FPF Reference

    A.2.9:7 — Conformance Checklist (normative)

    Preface node heading:a-2-9-7-conformance-checklist-normative:7656

    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

    1. CC‑A.2.9‑1 (Occurrence, performer, and assignment). One Work individual is admitted as SA : U.SpeechAct only through the independent A.13/A.15.1 route: exact actual performer System, local agential kind and criterion, classification, obtaining assignment, scope, working situation, window, adequate core evidence, conditionally consumed profile, grounded communicative history, enacted Method, extent, and containment. Any precise assignment-bound attribution is then checked separately through F.6 with the same obtaining assignment; its declared species, holder, other participants, predicate, and coverage remain recoverable. A SpeechActRecord MUST identify the actual performer through actualPerformerSystemRef, MAY omit performedUnderAssignmentRef when it makes no exact assignment-bound attribution, and MUST make every present attribution reference resolve to the F.6 relation for the already admitted act and the same A.13 assignment. The record MUST NOT claim authority on the basis of assignment alone.
      • CC‑A.2.9‑1a (Occurrence identity and segmentation). Several satisfied actTypes classify one communicative Work unless distinct performance history, enacted Methods, institutional actions, or another admitted discriminator establishes distinct occurrences. Shared utterance, carrier, or interval is not enough; unresolved competing segmentations retain an explicit continuity or segmentation question.
    2. CC‑A.2.9‑2 (Exact Method and auxiliary description). The actual occurrence independently satisfies enactsMethod -> U.Method. A current methodDescriptionRef resolves to a separate C.2.1 episteme used to identify, constrain, or justify that Method or intended Work; neither the reference nor the description is enacted.
    3. CC‑A.2.9‑3 (Recognition taxonomy and scheme). The actual occurrence satisfies at least one SpeechActTypeRef defined by the exact recognition-taxonomy episteme under the stated effective reference scheme. Merely writing a token into SpeechActRecord.actTypes is insufficient.
    4. CC‑A.2.9‑4 (Actual extent versus effect interval). The occurrence has an actual temporal extent, and a record's window truthfully states it at the required precision. Every instituted relation keeps its own occurrence or validity interval.
    5. CC‑A.2.9‑5 (Observable relied-on occurrence and attribution branch). If a checklist, guard, commitment, or grant cites the occurrence, one SpeechActRecord identifies it and cites an applicable utterance, carrier, or direct evidence relation. Evidence-critical uses SHOULD cite at least one carrier through A.10. If that checklist, guard, gate, or claim relies on exact assignment-bound attribution, the record MUST include performedUnderAssignmentRef and satisfy SA-C1 through the separately obtaining F.6 relation for the already admitted act and same A.13 assignment; a record that omits the field cannot close that attribution-dependent use.
    6. CC‑A.2.9‑6 (Current policy and typed world-side effects). A record's institutes.* branch references only an exact commitment or obtaining relation occurrence through its declared relation-occurrence RefKind. An otherGovernedRelations item also names the rule that defines and tests that exact relation. An institutional effect obtains only when the current policy or procedure supplies the applicable constitutive rule and current facts satisfy the direct predicate defined in its pattern or declaration; a status claim and its evidence stay separate.
    7. CC‑A.2.9‑7 (F.9 only for actual cross-locality dependence). A receiving claim cites an F.9 Bridge only when it really compares, substitutes, or transfers speech-act or policy meaning across different local taxonomies, schemes, or policies. A new consumer or locality label alone neither requires a Bridge nor transfers force.
    8. CC‑A.2.9‑8 (No fabricated method anchor or candidate record). If the actual enactsMethod -> U.Method relation cannot be recovered well enough to establish A.15.1 admission, do not create a conformant SpeechActRecord. Put the unresolved claim, source-gap provenance, known observations, and explicit unknowns in the separate candidate observation stub; that stub remains observation-only and cannot support a gate or deontic provenance. A placeholder U.MethodDescription never closes the gap. After actual admission, create a distinct complete record rather than promoting the stub in place.
    9. CC‑A.2.9‑9 (Subject, target, and effect stay distinct). A record uses utteranceSubjectRefs for aboutness and institutionalTargetRefs only for a policy-selected target. It claims actual change or institutional effect only through the exact direct relation; an informative act needs no changed target.
    10. CC‑A.2.9‑10 (Optional channel stays separate). A channelRef, utterance description, carrier, or trace may support identification or observation.
    11. CC‑A.2.9‑11 (Receiving use, evidence, and later effect). When communicative Work is judged for a named receiving use, state who should understand or do what and which evidence supports that judgement. A response or silence alone establishes neither meaning, achievement, causation, authority, consent, permission, nor admissibility. 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.

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