it does not duplicate the source participant under a bundle alias. Changing a source or receiving-claim edition, work occurrence, function, scope, or demonstrated actual-use interval identifies another occurrence. A changed optional qualifier identifies another occurrence only when it changes the content or direct use predicate; a later review record alone does not.

Add modelUseStructureRef only when one independently selected BoundedModelUseStructure changes interpretation of this use. Add source-content kind, currentness-result, landed-decision, evidence-use, disposition, blocked-overread, or receiving-claim-change references only when the reconciliation work actually asserts or consumes that item under its direct owner. A recorded unresolved disposition needs no fabricated blocked-overread episteme; unchanged is recorded only when the work actually reaches that result, while absence of a change disposition remains no claim.

#Identify source-use conflict without ranking traditions

OntologySourceUseConflictFinding@Context <: U.Episteme cites two or more exact source-use occurrences and states a conflict only when their content bears on the same receiving claim or same practical consequence in the same scope and their conclusions cannot jointly hold.

Different use functions are neither automatically comparable nor automatically insulated. Compare their exact content through direct evidence, formal-semantics, domain, scope, and currentness owners. A finding can support adoption, adaptation, rejection, context split, non-composition, or unresolved return only with the exact counterexample, contradiction, proof consequence, or evidence relation that warrants it. “Stronger source” without claim-specific grounds is not a resolution.

#Stop and reopen

Stop with noConflictStop when the shared claim or consequence disappears after recovery. Stop with contextSplit or doNotCompose when that boundary truthfully protects the use. Stop unresolved only with the exact missing evidence or decision owner and blocked use.

Reopen when a source or receiving-claim edition changes, currentness changes, new domain or formal evidence bears on the same claim, a blocked overread becomes relevant, a landed decision changes, or later dated applications of repaired clauses yield incompatible same-scope consequences. Reopen only affected source-use, application-result, and receiving decisions.

#Archetypal Grounding

Compatible repair. One dated application of a role-method clause yields a decision claim that assignment work or a policy-valid instituting act constitutes a responsibility-bearing U.RoleAssignment. Another dated application of a neighboring relation-method clause yields a claim that a signed organization chart is sufficient to make the same assignment occurrence obtain. The two result claims select different responsible systems for one maintenance action. Reconciliation work recovers both result claims, their method clauses, source uses, and reasoning-basis uses of A7CP-01, A7CP-03, A7CP-05, and A7CP-06. It repairs the relation clause so the chart is evidence for an assignment assertion rather than constitution of the assignment, then checks the affected application result. The result is reconciledCompatibility; unrelated evidence and publication law stays unchanged.

Context split. One dated application uses a pattern's ComponentOf clause to classify a pump assembly; another uses a MemberOf clause to classify a maintenance-candidate set. Both result claims say “part”, but their subjects, receiving claims, constructions, and consequences differ. The result is contextSplit; neither source clause nor application result defeats the other.

Non-convergence. Two dated method applications yield incompatible same-scope dependence claims, but available evidence and formal consequences warrant neither correction. The result is doNotCompose for the affected assurance use or unresolvedEscalation with exact result claims, missing evidence or decision owner, and reopen condition. Familiarity or institutional status cannot manufacture convergence.

#Bias-Annotation

Lenses tested: Gov, Arch, Onto/Epist, Prag, Did. Scope: material cross-pattern ontology-premise conflicts in FPF.

The dominant biases are prestige hierarchy, forced convergence, and formal-shape authority. The mitigations are claim-relative source-use occurrences, same-claim/same-consequence tests, direct evidence/currentness owners, a smallest-decision repair, and truthful context-split/non-composition outcomes.

#Conformance Checklist

#Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

#Consequences

FPF gains a way to repair foundation conflicts without a total source hierarchy or an omnibus ontology pattern. The method can prove compatible co-use, preserve scoped pluralism, block composition, or return unresolved with an accountable reopen. The cost is exact source/receiving/work and currentness recovery; that cost is paid only for material conflicts.

#Rationale

The receiving claim supplies the adjudication question. This keeps source kind, currentness, evidence use, local use function, disposition, and claim change orthogonal. Repairing the smallest method decision preserves corpus stability, while non-convergence outcomes prevent a neat vocabulary from overruling absent evidence.

Repair the smallest foundation conflict; do not manufacture one foundation.

#SoTA-Echoing

Each row changes a source-use or comparison boundary in the Solution and cases. No row grants total authority to a source family, and a newer publication alone does not reopen unrelated FPF decisions.

#Relations

• Coordinates with: A.7.1. A.7.2 is neither its parent nor child; it handles material cross-pattern premise conflict and can return repaired direct-owner decisions to it.
• Consumes: exact claim contents from A.7.CP through actual ClaimUsedAsReasoningBasisRelation@Context occurrences; it does not copy or own the compact. Pattern and method epistemes supply clauses or declared premises, while dated application work and its result claims supply the reconciliation inputs.
• Defines: OntologyClaimSourceUseRelation@Context and OntologySourceUseConflictFinding@Context for bounded ontology-decision and reconciliation source use only.
• Coordinates with: A.10 for evidence use, G.11 for currentness, C.29 and direct formal patterns for formal semantics, C.2.1/E.17 for source epistemes and publications, and subject patterns for the receiving ontology claim.
• Preserves: current landed FPF decisions as default internal basis while allowing grounded, claim-specific reopen. It does not replace E.9.DA review or DRR discharge.
• Does not define: a universal source-authority kind, source role, prestige ranking, evidence relation, publication relation, or source-currentness relation.

#A.7.2:End

Last Updated: 2026-07-20 — this section last modified in upstream FPF commit d6af871b (github.com/ailev/FPF)