#Constructive-Premise Compact and Reasoning-Basis Use

A.7.CP · 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 reasoning, ontology analysis, choice, or reconciliation actually relies on a broad constructive claim and another person must be able to recover which claim, exact receiving claim or result, posture, scope, work occurrence, and interval carried that reliance.

#Keywords

• constructive-premise claim
• dated reasoning Work
• exact receiving claim or result
• adopted premise or conditional assumption
• ClaimUsedAsReasoningBasisRelation@Context
• selective reopen.

#Relations

#Content

#Use this when

Use this pattern when reasoning, ontology analysis, choice, or reconciliation actually relies on a broad constructive claim and another person must be able to recover which claim, exact receiving claim or result, posture, scope, work occurrence, and interval carried that reliance.

The first useful move is to name the dated reasoning work, each exact claim-bearing result or receiving decision it is forming, the exact A7CP-* claim IDs used for that result, and whether each use is an adoptedPremise or conditionalAssumption. Leave the other compact claims latent.

Not this pattern when. Citation, publication, shared vocabulary, ordinary A.7 category-error repair, source currentness, or a domain/evidence problem that uses no compact claim in reasoning creates no relation occurrence. This support pattern is not a method, performer, work plan, catalogue-reading episode, or problem-facing result.

The primary reader is an author or reviewer who must make one load-bearing constructive premise use recoverable. The governed object is one ClaimUsedAsReasoningBasisRelation@Context occurrence and the exact compact claim content it cites.

#Problem frame

Dated work applying an FPF method can rely on broad claims such as “a publication does not create world-side obtaining” or “a method episteme does not perform work”. A method episteme may separately state or cite one of those claims as a declared premise or branch condition under its own episteme/declaration owner. ClaimUsedAsReasoningBasisRelation@Context instead records only the claim on which one actual inference, comparison, or choice in dated work relies. Copying the claim into every method makes it drift; leaving the dated reliance implicit hides whether a particular result used an adopted premise, a conditional branch, or no common claim at all.

The compact publishes twelve stable claim contents once. A method description can declare an intrinsic premise or a branch condition under its own episteme/declaration owner; a dated application records only the compact claims actually used in its reasoning. Ordinary work therefore does not acquire a foundation checklist.

#Problem

Three conflations make premise use unreliable:

1. claim content is confused with the posture in which one work occurrence uses it;
2. citation or co-location is confused with actual reliance in reasoning; and
3. a support owner is treated as a method that performs or governs the consuming work.

The result is either hidden premises or a copied catalogue that becomes a second ontology authority. Both failures obscure occurrence identity and reopen behavior.

#Forces

#Solution

#Publish the compact once

The compact carries these stable claim contents:

1. A7CP-01 Existence and obtaining. World-side obtaining is not created by a claim, database row, predicate, or publication merely representing it.
2. A7CP-02 Constructive settlement. When identity, constitution, dependence, or obtaining changes a consequence, name the construction or direct governing relation that grounds it; a reconstructible trace is not itself the world construction.
3. A7CP-03 Constitution and social objects. Constituting acts, admitted systems, and the relations they institute remain distinct from descriptions of those acts and relations.
4. A7CP-04 Epistemic openness and fallibility. Evidence and reliance may remain unresolved without turning unresolved evidence into a third world-side obtaining mode.
5. A7CP-05 Representation boundary. Descriptions, logical forms, database rows, graphs, and publications represent or carry claims under exact relations; their form does not prove the represented ontic.
6. A7CP-06 Agency and work attribution. A method episteme describes a way of working; an admitted system under a role assignment performs dated work and produces results.
7. A7CP-07 Kind discipline. Use direct existing kinds and local admission before proposing a universal kind, root relation, or role-like surrogate.
8. A7CP-08 Scoped pluralism. Different source traditions or apparatuses may be useful for different receiving claims; compatibility is tested by consequences, not achieved through prestige hierarchy.
9. A7CP-09 Structure and wholeness. A description of structure is not the structure; not every construction is mereology, and C.13 remains the owner of constructional mereology only.
10. A7CP-10 Time, identity, and currentness. World-side temporal qualification, occurrence identity, claim/publication currentness, and source supersession are separate questions.
11. A7CP-11 Direct-owner separation. Capability, state, architecture, role, method, work, evidence, permission, and relation families retain their direct owners even when an ontology method diagnoses a conflict among them.
12. A7CP-12 Formal projection non-reversal. CT2R and formalization may preserve, collapse, or omit structure. Logical validity or representation form does not reverse-infer a unique world construction.

The twelve IDs form a stable closed compact in this pattern. They are not steps, completeness criteria for every ontology use, or twelve intrinsic premise kinds.

#Record actual reasoning-basis use

Premise and assumption name postures of exact claim use, not disjoint claim kinds.

ClaimUsedAsReasoningBasisRelation@Context <: U.Relation

RelationSignature:
  BasisClaimSlot:
    SlotKind: BasisClaimSlot
    ValueKind: U.Episteme
    refMode: U.EpistemeRef
  ReasoningWorkSlot:
    SlotKind: ReasoningWorkSlot
    ValueKind: U.Work
    refMode: WorkRef
  ReceivingReasoningResultSlot:
    SlotKind: ReceivingReasoningResultSlot
    ValueKind: U.Episteme
    refMode: U.EpistemeRef

semanticDirection: BasisClaimSlot -> ReceivingReasoningResultSlot
  through the named ReasoningWorkSlot
ReasoningBasisPostureValue ::= adoptedPremise | conditionalAssumption

RelationOccurrenceQualifiers:
  basisClaimIdRef: ClaimIdRef
  posture: ReasoningBasisPostureValue
  reasoningUseScope?: U.ClaimScope
  modelUseStructureRef?: U.StructureRef

OccurrenceIdentity:
  <exact basis-claim edition and claim ID,
   exact reasoning-work occurrence,
   exact receiving-result edition,
   posture,
   reasoningUseScope when present,
   maximalContinuousRelianceInterval>

BasisClaimSlot is the exact claim-bearing episteme and exact compact claim ID used. ReasoningWorkSlot is the dated reasoning, choice, ontology-analysis, or reconciliation U.Work that relies on it. ReceivingReasoningResultSlot is the exact claim, comparison, decision, or other claim-bearing result episteme whose content that work forms or revises using the basis claim. If the practical result is world-side, use the exact governed result claim that bears on it; the world-side object retains its direct owner. The already admitted holder U.System performs the work under an exact current U.RoleAssignment; when 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. Claim episteme, work occurrence, use posture, receiving result, and any world-side result remain distinct; the words “premise” and “assumption” are not relation participants.

The relation obtains during the maximal continuous interval in which the named work actually relies on the exact basis claim to form or revise the exact receiving result. Access, citation, publication, co-location, or use of the claim elsewhere in the same work is insufficient. reasoningUseScope appears only when this premise use is narrower than or otherwise differs from the receiving result's declared claim scope; modelUseStructureRef appears only when an independently selected BoundedModelUseStructure changes interpretation. Source currentness, evidence, publication, work method, and the receiving result's own governance remain with their owners.

One occurrence is identified by the exact basis-claim edition and ID, reasoning-work occurrence, receiving-result edition, posture, optional narrower use scope, and maximal continuous reliance interval. If one work uses the same basis claim for two independent results, record two relation occurrences that share the work participant but name different receiving results; do not duplicate the work. A change to any identity value ends or splits only the affected result-specific occurrence.

#Keep posture and transition explicit

adoptedPremise means the named work presently uses the basis claim as accepted support for the exact receiving result. conditionalAssumption means the work uses it for that result only in a narrower model, scenario, proof, or branch with an explicit test, defeater, or reopen condition. Every conditional assumption actually used can function as a premise inside that bounded subargument; not every adopted premise is conditional. Neither posture changes the basis-claim episteme's intrinsic kind.

The same claim can have different postures in different work or for different receiving results of one work. A posture transition creates a later occurrence only for the exact receiving result on that relation edge. Reopen that result and its dependents; another result of the same work remains closed when its separate premise-use occurrence and posture did not change.

#Use the cheapest truthful path

1. Name the exact reasoning work and each exact receiving claim, decision, comparison, or other claim-bearing result it is forming.
2. For each receiving result, cite only the compact IDs that are load-bearing.
3. Record one relation occurrence per exact basis claim, receiving result, posture, and continuous reliance interval; reuse the same work reference across independent results.
4. Name a narrower U.ClaimScope or selected BoundedModelUseStructure only when it changes this premise use.
5. Keep evidence, currentness, source use, kind admission, subject construction, work method, and result governance with their direct owners.
6. Stop when every load-bearing receiving result points to its exact premise-use occurrences. Do not inspect unused compact entries.

#Archetypal Grounding

Relation-occurrence repair. Ontology-analysis work splits one support relation into two occurrences after removal and reinstallation and returns SupportOccurrenceRepairDecision-17. That result relies on A7CP-01 and A7CP-10, so two reasoning-basis occurrences name the same work and receiving result but different basis claims. The other ten claims stay latent.

Role/chart reconciliation. Reconciliation work returns AssignmentConstitutionDecision-42, which distinguishes assignment constitution from a chart that evidences the assignment. Four result-specific relation occurrences connect that decision to A7CP-01, A7CP-03, A7CP-05, and A7CP-06. Source-use and evidence relations stay under their direct owners.

Same-work selective reopen. SupportRepairWork-19 returns both WarrantyClaimRepair-19 and IncidentAttributionRepair-19. Each has its own relation occurrence to A7CP-10. The warranty result uses that claim as an adopted premise; the incident result uses it as a conditional assumption while a removal timestamp is disputed. Evidence that settles that timestamp changes the posture only on the incident-result edge, so IncidentAttributionRepair-19 reopens while the unchanged warranty-result edge leaves WarrantyClaimRepair-19 closed.

No compact use. Missing telemetry blocks a state claim while the relevant state and evidence distinctions are already clear. Work returns to measurement/evidence. No compact claim is load-bearing, so no reasoning-basis occurrence is created.

#Bias-Annotation

Lenses tested: Gov, Arch, Onto/Epist, Prag, Did. Scope: cross-pattern constructive premise support and actual reasoning-basis use.

The main biases are foundation maximalism, premise-kind inflation, and trace-by-citation. The mitigation is one compact owner, exact claim IDs, two context-local postures, actual work participation, and a non-use rule that keeps ordinary reasoning cheap.

#Conformance Checklist

#Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

#Consequences

The compact makes broad constructive reliance recoverable without enlarging current A.7 or creating copied foundation variants. Ordinary users pay nothing unless a claim is actually load-bearing. The cost is precise claim/work/posture identity in consequential reasoning; the benefit is stable content ownership and bounded reopen.

#Rationale

Claim content and reasoning posture vary on different axes. Publishing the content once and recording use through a direct relation prevents both hidden premises and premise-kind inflation. Work participation makes the relation ontologically honest: an episteme can be used by reasoning work but cannot reason or act by itself.

Use only the premise the work actually relies on.

#SoTA-Echoing

The current-practice implication is practical: exact claim use and direct-owner boundaries matter more than a large premise catalogue. The worked cases demonstrate when two, four, or zero compact claims are used.

#Relations

• Defines: the twelve A7CP-* constructive claim contents and ClaimUsedAsReasoningBasisRelation@Context, whose direct result-specific edge states that dated reasoning work used one exact basis claim to form or revise one exact receiving result episteme.
• Is consumed by: dated work applying A.7.1 or A.7.2, which cites exact compact claims and exposes relation occurrences only for load-bearing actual reliance. The A.7.1 and A.7.2 method epistemes may separately declare premises or branch conditions under their exact episteme/declaration owner; neither method description is made a participant of ClaimUsedAsReasoningBasisRelation@Context.
• Coordinates with: current A.7 for its existing strict distinctions without broadening its EntityOfConcern, first move, Solution, or cases.
• Preserves direct ownership in: A.10 and G.11 for evidence/currentness, E.24/E.24.UK for ontology admission, subject construction patterns for constructive settlement, and A.7.2 for ontology source-use relations.
• Does not define: a premise method, source authority, evidence relation, work plan, performer kind, common realism checklist, or universal foundation ontology.

#A.7.CP:End

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