FPF Reference

    A.6.B:5.3 — Quadrant D: Deontics & Commitments

    Preface node heading:a-6-b-5-3-quadrant-d-deontics-commitments:9914

    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

    Intent. State one atomic governance claim: an accountable obligation, recommendation-as-duty, prohibition, commitment, publication or operational duty, or contractual commitment. When a sentence sounds permissive, use §8.4.1; only its Grant or norm row enters D. Writing the D-* sentence states the claim; it neither institutes the named duty, commitment, or grant nor establishes that it obtains or is met.

    Adjudication. In-description for claim classification: the text fixes the governance content. To decide whether the named duty, commitment, or grant exists or whether actors complied, use its direct owner and inspect the required actual ground and evidence. The wording itself cannot decide either question.

    Canonical form. For an obligation, recommendation-as-duty, prohibition, or commitment, name the accountable subject and use A.2.8. A permissive-looking word does not by itself select D; use the permission-word branch in §8.4.1, whose Grant or norm row supplies the different participant and ground test for a grant. Commitment examples:

    • “Client implementers MUST satisfy A-….”
    • “Operators SHALL retain carriers …”
    • “Provider SHALL meet E-… under exclusions …”

    Canonical payload (recommended; lintable). When the claim is intended to be reusable and lintable, it SHOULD be representable as a U.Commitment record (A.2.8). Default fields to make explicit:

    • id (often the D-* claim ID),
    • subject (accountable role assignment or party; never an episteme),
    • modality (the exact A.2.8 DeonticModalityToken: MUST | MUST_NOT | SHOULD | SHOULD_NOT),
    • scope + validityWindow,
    • referents (by ID; e.g., SVC-*, L-*, A-*, E-*, MethodDescriptionRef(...)),
    • optional adjudication.evidenceRefs when the commitment is meant to be auditable,
    • optional source when authority or provenance matters.

    Prohibitions.

    • A D-* statement MUST NOT use “the system, service, interface, or specification” as the grammatical subject unless the accountable role assignment or admitted acting system is explicitly named; use A.6.C when contract, promise, utterance, or agreement-like boundary language is live.
    • A D-* statement MUST NOT restate L-* or A-* predicates in new words when an ID exists; it SHOULD reference the ID.
    • A D-* statement MUST NOT pretend that a duty, commitment, or grant is a law or that writing the claim makes it obtain.

    A.7 EntityOfConcern binding. A D-* claim episteme concerns the exact duty, commitment, or grant named by its content; it does not substitute for that object. When permission wording is live, the branch in §8.4.1 names the direct owner and the obtaining or non-obtaining test.

    Required references (explicit).

    • If a D-* statement imposes compliance with a gate, it MUST reference the relevant A-* ID(s).
    • If a D-* statement is meant to be auditable, it SHOULD reference the E-* claim(s) that provide evidence and the carrier classes involved.

    Last Updated: 2026-07-28 — upstream FPF commit 17edd955 (github.com/ailev/FPF)