#Architecture Structural View Adequacy (ASV)

C.30.ASV · Cluster C.IV - Composite & Macro-Scale · Stable · Architectural pattern · Normative unless explicitly marked informative · Part C - Kernel Extension Specifications

#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 pattern Status: Stable Normativity: Normative unless explicitly marked informative

Use this pattern when an architecture discussion needs to say which selected structure is being viewed, not merely that there is a diagram, model, table, dashboard, ADR, generated relation graph, or generic "view".

#Keywords

• architecture structural view
• ArchitectureStructureKindRef
• VF.ARCH.STRUCTURE
• viewpoint bundle
• structure kind
• hidden/lost structure
• correspondence
• source return.

#Relations

#Content

#Problem frame

Use this pattern when an architecture discussion needs to say which selected structure is being viewed, not merely that there is a diagram, model, table, dashboard, ADR, generated relation graph, or generic "view".

The first useful move is ArchitectureStructureKindTriage@Project:

ArchitectureStructureKindTriage@Project:
architectureClaimRef?:
describedHolonRef?:
boundedContextRef?:

architecture concern cue:
suspected wrong collapse:
practitioner prompt label:
candidate structure kinds:
smallest useful structure-kind set:
primaryGoverningPatternApplicationRef:
admissibleArchitectureMove:
governingPatternApplicationRefs:
stop condition:

Ordinary minimum: name the architecture claim being made or selected structure, or the described holon and bounded context when the claim is not yet recoverable, the one structure kind or structure-kind set that changes action, one non-admissible overread, and the next admissible architecture move or stop. All other fields are conditional and may be not used.

Start with [C.30](/generated/patterns/C.30) when the architecture claim itself is unclear. Use C.30.ASV only when a view over selected architecture-relevant structure changes the next architecture move. Use the triage record when it names the structure kind under consideration and the next admissible architecture move. Use a full ArchitectureStructuralView@Context only when the view changes action, selected reliance relation, correspondence, source return, publication, comparison, or another governing-pattern use.

What goes wrong if C.30.ASV is missed: "architecture" silently means "module diagram"; a view becomes a publication face; a viewpoint becomes a structure kind; TEVB is stretched into a full architecture ontology; a Transduction Graph Architecture (TGA) graph, Layered Control Architecture (LCA) control sketch, code-agent relation graph, or neural-network block diagram becomes the architecture by appearance.

What C.30.ASV buys in practice: the practitioner can name the architecture claim, selected structures, structure kind, viewpoint, selected relation kinds, selected constraints, selected invariants, operation or dynamics descriptions being used, hidden or lost structure, correspondence, source or reliance relation, source-return condition, admissible use, and non-admissible use before relying on a view.

Not this pattern when the question under repair is only the general architecture claim, structure as such, or a TGA graph relation, path relation, or crossing relation. Use [C.30](/generated/patterns/C.30), [A.22](/generated/patterns/A.22), [E.18](/generated/patterns/E.18), or C.30.TGA-FLOW-REL as appropriate. If the view is used for another claim being made, use the governing pattern and keep C.30.ASV only to the view portion.

Thin precision-restoration pointer: if the issue under repair is still whether view, architecture view, architecture structural view, diagram, model, graph, layer, or functional architecture names a structural view, an architecture description, a publication face, a carrier, a source relation, or another governed claim or relation named by value, use [C.30.P](/generated/patterns/C.30.P) first. Do not copy the [C.30.P](/generated/patterns/C.30.P) trigger table here; apply C.30.ASV only after the architecture structural-view claim or non-ASV claim named by value is recoverable.

#Problem

An architecture structural view is selected-structure triage for an ArchitectureOf@Context claim: which architecture-relevant structure is being viewed, which structure kind is under consideration, what relation, constraint, invariant, operation, dynamics description, hidden or lost structure, correspondence, source or reliance relation, and source-return condition changes the next architecture move. The view is represented as a Description episteme, including an episteme-lane U.View when the view claim is being made, only to record that selected-structure move. Publication faces, forms, units, carriers, and renderings may publish the view; they are not the view and do not become the selected structure.

Without this pattern:

• a module-interface view is treated as all architecture;
• a TGA graph or control diagram is treated as proof;
• a structure kind is treated as a U.Viewpoint;
• a TEVB viewpoint bundle is mutated to carry architecture-specific structure kinds;
• a diagram, table, dashboard, generated relation graph, or ADR is treated as the view itself;
• functional architecture is treated as a peer ontology rather than a structure-kind interpretation under C.30;
• cross-view consistency is asserted by prose instead of correspondence records;
• omitted structure is relied on in subsequent work without a source-return condition.

#Forces

#Solution

Govern architecture structural views by first naming the selected architecture-relevant structure, structure kind, view construction, correspondence, hidden or lost structure, source or reliance relation, source-return condition, admissible use, and next architecture move. Use ArchitectureStructuralView@Context as the record form when that view must be durable, reusable, comparable, or reliance-bearing.

A conforming ArchitectureStructuralView@Context record is a Description or view over selected U.Structure references in one ArchitectureOf@Context claim record, under one declared ArchitectureStructureKindRef and one DescriptionContext.ViewpointRef. The description and view machinery makes the selected-structure move inspectable; it does not replace that move.

C.30.ASV is the selected-structure-kind-to-view relation pattern for architecture work. It explains how different selected structure kinds become views under declared viewpoints and concerns. It is not a complete architecture-description pattern; a durable ArchitectureDescription@Context composes one or more structural-view records through C.30 and E.17.0 only when description use is being made.

C.30.ASV does not extend the TEVB core viewpoint set by implication. It defines architecture structure kinds and architecture-specific structure-kind and view-record bindings. TEVB viewpoints are reused when the structure-kind view uses one of the TEVB core viewpoints; other structure-kind views use VF.ARCH.STRUCTURE, a declared local viewpoint bundle, a governing FPF pattern, or a source or reliance record.

#Architecture structural view record

StructuralAspectDescription@Context describes one selected structural aspect under A.22. It is not an ArchitectureStructureKindRef by itself. ArchitectureStructuralView@Context is a C.30.ASV view over structures selected by ArchitectureOf@Context and typed by ArchitectureStructureKindRef.

ArchitectureStructuralView@Context ::= {
  viewId,
  architectureClaimRef: ArchitectureOf@ContextRef,
  descriptionContext: DescriptionContext(
    EntityOfConcernRef = selectedStructureEntityOfConcernRef,
    BoundedContextRef = ArchitectureOf@Context.boundedContextRef,
    ViewpointRef = viewpointRef
  ),
  selectedStructureEntityOfConcernRef: U.StructureRef | FinSet(U.StructureRef) (= structureRefs),
  viewpointRef: U.ViewpointRef (= descriptionContext.ViewpointRef),
  structureRefs: FinSet(U.StructureRef),
  structureKindRef: ArchitectureStructureKindRef,
  recordGoverningPatternRef,
  selectedRelationKinds,
  selectedConstraintRefs?,
  selectedInvariantRefs?,
  selectedOperationOrDynamicsDescriptionRefs?,
  viewConstruction:
    directDescription | projection | query | extraction |
    coarsening | correspondenceSlice | sourceReturnSlice,
  structuralAspectDescriptionRef?,
  hiddenOrLostStructure,
  structureKnowledgeState?:
    declared | observed | inferred | generated | simulated |
    extracted | hypothesized | unknownRegionPresent,
  correspondenceModelRefs?,
  sourceOrRelianceRelationRefs?,
  sourceReturnCondition?,
  admissibleUse,
  nonAdmissibleUse
}

DescriptionContext.EntityOfConcernRef names the selected structure or selected structure set represented by structureRefs. architectureClaimRef names the enclosing ArchitectureOf@Context claim, and the described holon and bounded context are recovered through that claim record.

EntityOfConcern discipline. C.30.ASV treats selected structure as the EntityOfConcern for this view use when the view concerns dependent, non-agentive organization rather than one publication artifact. This does not add a parallel EntityOfConcern head: DescriptionContext.EntityOfConcernRef, selectedStructureEntityOfConcernRef, and structureRefs must converge on the same selected structure or structure set, while architectureClaimRef remains the enclosing architecture-claim context. viewpointRef is a recovery label for descriptionContext.ViewpointRef, not a second independent viewpoint slot. If the implementation stores only DescriptionContext, the viewpoint remains recoverable there.

structureKnowledgeState? states how the selected structure is known when partial knowledge matters: declared, observed, inferred, generated, simulated, extracted, hypothesized, or with an unknown region present. Unknown or inferred structure may guide inspection or source return; it cannot by itself supply assurance, gate, release, causal proof, or architecture decision.

#Architecture structure-kind classifier

ArchitectureStructureKindRef is a C.30-local DiscriminatorToken enumeration over architecture-relevant U.Structure references selected by ArchitectureOf@Context. It is not U.Kind, U.Viewpoint, U.ViewpointBundle, StructuralAspectDescription, StructuralView@Context, or a root U.* kind. ArchitectureStructuralView@Context uses structureKindRef to say which selected structure kind is being viewed.

ArchitectureStructureKindRef ::= one of {
  FunctionalStructure,
  FlowTransductionStructure,
  ControlStructure,
  ModuleInterfaceStructure,
  RuntimeInteractionStructure,
  PlacementDeploymentStructure,
  InformationDataStructure,
  SecurityTrustBoundaryStructure,
  ConstraintRequirementStructure,
  MaterialSpatialStructure,
  DeclaredLogicalStructure,

  WorkMethodStructure,
  RoleEnactorStructure,
  EvidenceAssuranceStructure,
  ScaleEvolutionStructure,
  OtherDeclaredStructureKind
}

The first group is the seed classifier set for ordinary architecture structural-view use. WorkMethodStructure, RoleEnactorStructure, EvidenceAssuranceStructure, and ScaleEvolutionStructure are neighbor-governed classifier values: ASV may use them to name the selected architecture-relevant structure, but their full semantics stay in the named work and method, role-enactor, evidence and assurance, scale, characterization, or mathematical-lens patterns. Do not enumerate structure kinds by default. Choose the smallest useful structure-kind set that changes the next architecture move. If no structure kind changes action, keep the phrase as ordinary recognition wording or a source note. This does not weaken kind discipline; it prevents ArchitectureStructureKindRef from becoming an audit checklist.

Inside C.30.ASV, OtherDeclaredStructureKind is always an architecture-structure-kind classifier value over U.Structure; it does not mint a general FPF root kind.

OtherDeclaredStructureKind is admissible only when the local text names:

• declaredStructureKindName;
• declaredStructureKindDefinition;
• allowed relation families;
• common false interpretations;
• governing-pattern applications;
• boundedContextRef.

Each structure kind needs a short definition, allowed relation families, common false interpretations, typical governing-pattern applications, and example architecture structural view records. This is not a new root-kind set; it is a controlled classifier set over U.Structure.

#Small triage output

Use ArchitectureStructureKindTriage@Project before a full view record when the practitioner only needs to identify the structure kind under consideration and next architecture move.

ArchitectureStructureKindTriage@Project ::= {
  architectureClaimRef?: ArchitectureOf@ContextRef,
  describedHolonRef?: U.HolonRef,
  boundedContextRef?: U.BoundedContextRef,
  architectureConcernCue,
  suspectedWrongCollapse,
  plainPromptLabel,
  candidateStructureKindRefs: FinSet(ArchitectureStructureKindRef),
  smallestUsefulStructureKindRefs,
  structureKnowledgeState?,
  primaryGoverningPatternApplicationRef,
  temptingWrongPatternRefs?,
  admissibleArchitectureMove:
    inspect | split | relate | downgrade | assignNeighbor | stop |
    otherDeclared,
  candidateGenerationPatternApplication?: yes | no,
  governingPatternApplicationRefs,
  stopCondition
}

primaryGoverningPatternApplicationRef names the pattern that carries the next claim kind being made. candidateGenerationPatternApplication? marks that the next admissible move is candidate generation; candidate generation is not ASV work. temptingWrongPatternRefs? names tempting wrong first patterns when that repair is needed. None of these fields governs the triage record itself; C.30.ASV governs the triage record family. When architectureClaimRef is absent, describedHolonRef and boundedContextRef are required for triage. This pre-claim form does not create a new kind and does not publish an ArchitectureOf@Context claim by itself; it only lets the practitioner identify the structure kind under consideration before forming a full architecture claim. A full ArchitectureStructuralView@Context still requires architectureClaimRef; do not promote triage to a full view record until that architecture claim is available.

Practitioner prompt labels are first-entry cues, not ArchitectureStructureKindRef values. FPF-governed records use the Tech values below:

Functional -> FunctionalStructure
Flow -> FlowTransductionStructure
Control -> ControlStructure
Module -> ModuleInterfaceStructure
Method and work -> WorkMethodStructure
Role -> RoleEnactorStructure
Evidence -> EvidenceAssuranceStructure
Scale -> ScaleEvolutionStructure
Security -> SecurityTrustBoundaryStructure

#Architecture viewpoint bundle and binding rows

Architecture structural views use VF.ARCH.STRUCTURE without turning structure kinds into viewpoints. The bundle is separate from VF.TEVB.ENG: it may import TEVB, but it does not expand the TEVB core engineering viewpoint set.

Declaration source: VF.ARCH.STRUCTURE is an E.17.1 and F.18 declared viewpoint bundle for architecture structural-view records. Its VP.Architecture* ids are viewpoint ids only. They do not add TEVB viewpoints, name structure kinds, define publication faces, or carry decision, evidence, gate, or assurance authority.

#Structural-view publication-use boundary

This subsection is the C.30.ASV structural-view publication-use boundary. C.30.ASV governs architecture structural-view adequacy: selected architecture-relevant structure, structure kind, view construction, correspondence, hidden structure and lost structure, source return, and next architecture move. When a view, diagram, graph, card, benchmark, probe output, model publication, or architecture note is used for evidence sufficiency, safety assurance, gate passage, release permission, work record, or decision authority, apply the pattern governing that claim; keep only the structural-view record and the next architecture move in C.30.ASV.

VF.TEVB.ENG core stays:
  { VP.Functional, VP.Procedural, VP.RoleEnactor, VP.ModuleInterface }

TEVB is the small engineering viewpoint bundle over holons. The architecture problem is broader than TEVB, but the broader coverage is not solved by placing record sets inside a U.ViewpointBundle. The U.ViewpointBundle carries viewpoints; a separate architecture-local description binds structure kinds, view record sets, construction modes, correspondence obligations, and governing-pattern applications.

VF.ARCH.STRUCTURE : U.ViewpointBundle {
  viewFamilyId = VF.ARCH.STRUCTURE,
  imports = { VF.TEVB.ENG },
  EntityOfConcernClassSpec = {
    a : ArchitectureOf@Context |
    a.describedHolonRef and a.boundedContextRef are recoverable
  },
  viewpoints = {
    VP.ArchitectureStructure,
    VP.ArchitectureCorrespondence,
    VP.ArchitectureSourceReturn,
    VP.ArchitectureDecisionAffectedStructure
  }
}

ArchitectureStructureKindViewRecordBinding ::= {
  structureKindRef: ArchitectureStructureKindRef,
  allowableViewpointRefs: FinSet(U.ViewpointRef),
  viewRecordSetRef,
  allowedViewConstructionModes,
  requiredCorrespondenceRefs?,
  sourceReturnRequirement?,
  governingPatternApplicationRefs
}

viewRecordSetRef names the allowed Description-episteme or specification-use record set for one structure-kind binding. It is not a package grouping, not a U.ViewpointBundle, not a ViewFamilyId, and not a new TEVB viewpoint.

#Initial architecture structure kinds and view records

The initial set is a seed for first architecture moves, not an atlas. Use the table to choose one structure kind under consideration and the governing-pattern application that carries any non-ASV claim kind.

Externally governed classifier values remain admissible when they are the architecture-relevant structure under consideration, but C.30.ASV does not define their full record families:

Minimum useful seed examples:

SecurityTrustBoundaryStructureView@Context ::= {
  architectureStructuralViewRef:
  protectedAssetOrEffectRefs:
  trustBoundaryRefs:
  untrustedInputRefs:
  privilegeOrAuthorityRefs:
  dataFlowOrControlFlowRefs:
  attackExposureRefs:
  abuseOrMisusePathRefs:
  secureDefaultOrHardeningBoundary:
  updateOrSupplyChainChannelRefs:
  detectionResponseBoundaryRefs?:
  governingPatternApplicationRefs:
    A.10 | G.6 | B.3 | C.28 | A.20 | A.21 |
    C.16 | C.25 | C.24 when tool authority or agentic tool-use is being claimed | C.30.LCA when a control relation is being claimed
  admissibleUse:
  neighboringClaimBoundary:
    compliance, risk-score, assurance, checklist-security, and zero-trust claims apply the evidence, assurance, risk, gate, or security pattern governing the claim being made
}

SecurityTrustBoundaryStructure carries adversarial-boundary interpretation: which protected assets or effects are under consideration, who or what is trusted, where untrusted input crosses, what authority or privilege is exposed, which adversarial paths and attack exposures matter, which data-flow or control-flow security boundaries matter, and where secure defaults, hardening, update or supply-chain channels, detection, or response boundaries change the next architecture move.

Apply evidence, assurance, gate, or compliance patterns only when the architecture move relies on evidence sufficiency, assurance verdict, gate passage, regulatory acceptance, or release authority. If the selected move is structural, first recover the structure: trust boundary, loss-control relation, control relation, evidence reuse structure, or affected structure or affected view.

Use a SafetyLossControlStructureNote when a safety-architecture concern first needs the architecture-side loss-control structure rather than a safety-case verdict:

SafetyLossControlStructureNote:
  lossOrHarm:
  hazardOrUnsafeState:
  unsafeControlActionOrMissingControl:
  controlledProcessOrPlantRef:
  controlConstraintRef:
  feedbackOrObservabilityBoundary:
  timingOrRateBoundary:
  operationalDesignScopeOrMisuseScope:
  foreseeableMisuseRefs?:
  architectureStructureKindRefs:
    ControlStructure | ConstraintRequirementStructure |
    SecurityTrustBoundaryStructure | InformationDataStructure |
    EvidenceAssuranceStructure
  governingPatternApplicationRefs:
    A.3.3 dynamics, C.27 temporal or rate,
    C.28 causal-use, A.10 or G.6 evidence,
    B.3 assurance, A.20 or A.21 gate
  nonAdmissibleUse:
    not safety proof, not safety-case verdict, not regulatory acceptance

The note gives a positive first architecture move: find the loss-control structure, controlled process or plant, constraint, foreseeable misuse, operational design scope, and action-relevant boundary. It does not replace evidence, assurance, gate, causal, dynamics, or temporal claims.

#Functional structure view boundary

FunctionalStructureView@Context under C.30.ASV does not mint U.Function. A functional element is a description-side architecture element under VP.Functional unless separately grounded as U.Capability, U.Method, U.Work, U.Role, or another existing FPF kind.

FunctionalStructureView@Context ::= {
  architectureStructuralViewRef: ArchitectureStructuralView@ContextRef,
  functionOrEffectRefs?,
  capabilityRefs?,
  functionalDependencyRefs?,
  allocationRefs?,
  nonFunctionClaimNotes?,
  flowRelationRefs?,
  moduleInterfaceRelationRefs?,
  admissibleUse,
  nonAdmissibleUse
}

A transduction graph, path slice, crossing, or flow valuation is not a functional element. When a flow relation is being used, connect the functional view to FlowTransductionStructure through C.30.TGA-FLOW-REL. When module allocation is being claimed, connect the functional view to [A.6.M](/generated/patterns/A.6.M) module-relation repair rather than treating function and module as one kind.

Composability and quality compositionality are separate claims. If the view says parts can be assembled, keep that as a structure claim or use claim. If it says a quality of the whole follows from parts, assign the quality-composition claim to [C.25](/generated/patterns/C.25) and C.16-backed measurement or quality claim.

Composability:
  "A and B can be assembled under interface X."
  recoveredRelationOrRecordKind: ModuleAllocationRelation | InterfaceSpecification
Quality compositionality:
  "The assembled whole preserves safety, latency, or reliability."
  recoveredRelationOrRecordKind: QBundleSlot | structuralCharacteristicQBundleInputSlot | structuralCharacteristicCausalHypothesisForQBundleSlot | structuralCharacteristicEvidencePathForQBundleSlot
Non-admissible:
  successful assembly is not quality propagation

Compositional formalisms may express explicit composition structures and view relations and model relations. They do not make safety, latency, reliability, or another quality propagate automatically.

#Correspondence and source return

Use correspondence records when the view relates functional, flow, control, module-interface, information, runtime, placement, work, evidence, scale, or logical structures. Do not assert cross-view consistency by prose alone.

Correspondence examples:

Use SourceReturnCondition when compression, extraction, coarsening, evidence reuse, ML evaluation, bounded exception, many-to-many allocation, publication, or decision claim hides a distinction needed for action, assurance, causal use, legal review, regulatory review, comparison, or reopening.

If viewConstruction is query, extraction, coarsening, correspondenceSlice, or sourceReturnSlice, and omitted structure changes action, assurance, causal use, legal or regulatory review, or subsequent decision reopening, SourceReturnCondition is needed.

When the view is used to name affected structures for a next move but no decision record is being used, use C.30 AffectedArchitectureStructureNote: affected structure kinds, affected structure refs when known, affected ASV refs, accepted or suspected view loss, source-return condition, and the next admissible move. The note is not an architecture decision, ADR, gate passage, evidence sufficiency, or release authority.

Use the thinnest source or reliance relation that preserves the next architecture move. Use fuller source, evidence, assurance, or claim-kind relation only when the source or reliance relation being used cannot be inspected, used, compared, refreshed, or bounded without it. A ControlStructureViewNote may precede full C.30.LCA use or proof-governing pattern applications when one control relation and its boundary are enough for the architecture move being made.

Treat source return as a user action, not only a metadata field:

SourceReturnAction:
  returnTo:
    sourceStructure | sourceEpisteme | sourceView | sourceTrace |
    sourceCorpus | sourceModel | sourceEvidence | sourcePublication
  because:
    hiddenRelation | lostConstraint | coarsenedScale |
    ambiguousExtraction | staleEdition | crossViewMismatch |
    legalOrRegulatoryUse | assuranceOrDecisionUse
  nextMove:
    inspect | split | downgradeUse | addCorrespondence |
    openNeighborPattern | stop

Do not make source return mandatory for ordinary local recognition when no hidden distinction is being used for action. Do not omit source return when a hidden distinction carries a selected reliance relation, assurance, legal, comparison, causal, gate, or decision commitment. The condition is needed only when the repaired text still relies on the hidden source-side distinction.

Model cards, system cards, and evaluation harness reports may publish or substantiate an architecture structural view only when the structural-view claim is recoverable. The view must name the relevant structure kind, such as RuntimeInteractionStructure, InformationDataStructure, SecurityTrustBoundaryStructure, EvidenceAssuranceStructure, ModuleInterfaceStructure, or another declared structure kind; it must also state intended-use scope, evaluation scope and known loss when evaluation is used, deployment-context mismatch when that mismatch is being claimed, and the evidence or assurance governing pattern when the publication is used beyond transparency. A card or harness is not architecture adequacy, safety proof, or release claim or gate claim by publication alone.

#Worked slices

Runtime degradation. A team says, "The architecture is fine, but incidents happen when failover starts." The first architecture move is to recover runtime interaction, control relation, failover relation, placement, and evidence-assurance structures before turning a dashboard or deployment diagram into proof:

Runtime degradation slice:
  selected structure kinds:
    RuntimeInteractionStructure
    ControlStructure
    InformationDataStructure
    PlacementDeploymentStructure
    EvidenceAssuranceStructure
  first architecture move:
    recover runtime interaction topology, control relation or failover relation,
    state custody, placement relation, locality relation, evidence path, and observability relation
  nonAdmissibleUse:
    deployment diagram as runtime proof,
    observability dashboard as evidence sufficiency,
    green indicator value as gate authority or release authority

Use [C.24](/generated/patterns/C.24) only when tool-use, call planning, call graph, work execution, or budgeted agentic tool-use is the claim being made. Do not absorb those claims into architecture structure.

CPS or plant architecture. A plant drawing, P&ID-like artifact, LCA sketch, or safety-case view is not the plant architecture by itself. First recovery may need:

CPS and plant architecture first recovery:
  MaterialSpatialStructure:
    physical separation, adjacency, energy path or material path
  ControlStructure:
    controller, plant, observer, supervisor, control rate
  InformationDataStructure:
    sensor data semantics, provenance, custody, source return
  PlacementDeploymentStructure:
    locality, environment, jurisdiction, safety separation
  EvidenceAssuranceStructure:
    evidence reuse boundary and affected structures
first architecture move:
  relate physical separation, sensor data semantics, control rate,
  placement boundary, and evidence reuse
correspondenceOrLossLine:
  record which separation, data, control-rate, placement, or evidence-reuse
  relation is preserved by the slice and which structure is hidden or lossy
stop condition:
  no P&ID, LCA diagram, or safety case is treated as the architecture

Chiplet or device architecture. A packaging diagram or interconnect sketch may involve several structure kinds:

Chiplet and device architecture first recovery:
  MaterialSpatialStructure:
    packaging, adjacency, thermal path, energy path
  FlowTransductionStructure:
    interconnect topology, data flow path, energy flow path, or signal flow path
  ModuleInterfaceStructure:
    interface specification, protocol, conformance boundary
  PlacementDeploymentStructure:
    physical locality, substrate, host environment
first architecture move:
  separate interconnect topology, packaging path, thermal path, or energy path,
  interface specification, and evidence boundary and conformance boundary
correspondenceOrLossLine:
  record the preserved relation among interconnect, physical package,
  interface, and placement, plus any benchmark or packaging-view loss
stop condition:
  no packaging diagram or benchmark becomes performance, safety,
  evidence, or gate proof by appearance

Organization or operating-model architecture. An org chart or work-method diagram can be architecture-relevant only after the work, role, information, and evidence records are separated:

Organization and operating-model architecture first recovery:
  RoleEnactorStructure:
    responsibility allocation and enactment boundary
  WorkMethodStructure:
    repeatable work method and exception path
  InformationDataStructure:
    information custody, state residence, provenance
  EvidenceAssuranceStructure:
    evidence reuse, approval, audit trail, source return
first architecture move:
  relate responsibility allocation, work repeatability,
  information custody, and evidence reuse
correspondenceOrLossLine:
  record the preserved relation among role, work, information, and evidence
  structures, plus any org-chart or work-method-diagram loss
stop condition:
  no org chart or work-method diagram is treated as the architecture, decision,
  evidence sufficiency, or assurance verdict

Evidence reuse across product variants. A certification or test package reused across module variants may be architecture-relevant as an evidence-and-assurance structure view, but it is not an assurance verdict:

Evidence reuse across product variants:
  structureKindRef: EvidenceAssuranceStructure
  structuralFeature:
    evidence package shared across module variants
  affectedQBundleSlot:
    assurance maintainability or release readiness
  architectureMove:
    name affected structures, variant boundary, hidden view losses,
    and source-return condition
  governingPatternApplicationRefs:
    A.10, G.6, or B.3 for evidence sufficiency or assurance verdict
  nonAdmissibleUse:
    evidence-structure view as assurance verdict

AI agent diagram. A "planner-memory-tools" diagram is not the agent's architecture by itself. It may start first recovery as a structure-kind set, without minting an AI-domain ontology:

AI-agent architecture first recovery:
  RuntimeInteractionStructure:
    model-tool-memory-planner-evaluator-human topology
  InformationDataStructure:
    memory scopes, data custody, provenance, retention,
    context-window relation and source-return relation
  SecurityTrustBoundaryStructure:
    untrusted content channels, prompt-injection or instruction boundary,
    tool authority, secret-bearing contexts, memory custody crossing and data custody crossing,
    output handling, supply-chain or update path
  ModuleInterfaceStructure:
    tool specs, API specs, and interface specs and substitutability limits
  EvidenceAssuranceStructure:
    eval harness, human approval, evidence decay, incident feedback
admissibleArchitectureMove:
  split runtime interaction, information, security boundary, module-interface, and evidence-assurance claims before relying on the diagram
correspondenceOrLossLine:
  record the preserved relation among runtime topology, information custody,
  security boundary, module-interface, and evidence-assurance structures,
  plus any diagram or evaluation-harness loss
governingPatternApplicationRefs:
  C.30.TGA-FLOW-REL when an E.18 flow relation is being used,
  A.6.M module-relation repair for tool, API, or interface relation claims,
  A.10, G.6, or B.3 when evidence or assurance reliance is being claimed,
  C.24, E.16, A.20, or A.21 when tool-call, autonomy, constraint, or gate authority is being claimed
stop condition:
  ASV contains only the structural-view record; evidence sufficiency, assurance, gate, autonomy, and tool-call authority claims are assigned to the governing patterns for those claims

Structural AI-agent security is architecture structure when these structure kinds change the next architecture move. When the claim being made is latent representation, decoding, or effect adequacy rather than architecture structure, keep the phrase as a reduced-use source cue until the representation, decode, or effect-adequacy pattern governing that claim carries that claim.

Generated code-agent relation graph. A probe JSON or code-agent architecture relation graph can be an architecture structural view publication only after observed, inferred, or unknown observation value, evidence pointers or source pointers, unexplored regions, typed relation semantics, and source-return conditions are present. Belief-state proof and downstream-change safety assurance apply the patterns governing those claims.

Neural-network block replacement. Replacing attention, FFN, convolution, SSM, recurrent, memory block or cache block, MoE expert-selection, pruning, distillation, or another block is an architecture move only when the changed structure kind, flow relation, module-interface claim kind, preserved and lost structure, affected characteristic, source relation, and decision or evidence governing pattern are named.

#Archetypal Grounding

#Bias-Annotation

Lenses tested: Arch, Onto, Epist, Prag, Did, Gov. Scope: architecture structural-view claims over holons.

This checklist verifies the preceding guidance after the practitioner has chosen the selected move; it is not a required project control form and not a substitute for the card, note, view, relation, or repair move above.

#Conformance Checklist

#Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

#Consequences

#Rationale

C.30.ASV exists because architecture descriptions are multi-view by nature, but FPF cannot let "view" absorb every architecture claim. A structure kind and a viewpoint are different. A structure kind says what kind of selected structure is being described; a viewpoint says how an episteme or view is oriented toward a concern. They may be bound, but they are not interchangeable.

The pattern keeps first use light by providing ArchitectureStructureKindTriage@Project. If triage identifies the structure kind under consideration and the next admissible architecture move, no full view record is needed. The full record is used when a view changes action, correspondence, publication, source return, source or reliance use, or non-view claim kind.

The TEVB decision is conservative. TEVB remains the small engineering viewpoint bundle over holons. Architecture may import it, but architecture-specific structure kinds and view-record bindings are defined beside TEVB rather than mutating TEVB.

#SoTA-Echoing

#Relations

Builds on: C.30.P, C.30, A.22, A.6.3, E.17.0, E.17.1, E.17.2, A.7, E.10.D2, E.10, C.2.P, and F.18.

Coordinates with: A.6.F, A.6.M, C.30.TGA-FLOW-REL, C.30.LCA, C.30.ILC, E.18, C.29, C.16, C.25, C.28, A.10, G.6, B.3, A.20, A.21, A.15, C.11, and governing patterns for architecture decision and candidate-set claims. Use A.6.M when the module-interface claim kind is being made.

Neighboring claims stay with their governing patterns: C.30 for grounded architecture and selected-structure adequacy, A.22 for selected-structure EntityOfConcern, E.TGA for graph, path, and crossing discipline, C.29 for mathematical-lens use, C.16 for characterization, C.25 for Q-Bundles, C.28 for causal use, A.10 and G.6 for evidence, B.3 for assurance, A.20 and A.21 for gate or release records, A.15 for work, C.11 for decisions, and E.17 for publication. C.30.ASV governs architecture structural-view adequacy for the selected structure being viewed.

#C.30.ASV:End

Last Updated: 2026-05-26 — this section last modified in upstream FPF commit a7be1428 (github.com/ailev/FPF)