#A.2.9:4 — Solution

Preface node heading:a-2-9-4-solution:7421

#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

When a receiving use is current, state who should understand or do what because of the communicative Work, including later self-use by its producer, then judge that Work against evidence relevant to the stated use. A response, silence, later action, or later change may be evidence, but none by itself defines what the utterance means, proves that the use was achieved, or shows that the Work caused the later effect. Keep the communicative Work distinct from its wording, representation, medium, interpretation, response, later action or change, and any causal claim.

Repair the smallest thing that blocks the stated use—for example, wording, representation, prerequisites, medium, interaction, or a future receiving use—or stop. Judge earlier communicative Work against the use stated for that occurrence. A revised use applies to later communication or to a separately named reevaluation; it does not turn the earlier response into achievement of the earlier declared use. Authority, consent, permission, and ethical or institutional admissibility remain separate questions.

When exact occurrence identity, governance, modeling, audit, or reliance is current, use the admitted kernel kind U.SpeechAct. An individual SA : U.SpeechAct first passes the independent A.13/A.15.1 admission route: the exact actual performer System satisfies and is classified under one local agential system-role kind, holds one obtaining assignment, and has adequate core evidence; the communicative performance history, enacted Method, temporal extent, and containing-System relation are grounded. A characteristic profile is added only when conditionally consumed. If the use also claims the exact assignment under which the act occurred, F.6 then relates the already admitted SA to that same obtaining A.13 assignment. A separate recognition-taxonomy episteme and effective reference scheme make the act-type classification inspectable; an applicable policy or procedure defines any claimed institutional force. A SpeechActRecord may describe the occurrence and point to a MethodDescription, optional channel, utterance descriptions, or evidence carriers; none is the act or 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.

Occurrence identity specializes A.15.1. Admit a candidate as actual communicative Work from one exact communicative performance history, every actual performer's A.13 core, an enacted Method, temporal extent, and containing-System relation; do not use an F.6 conclusion as an admission premise. Several satisfied act types classify that one Work occurrence. Identify more than one occurrence only when distinct performance history, enacted Methods, institutional actions, or another admitted discriminator establishes distinct Work. A shared utterance, carrier, assignment, or interval decides neither sameness nor difference. If a named use still admits more than one defensible segmentation, cite its continuity or segmentation rule or leave the occurrence boundary unresolved. Check any precise assignment-bound attribution through F.6 only after admission.

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.

#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 one already admitted actual speech-act occurrence. The record fields state claims about the referenced occurrence. A source that has only a candidate observation uses the separate non-conformant episteme/stub described under SpeechActRef discipline; it supplies neither a SpeechActRef nor a SpeechActRecord.

U.SpeechAct <: U.Work

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

SpeechActRecord <: U.Episteme

SpeechActRecord ::=
    {
      speechActOccurrenceRef: SpeechActRef,
      actualPerformerSystemRef: U.EntityRef,            // resolves to the A.13-qualified System projected as RA.HolderSystemSlot
      performedUnderAssignmentRef: optional<U.RelationRef constrained to F.6 performedUnderAssignment>, // omit when the record makes no exact assignment-bound attribution; any present reference resolves after independent Work admission to the exact relation for this act and the same obtaining A.13 assignment
      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
      unresolvedEnactsMethodClaimAddress: optional<ClaimAddress>,
      methodRelationGapProvenanceRef: optional<U.EpistemeRef>,
      reliancePosture: observationOnly | relianceReady,
      workContainmentRelationRefs: set<U.RelationRef>,       // non-empty; exact locally declared A.15.1 Work-to-System relation occurrences used by this record
      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
      utteranceDescriptionLocators: optional<set<DescriptionLocator>>, // 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
    }

DescriptionLocator ::=
  ClaimAddress | U.EpistemeRef
  // ClaimAddress here means C.2.1 ClaimAddress: exact edition plus intrinsic ClaimGraph identity; the other branch refers to the whole description episteme.

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

AddresseeRef ::=
  exactly one branch when addressee identity is required:
    addresseePartyRef?: PartyRef
    addresseeSystemRoleKindRef?: U.KindRef resolving to one exact local system-role kind
    addresseeSystemRoleAssignmentRef?: U.RelationRef constrained to U.SystemRoleAssignment

GrantedPermissionRelationRef@Context ::= U.RelationRef constrained to GrantedPermissionRelation@Context
  // resolves only to one exact obtaining grant occurrence

EpistemePublicationRelationRef ::= U.RelationRef constrained to E.24.PUB EpistemePublicationRelation
  // resolves only to one exact obtaining publication occurrence

GovernedInstitutedRelationLink ::= local link record, not a U-kind
  relationOccurrenceRef: U.RelationRef constrained to the exact declared relation kind
  relationRuleLocator: PatternID
    // locates the rule that defines and tests that relation

InstitutedEffects ::=
  {
    commitments: optional<set<U.RelationRef constrained to U.Commitment>>,
    permissions: optional<set<GrantedPermissionRelationRef@Context>>,
    systemRoleAssignments: optional<set<U.RelationRef constrained to U.SystemRoleAssignment>>,
    publicationRelations: optional<set<EpistemePublicationRelationRef>>,
    otherGovernedRelations: optional<set<GovernedInstitutedRelationLink>>
  }

Occurrence-side constraints:

• (SA‑C0) Actual Work conformance. The individual referenced by speechActOccurrenceRef MUST first satisfy independent A.15.1 admission: every actual performer has the A.13 core for the communicative action, scope, working situation, and window; the performance history is grounded; and the Work has an actual enactsMethod -> U.Method relation, temporal extent, and at least one obtaining locally declared Work-to-System containment relation. Add a characteristic profile only when a Grade, autonomy or profile result, criterion-dependent characteristic, or assurance use consumes it. A record that makes no exact assignment-bound attribution MAY omit performedUnderAssignmentRef. Whenever that field is present or the record claims exact assignment-bound attribution, it MUST resolve to a separate F.6 relation established after admission for this already admitted act through the same obtaining A.13 assignment. methodDescriptionRef, when present, cites a separate C.2.1 episteme; the description is not enacted.
• (SA‑C1) The System performs; exact attribution reuses the same assignment. The performer MUST be an admitted U.System that satisfies and is classified under one exact local agential system-role kind for this act. An observation-only or otherwise non-attribution record MAY omit performedUnderAssignmentRef and MUST NOT be used to satisfy a guard, gate, or claim that depends on exact assignment-bound attribution. If the field is present, it MUST resolve to the separately obtaining F.6 performedUnderAssignment relation for the already admitted act and the same obtaining assignment occurrence named by A.13, together with its declared U.SystemRoleAssignment species. If a guard, gate, or claim relies on exact assignment-bound attribution, the field MUST be present and that F.6 relation MUST obtain. The assignment MUST have the performer as holder, supply every other participant, cover the act, and satisfy its species predicate for the required scope, working situation, and window. Evidence supports those core facts; a characteristic profile enters only when conditionally consumed. Taxonomy and reference-scheme epistemes may interpret an assertion but are not assignment participants. Establish any authority required by the receiving use under its applicable rule.
• (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. 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. 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 subject patterns. An optional channelRef names an independently governed communication route or participating entity.

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 entry from utteranceDescriptionLocators or carrierRefs, or a 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 a separately obtaining commitment or relation occurrence through its declared RefKind. Each institutes.commitments value resolves through U.RelationRef constrained to U.Commitment and is usable only when an identified policy applies and A.2.8's bearer, constitutive-rule, instituting-basis, and continuation conditions hold. Each institutes.permissions value resolves to one GrantedPermissionRelation@Context whose participants, policy, scheme, and validity satisfy A.2.8.PER; each institutes.systemRoleAssignments value resolves to one occurrence whose species is declared under A.2.1; and each publication value resolves to an obtaining EpistemePublicationRelation under E.24.PUB. A status claim is an episteme about an effect; keep it and its A.10 evidence relation outside institutes.*. A Bridge is added only if the receiving inference 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 an A.2.8 commitment predicate or assertion cites this occurrence as its instituting basis, the referenced occurrence MUST satisfy occurrence-side SA‑C0…SA‑C3a. A gate, audit, or provenance use additionally needs the record and 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 yet establish A.15.1 admission for one actual occurrence, it may create a separate U.Episteme identified as a candidate observation stub. The stub is not a SpeechActRecord, supplies no SpeechActRef or speechActOccurrenceRef, and does not conform to the complete declaration schema or SA-C0. It carries a source-local candidate locator or C.2.1 ClaimAddress, known observation claims, provenance for those claims, and explicit unknowns. If the actual enactsMethod -> U.Method relation cannot yet be recovered, record that unresolved claim and its source-gap provenance in the stub; never mint an AdHocCommunication or other U.MethodDescription to close it. The stub supports no gate or deontic provenance and remains observation-only. After A.15.1 independently admits one exact actual occurrence, create a distinct conformant SpeechActRecord; do not promote or relabel the stub in place, though a separately governed provenance or evidence relation may cite it.

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

1. Instituting an enduring deontic relation. A speech-act occurrence may be the actual instituting basis for one U.Commitment or GrantedPermissionRelation@Context only under an exact current constitutive policy or rule and the effect pattern's satisfied direct predicate. The enduring relation is separately identified. Do not encode obligations or permissions as prose inside SpeechActRecord; cite only the exact already obtaining relation occurrences in institutes.commitments or institutes.permissions.

2. Promise content and the act of offering it. 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. The act and its evidence 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.

4. Conditions for publication and institutional effects. 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; judge whether that status obtains under the cited status rule.

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

• Multi-function: actTypes is a set. When one actual communicative Work performs several recognizable functions, one speech-act occurrence carries all satisfied actTypes. Identify several occurrences only when the occurrence-identity rule in §4.1 finds distinct world-side grounds. Their records may share utterance or carrier references. If the named use still admits competing segmentations, cite its continuity or segmentation rule or leave the boundary unresolved. Institutional effects remain separately referenceable (SA‑C5).

• Multi-party: addressedTo is a set. Its optional members may be parties, exact local system-role kinds, or exact obtaining occurrences of directly declared U.SystemRoleAssignment species. State which branch each addressee uses. Identify the actual performer and establish any claimed authority, commitment, permission, responsibility or institutional effect under their applicable rules.

Last Updated: 2026-09-03 — upstream FPF commit b999972c (github.com/ailev/FPF)