A.2.9:8 — Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

Preface node heading:a-2-9-8-common-anti-patterns-and-how-to-avoid-them:7019

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

Anti-patternWhy it failsRepair
Episteme- or assignment-as-actor (“the spec/assignment approves”)assigns agency to a description or relationrepresent the act with performedBy naming the admitted system and performedUnderAssignment naming its covering role/authority relation
Kind/occurrence/record collapse (U.SpeechAct used for all three)a complete record is mistaken for actual Workreserve U.SpeechAct for the kind, identify SA : U.SpeechAct as the occurrence, and use SpeechActRecord only for claims about it
Carrier-as-act (“the signed PDF is the approval”)conflates carrier with actidentify the actual speech-act occurrence; let its separate SpeechActRecord cite the PDF carrier and any utterance-description episteme
Placeholder method as Work anchora fabricated description hides an unknown world-side relationleave enactsMethodRef unresolved with source-gap provenance and observationOnly; recover the actual method relation before reliance
affected as aboutness, target, and effectone field makes mention look like world-side changestate the utterance subject and intended institutional target separately; cite an exact obtaining change/effect relation only when one exists
Status claim listed as instituted effecta claim ID is mistaken for the status it describescite the exact status or publication relation occurrence; keep the C.2.1 claim and A.10 evidence separate
Free-text type (“type=‘approved-ish’”)not lintable; drifts across schemesdefine SpeechActTypeRef in the exact recognition-taxonomy episteme and interpret it under the effective reference scheme
Generic judgement-context fieldone container word hides taxonomy, scheme, policy, channel, and receiving usename only the exact recognition taxonomy, effective scheme, current policy/procedure, optional channel, and any actual F.9 crossing
MethodDescription as enacted Methoda procedure episteme is made the world-side way of doingrecover exact enactsMethod -> U.Method; cite methodDescriptionRef only as a separate identifying, constraining, or justifying episteme
Channel or carrier as acttransmission or evidence is mistaken for communicative Workidentify the exact speech-act occurrence; keep optional channel, utterance description, and carriers in their direct relations
Act carries obligations (obligations embedded as prose in speech act)collapses act and deontic bindingmodel obligations as U.Commitment objects instituted by the act
Gating without windowcannot evaluate freshnessadd explicit window and reference it in the guard/checklist
Hidden multi-act (one event silently creates multiple commitments)loses traceability; creates disputesrepresent multi-function via actTypes set or multiple speech acts sharing the same carrier

Last Updated: 2026-08-01 — upstream FPF commit 9a9a42e4 (github.com/ailev/FPF)