FPF Reference

    A.2.9:4 — Solution

    Preface node heading:a-2-9-4-solution:6862

    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

    U.SpeechAct is the admitted kernel kind for communicative Work. An individual SA : U.SpeechAct is the actual enactment performed by an admitted accountable U.System under an exact obtaining role assignment and enacting an exact U.Method. A separate recognition-taxonomy episteme and effective reference scheme make its act-type classification inspectable; an exact current policy or procedure governs any claimed institutional force. A SpeechActRecord may describe that occurrence and point to a MethodDescription, optional channel, utterance descriptions, or evidence carriers; none of those epistemic or representational objects is the act or the enacted Method.

    A.2.9:4.1 — Normative definition

    U.SpeechAct <: U.Work is a kind declaration. An actual Work individual is admitted as SA : U.SpeechAct when its primary effect is communicative: it places an utterance through an optional channel in a way classified by an exact speech-act recognition taxonomy under an effective reference scheme and, when institutional force is claimed, by a current policy, procedure, or protocol rule as potentially:

    • asserting/informing,
    • requesting/directing,
    • promising/committing (as an instituting act),
    • declaring/authorizing/revoking (status-changing acts),
    • notifying (event announcement relevant for downstream work).

    Per A.7 and A.15.1, the actual speech-act occurrence is a Work individual; its SpeechActRecord and utterance descriptions are epistemes, while its carriers are utterance carriers, publication carriers, or traces that allow observation and audit. (Note: “Surface” is reserved for MVPK publication/interoperability surfaces; do not use it here.)

    Whether a given act type institutes commitments, permissions, publication relations, or status changes depends on an exact current policy or procedure and on the direct obtaining conditions of the claimed effect. Absent that basis, treat SA : U.SpeechAct only as actual communicative Work; neither its kind membership, recognition classification, channel, MethodDescription, nor a complete-looking record licenses a deontic or status inference.

    A.2.9:4.2 — Minimal occurrence-description record (normative)

    Use the following declaration schema only when a receiving use needs a persistent claim about an actual or candidate speech-act occurrence. The record fields state claims about the referenced occurrence; they are not fields stored in the Work individual and do not make it occur.

    U.SpeechAct <: U.Work

SpeechActRef ::= U.EntityRef
  // resolves to one actual Work individual admitted as SA : U.SpeechAct

SpeechActRecord <: U.Episteme

SpeechActRecord ::=
    {
      speechActOccurrenceRef: SpeechActRef,
      performedBy: U.EntityRef,                     // resolves to the admitted U.System that acts
      performedUnderAssignment: RoleAssignmentRef,  // exact obtaining assignment; A.2.1 owns its role taxonomy and scheme
      enactsMethodRef: optional<U.EntityRef>,        // resolves to the exact U.Method enacted by the actual Work
      methodDescriptionRef: optional<U.EpistemeRef>, // separate C.2.1 episteme used only when it identifies, constrains, or justifies that Method or intended Work
      unresolvedEnactsMethodClaimRef: optional<ClaimIdRef>,
      methodRelationGapProvenanceRef: optional<U.EpistemeRef>,
      reliancePosture: observationOnly | relianceReady,
      executedWithin: U.EntityRef,                   // claim about the containing U.System
      window: [start, end | open],                   // the act occurrence's extent, never an instituted effect's validity interval
      recognitionTaxonomyRef: U.EpistemeRef,         // exact speech-act recognition taxonomy
      effectiveReferenceScheme: U.ReferenceScheme,  // scheme under which actTypes and cited policy/procedure are interpreted
      policyOrProcedureRef: optional<U.EpistemeRef>, // current policy/procedure only when recognition or institutional force depends on it
      channelRef: optional<U.EntityRef>,              // optional independently governed communication channel
      utteranceSubjectRefs: optional<set<U.EntityRef>>,
      institutionalTargetRefs: optional<set<U.EntityRef>>,
      actTypes: set<SpeechActTypeRef>,                // ≥1 satisfied classifications under the named taxonomy and scheme
      addressedTo: optional<set<AddresseeRef>>,       // optional: who is addressed / audience
      utteranceRefs: optional<set<DescriptionRef>>,   // where the utterance description is stated or recorded (A.7: Description)
      carrierRefs: optional<set<CarrierRef>>,         // evidence carriers/traces (A.7: Carrier; use A.10 when evidentiary)
      institutes: optional<InstitutedEffects>,        // references to separately obtaining objects/relations instituted or updated by this act
      notes: optional<InformativeText>                // explicitly informative
    }

DescriptionRef ::=
  ClaimIdRef | EpistemeRef
  // Pointer to an utterance description (e.g., spec clause claim ID, a policy episteme, a message-content episteme).

SpeechActTypeRef ::=
  RecognitionTaxonomyLocalTokenRef
  // Must be defined by recognitionTaxonomyRef and satisfied under effectiveReferenceScheme.

AddresseeRef ::=
  PartyRef | RoleRef | RoleAssignmentRef

GrantedPermissionRelationRef@Context ::= U.EntityRef
  // resolves only to one exact GrantedPermissionRelation@Context occurrence

EpistemePublicationRelationRef ::= U.EntityRef
  // resolves only to one exact E.24.PUB EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence

InstitutedEffects ::=
  {
    commitments: optional<set<CommitmentIdRef>>,
    permissions: optional<set<GrantedPermissionRelationRef@Context>>,
    roleAssignments: optional<set<RoleAssignmentRef>>,
    publicationRelations: optional<set<EpistemePublicationRelationRef>>
  }

    Occurrence-side constraints:

    • (SA‑C0) Actual Work conformance. The individual referenced by speechActOccurrenceRef MUST independently satisfy U.Work conformance under A.15.1: actual performer system, exact covering assignment and any current F.6 attribution, actual enactsMethod -> U.Method, containing system, and temporal extent. A complete record neither creates those facts nor substitutes for them. methodDescriptionRef, when present, cites a separate C.2.1 episteme used to identify, constrain, or justify that Method or intended Work; the description is not enacted.
    • (SA‑C1) The accountable system performs; the assignment grounds. The occurrence's actual performer MUST be an admitted U.System. The exact obtaining U.RoleAssignment under which it acts MUST have that system in HolderSystemSlot and cover the act. Recover the assignment's role value, role-taxonomy episteme, effective reference scheme, and obtaining extent under A.2.1. The assignment supplies role, authority, and attribution ground; it does not perform the act.
    • (SA‑C2) Act types are independently satisfied recognition classifications. The occurrence MUST instantiate at least one SpeechActTypeRef defined by the exact recognitionTaxonomyRef under the stated effectiveReferenceScheme. A token written into a record does not establish that classification. If a policy or procedure supplies an additional recognition condition, cite its exact current episteme and satisfy that condition separately.
    • (SA‑C3) Time honesty and interval separation. The occurrence MUST have an actual temporal extent so freshness can be evaluated; the record's window is a claim about that act extent, not the extent itself. Every instituted commitment, grant, publication relation, status relation, or other effect keeps its own independently governed occurrence or validity interval. Coincident boundaries do not merge act and effect.
    • (SA‑C3a) Policy, procedure, and channel remain neighbors. A cited policyOrProcedureRef is a separate current C.2.1 episteme; its currentness, applicability, and any edition relation must be established under their direct owners. An optional channelRef names an independently governed communication route or participating entity. Neither citation becomes the Method, the Work occurrence, an utterance description, a carrier, or an institutional effect merely by inclusion in the record.

    Keep three questions separate. utteranceSubjectRefs answers what the utterance or claim is about. institutionalTargetRefs answers which object or relation the act is intended to institute or update under the cited current policy or procedure. Actual change or institutional effect is a third world-side fact and is stated only through its exact direct change/effect relation and the matching typed institutes.* reference when the record needs it. An informative notice or assertion may have a subject without any institutional target or changed entity. Shared reference values do not collapse these relation meanings.

    Record- and reliance-side constraints:

    • (SA‑C4) A relied-on occurrence must be observable. When a gate, checklist, commitment, or grant relies on a SpeechActRef, the SpeechActRecord SHALL identify that same occurrence and cite at least one applicable utteranceRef, carrierRef, or separately governed evidence relation. Evidence-critical uses SHOULD cite at least one carrier through A.10. Record completeness alone does not prove occurrence or institutional force.
    • (SA‑C5) Institutional-effect claims are typed references to world-side effects. institutes.* may reference only the exact commitment or obtaining relation occurrence through its declared RefKind. Each institutes.permissions value MUST be an exact GrantedPermissionRelationRef@Context whose own participants, instituting policy, effective reference scheme, and validity interval satisfy A.2.8.PER; each institutes.publicationRelations value MUST resolve to an obtaining EpistemePublicationRelation under E.24.PUB. A status claim is an episteme about an effect, not an instituted effect; keep it and its A.10 evidence relation outside institutes.*. The cited current policy or procedure and the direct world-side obtaining conditions still decide whether any effect exists. A Bridge is added only if the receiving inference actually depends on translating or comparing local meanings across schemes.
    • (SA‑C6) F.9 only for a real cross-locality dependency. Cite an F.9 Bridge when a receiving check, gate, provenance claim, or effect inference actually compares, substitutes, or transfers a speech-act type or policy meaning between different local taxonomies, schemes, or policies. A different consumer, organization label, repository location, or downstream use does not by itself create that dependency. The same token in two local schemes does not establish equivalence, and a Bridge does not transfer institutional force by itself.

    A.2.9:4.3 — SpeechActRef discipline (normative)

    A SpeechActRef resolves to one actual Work individual admitted as SA : U.SpeechAct. It never denotes the kind itself or a SpeechActRecord.

    • If another object (for example, U.Commitment.source.speechActRef) cites a SpeechActRef, the referenced occurrence MUST satisfy occurrence-side SA‑C0…SA‑C3a. A gate, audit, or provenance use additionally needs the record/evidence basis in SA‑C4 and needs SA‑C6 only when its inference really crosses local taxonomies, schemes, or policies.
    • A SpeechActRef MUST NOT be replaced by an EpistemeRef (“see the document”) when occurrence provenance is needed. A SpeechActRecord or utterance-description episteme may make claims about the occurrence but is not the act.
    • If a source cannot complete a SpeechActRecord, it may create an observation stub with the candidate speechActOccurrenceRef, known claims, provenance for those claims, and explicit unknowns. When the actual enactsMethod relation is not recoverable, leave enactsMethodRef absent, cite the exact unresolved claim and source-gap provenance, and set reliancePosture=observationOnly. The stub does not make the candidate actual, satisfy occurrence-side conformance, or support gate/deontic provenance. It becomes reliance-ready only after the exact enactsMethod -> U.Method relation is recovered. Never mint an AdHocCommunication or other U.MethodDescription solely to fill the gap; a description neither is the method nor enacts itself.

    A.2.9:4.4 — Separation rules with U.Commitment, GrantedPermissionRelation@Context, and U.PromiseContent (normative)

    1. Speech act is not the enduring deontic relation. A speech-act occurrence may institute a U.Commitment for an obligation, recommendation-as-duty, or prohibition, or a GrantedPermissionRelation@Context for strong permission. The enduring relation is the separately governed object, not the act. Do not encode obligations or permissions as prose inside its SpeechActRecord: cite commitments in institutes.commitments and grants in institutes.permissions, each under the exact instituting policy (A.2.8, A.2.8.PER).

    2. Speech act is not the service promise clause. U.PromiseContent is the promised-outcome statement; a speech act may be the act of offering or issuing that promise, but the promise content lives in the promise-content object and is referenced from the resulting commitments.

    3. Speech act is not the carrier. A “signed approval PDF”, ticket, message, or API log is a carrier; it may carry an utterance-description episteme or a SpeechActRecord. The speech act is the Work occurrence described or evidenced, not either episteme and not the carrier.

    4. Publishing a spec is not a commitment by default. Default interpretation rule (normative). A conformant model/interpreter MUST NOT infer a U.Commitment, GrantedPermissionRelation@Context, publication occurrence, or subject-specific status relation solely from a Publish/Approve speech-act occurrence or its record. Publication work may establish an EpistemePublicationRelation only when E.24.PUB's selected edition, audience, bounded use, form, carrier, and availability conditions obtain. A constitutive policy may let an act institute a subject-specific Approved, Published, or similar status relation; then cite that exact relation occurrence through the subject pattern and separately cite any C.2.1 status claim and A.10 evidence. The claim represents the status; neither its ID nor its publication makes the status obtain.

    A.2.9:4.5 — Multi-function and multi-party support (normative)

    • Multi-function: actTypes is a set. If one utterance performs multiple recognizable acts (e.g., “approve + instruct + warn”), the model may either:

      • identify one speech-act occurrence and let its SpeechActRecord state multiple satisfied actTypes, or
      • identify multiple actual speech-act occurrences and give each its own SpeechActRef; their records may share the same carrierRefs/utteranceRefs. In either case, institutional effects must remain referenceable (SA‑C5).

    • Multi-party: addressedTo is a set and may include roles/parties/assignments. If addressees matter for validity (e.g., “approval by CAB chair to deployment bot”), they should be explicit.

    Last Updated: 2026-08-03 — upstream FPF commit 9dd92159 (github.com/ailev/FPF)