#A.19:5.2.4.1 Direction & loss (Bridges).

Preface node heading:a-19-5-2-4-1-direction-loss-bridges:23118

#What this page is

This is generated FPF reference text from the specification preface or supporting sections. It helps interpret FPF; it is not FPF Reference product documentation.

#Methodology

Use it to understand how the specification wants to be read, then return to a route, pattern, or work packet for active work. Cite generated IDs only when the wording changes the task decision.

#Content

Suppose we want to claim that “Holon X in Context B is in state Ready as defined in Context A.” This requires an explicit Alignment Bridge declaration that maps the RCS of (Role, Context B) to the RCS of (Role, Context A) (or maps State B to State A). Such a Bridge (see F.9) will specify the correspondence of Characteristics (and the necessary NormalizationMethods under UNM) and a congruence‑loss (CL) level indicating how much fidelity is lost in translation. Critically, these Bridges are one-directional mappings unless explicitly made bidirectional. Just because we can interpret B’s state as an A-state does not mean we can go the other way without another mapping. The Bridge makes the mapping and any loss explicit. Without a declared Bridge, cross-context state comparisons or substitutions are not valid – there is no implicit global state space. The statement above, for instance, would only hold if we have something like “Bridge B→A (with defined NormalizationMethods) such that X@B can be viewed in A’s terms.” The direction matters: “B satisfies A’s Ready” does not imply the converse unless another bridge (A→B) is defined.

---

Last Updated: 2026-06-08 — upstream FPF commit 093d30e8 (github.com/ailev/FPF)