#FPF Pillar-Adequacy Evaluation CharacteristicSpace

E.2.DA · Stable · Part E - The FPF Constitution and Authoring Guides

#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.

Status: Core.

Use E.2.DA when the object under improvement is an FPF-level object and the question is whether it realizes the E.2 Pillars adequately for a declared use. The object can be a monolith edition, selected pattern host set, pattern family, projection set, release candidate, or whole-FPF edition.

#Relations

#Content

#Problem frame

Use E.2.DA when the object under improvement is an FPF-level object and the question is whether it realizes the E.2 Pillars adequately for a declared use. The object can be a monolith edition, selected pattern host set, pattern family, projection set, release candidate, or whole-FPF edition.

Use it after a broad cleanup, new pattern family, projection repair, source-use repair, or corpus-level improvement when local pattern quality is not enough. A set of good local patterns can still harm FPF entry, naming, layering, source use, projection integrity, or open-ended evolution.

Not this pattern when the evaluated object is one authored pattern version, one DRR, one local wording repair, or one pattern-use entry problem. Use E.21, E.9.DA, E.10 and its precision-restoration neighbours, or E.11 for those objects.

First useful move: name the FPF object under improvement named by value, declared use, reader family, and qualification window; then evaluate all eleven Pillar coordinates. If a Pillar seems unaffected, give it a value and a short rationale saying what is preserved.

What goes wrong if missed: FPF can become locally polished but globally worse. Readers may find fewer useful entry points, precision repairs may erase the working move, source rows may become decorative, or several patterns may grow local variants of the same doctrine.

Primary EntityOfConcern in plain terms: the scoped FPF object under improvement as an E.2 Pillar-realizing language object.

#Problem

E.2 gives the Pillars and their constitutional meaning. It does not by itself evaluate whether a concrete FPF object realizes those Pillars well enough for a concrete use. Without E.2.DA, corpus-level reviews tend to collapse into local pattern scores, process state, review praise, or broad claims that "FPF improved."

The specific failures are:

1. Local pattern quality is averaged into FPF adequacy.
2. Entry projections and companion files start carrying semantics beside governing patterns.
3. Precision repair improves terminology but damages first-use comprehension or changes the FPF kind carried by the repaired text.
4. Source and SoTA rows are counted rather than checked for changes in FPF moves.
5. Front-like words such as all 5s, exceptional, Pareto, SoTA, NQD, or shortlist become loose synonyms.
6. Corpus-level stop claims hide what became worse.

#Forces

#Solution

E.2.DA is the Pillar-adequacy specialization of A.19.ECS. It evaluates one FPF object under improvement against all eleven E.2 Pillars for a declared use.

There is no smaller E.2.DA evaluation. If the caller only needs local pattern quality, DRR adequacy, or wording repair, that is a different object-under-improvement evaluation. Once E.2.DA is invoked, every Pillar coordinate receives a value, short rationale, evidence locus, and shared evidence basis for the FPF object being evaluated.

#Local names and kind settlement

These names are local to the evaluation unless F.18 promotes a durable name. They name FPF content objects and evaluation fields, not release state, review state, or project evidence.

#Evaluation record

FPFPillarAdequacyEvaluation:
  FPFObjectUnderImprovementRef: <object and version named by value>
  FPFAdequacyUseScope: <entry | authoring | review | project use | source absorption | corpus release | other use named by value>
  FPFAdequacyReaderScope: <primary reader and working situation>
  FPFAdequacyQualificationWindow: <edition/source/neighbour/release/comparison window>
  FPFPillarAdequacyEvidenceBasis: <checked pattern, host, monolith, projection, README/ToC/E.11/I.2 entry locus, source, relation, companion, evaluation-result, and missing loci that affect values>
  FPFPillarAdequacyCoordinateTable: <all eleven coordinates, values, short rationales, evidence loci>
  FPFKindRestorationEvidence: <when broad wording/precision repair is part of the evaluated change: pre/post kind, relation or claim kind, slot or use-position when live, admissible use, scope, governing pattern when another pattern governs the kind under repair/relation/claim/position, and preserved/split/intentionally changed/blocker disposition>
  FPFPillarAdequacyStatus: <status>
  StopOrRepairCondition: <local stop, first repair, Pillar decision, or architecture decision>

[E.22](/generated/patterns/E.22) may frame the evaluation purpose when the caller needs floor evaluation, exceptional improvement, trade-off inspection, open-question discovery, absorption, or proposal portfolios. [E.23](/generated/patterns/E.23) governs repeated improvement after the evaluation returns findings or candidate proposals.

#Ordinal coordinate scale

The values are ordinal content evaluations. They are not a scalar score, maturity ladder, release gate, or proof that development ends.

#Required Pillar coordinates

#Evidence and coordinate separation

One evidence locus may support several coordinates, but the rationale must say what property it supports in each coordinate. The following distinctions carry most repairs:

If a distinction cannot be recovered from the FPF object, lower the affected coordinate and state the first repair. Do not add a new local doctrine table to explain around the missing content.

E.21 and E.9.DA results are evidence loci for E.2.DA, not inputs to be averaged. A pattern-quality value can support a Pillar only by pointing to the FPF-level effect it creates or damages.

#Result-row discipline and calibration

An E.2.DA result uses this table shape:

A Pillar essay, local-quality average, two-column table, or result whose value depends on unchecked corpus/projection/source evidence is not an E.2.DA result. It is only draft evaluation material. Missing or unchecked evidence lowers the Pillar coordinate that needs it; it does not make the coordinate optional.

Common calibration points:

#Status and stop condition

The stop condition states the declared floor, values, bounded non-use, smallest reopen locus, and first repair if the declared use is not yet admissible.

#Compact result form

E.2.DA result:
  FPF object under improvement: <FPFObjectUnderImprovementRef>
  Declared use and reader: <scope>
  Qualification window: <window>
  Evidence basis checked: <FPFPillarAdequacyEvidenceBasis>
  Status: <FPFPillarAdequacyStatus>
  Coordinate table: <Pillar coordinate | Value | ShortRationale | EvidenceLocus for all eleven Pillars>
  First repair or stop: <repair | hold | local stop>
  Reopen if: <smallest changed locus or condition>

For a small release decision, the coordinate table may be compact. It is still complete. Status is not assigned from prose, a checklist count, a local-pattern average, a two-column table, or a result missing evidence loci needed by its values.

#Worked slices

Broad precision cleanup. A wording pass makes many patterns more admissible but several Problem frames now explain less about why the distinction matters, or a cleaned phrase changes the governed kind while the trigger word disappears. P2, P6, and P7 receive lower values until the affected patterns restore recognition reason, useful action, and pre/post kind evidence in admissible wording.

Repeated-content/route/reference/neighbour-reference/negative-fanout cleanup that weakens content. A corpus pass removes repeated "not proof/not gate/not work" prose, route metaphors, repeated guards, repeated mini-rules, repeated conditional neighbour-reference mappings, reference boilerplate, or architecture-placement prose, but leaves several patterns with less positive ontology, method, norm, or worked action than before. P2, P5, P6, P7, and P10 receive lower values until the affected patterns restore their own subject content and state only live declarative governing relations.

Projection repair. README scenarios, ToC rows, E.11 entry-distribution loci, and I.2 expanded entry-disambiguation cases improve search but can start carrying pattern semantics. P5 and P9 fall because projections become shadow authority. The repair moves durable semantics back to governing patterns and leaves thin echoes in projections.

Source absorption. A new source family adds current methods, but pattern bodies only cite it. P11 stays low until source rows change selected moves, examples, checks, or stop conditions. P7 changes only when the source changes action.

#Bias annotation

This pattern biases FPF toward whole-language adequacy. The bias is useful because local repairs often hide corpus-level loss.

The bias is bounded by the object-under-improvement declaration. E.2.DA does not replace E.21, E.9.DA, E.10, E.11, or E.23; it evaluates their FPF-level Pillar effect when the scoped FPF object includes their results.

#Conformance checklist

#Common anti-patterns and repairs

#Relations

#Rationale

FPF needs a corpus-level quality instrument because the language can degrade while individual pattern edits look successful. The complete eleven-coordinate evaluation prevents the common escape hatch: "this is only a local repair" repeated across many files until Pillar realization changes.

The instrument is still affordable because it asks for short rationales and evidence named by value loci. It does not require a new review process, full audit bundle, or exhaustive source dossier.

#SoTA-Echoing

#Consequences

#E.2.DA:End

Last Updated: 2026-06-05 — this section last modified in upstream FPF commit eaafd3a4 (github.com/ailev/FPF)