FPF Reference

    A.6.B:5 — Quadrant specifications

    Preface node heading:a-6-b-5-quadrant-specifications:11209

    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

    This section is the normative “API” of the square: what each quadrant is for, how it is written, and what it must not contain.

    A.6.B:5.1 — Quadrant L: Laws & Definitions

    Intent. State truth‑conditional content: definitions, invariants, typing and well-formedness constraints, equational laws.

    Adjudication. In‑description: can be checked by inspection, proof, type validation, or model reasoning.

    Canonical form. Definition: / Invariant: / predicate‑style constraints using “is / iff / for all”.

    Prohibitions.

    • An L-* statement MUST NOT contain RFC deontic keywords (MUST, SHALL, SHOULD, or MAY) as operators inside the law or definition itself.
    • An L-* statement MUST NOT encode runtime gate predicates (those are A-*).
    • An L-* statement MUST NOT assert evidence availability or measurement outcomes (those are E-*).

    A.7 EntityOfConcern binding. L-* claims are Descriptions: they specify semantics of the signature or mechanism description, not work.

    Typical dependence. A-* and E-* claims may reference L-* IDs for vocabulary, metric definitions, and invariants needed for interpretation.

    A.6.B:5.2 — Quadrant A: Admissibility & Gates

    Intent. Specify when a mechanism application is admissible: runtime entry predicates, validity gates, and applicability checks that require context or execution environment. An A-* predicate may consume a separately established result as one input, but it does not create or settle that result. If the sentence uses permission wording, choose its job with the branch in §8.4.1.

    Common mistake #0 — Applicability ≠ Admissibility (informative). Signature Applicability scopes intended use and bounded context; it is not a runtime entry gate. Runtime entry checks and admissibility predicates belong in U.Mechanism.AdmissibilityConditions as A-*. If prose reads “clients must satisfy the applicability”, separate the A-* gate from either a generic D-* prescription or, when independently instituted, an individual duty linked to that gate.

    Adjudication. In‑work: evaluated at mechanism entry (or operationally at the point the mechanism is applied).

    Canonical form. Predicate style, e.g.:

    • “A request is admissible iff …”
    • admissible(x) iff P(x) (conceptual form; no particular syntax is required)

    Prohibitions.

    • An A-* statement MUST NOT be placed in U.Signature.Laws.
    • An A-* statement MUST NOT use RFC deontic keywords as if it were an agent obligation. (It is a gate predicate, not a duty.)
    • An A-* statement MUST NOT claim that evidence exists (that is E-*) or that someone must enforce the gate (that is D-*).

    A.7 EntityOfConcern binding. A-* claims are Descriptions of a mechanism gate. They are not “what a client must do”; they are “what the mechanism admits”.

    Required references (explicit). If an A-* predicate relies on defined terms or invariants, it SHOULD reference the relevant L-* IDs (or at minimum the signature that defines them).

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

    Intent. State one atomic deontic claim. A generic prescription states what one exact policy or other normative episteme requires; it does not create an individual duty bearer or commitment occurrence. A claim that one actual System or separately governed party has that duty instead cites one separately obtaining A.2.8 U.Commitment. When a sentence sounds permissive, use §8.4.1; only its Grant or norm row enters D. Writing the D-* sentence neither institutes a relation nor establishes compliance.

    Adjudication. For a generic prescription, inspect the exact normative source, its applicable rule content, scope, and current edition. For an individual duty, apply A.2.8 to the separately obtaining commitment and its actual basis. The wording itself decides neither obtaining nor compliance.

    Canonical form. First choose the route. A generic D claim names the normative episteme and the rule content being stated, without inventing an individual bearer. An individual-duty D claim names the actual bearer and exact U.Commitment; a system-role kind or assignment may be a rule ground but is neither bearer nor duty. A responsibility claim uses an admitted domain responsibility predicate and its actual participants, or returns its exact missing governor. A permissive-looking word does not by itself select D; use §8.4.1 for the grant route. Examples:

    • Generic: “APIEntryPolicy-v4 requires covered clients to satisfy A-….” No individual commitment is asserted.
    • Individual: “Actual bearer ClientIntegrator-A has commitment COM-17 to satisfy A-….”

    Canonical assertion (recommended; lintable). Use a CommitmentAssertion only when an individual-duty claim must be reused or audited. It concerns one exact separately obtaining U.Commitment and makes explicit:

    • entityOfConcernRef, resolving to one exact U.Commitment occurrence, and the D-* claim ID;
    • exactly one actual bearer branch: dutyBearerSystemRef or dutyBearerPartyRef;
    • non-empty exact dutyReferentRefs and any actual counterparties;
    • the A.2.8 DeonticModalityToken, scope, and validity window;
    • the exact current constitutive policy, individualizing rule, and actual instituting basis required by that rule; and
    • evidence-claim or carrier references only when the receiving reliance or adjudication needs them.

    The assertion states and supports a claim about the relation. Its fields, publication, and evidence do not make the relation obtain.

    Prohibitions.

    • A generic D-* statement MUST NOT invent an individual bearer or commitment; name its exact normative source and rule content. An individual-duty D-* statement MUST NOT use “the system, service, interface, or specification” as a vague subject; name the actual duty-bearing system or separately governed party and exact U.Commitment, with an assignment only when the constitutive rule uses it as a ground. Use A.6.C when promise, utterance, approval, guarantee, 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 generic D-* claim episteme concerns the exact normative rule content it states. An individual D-* claim concerns the exact duty, commitment, or grant named by its content and does not substitute for that object. When permission wording is live, the branch in §8.4.1 names the subject pattern 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.

    A.6.B:5.4 — Quadrant E: Work‑Effects & Evidence

    Intent. State a truth-conditional result that can be settled only from actual work, evaluation, observation, or produced carriers.

    Adjudication. In-work or by an exact evaluation of work and its conditions. Reading a subject-pattern description or seeing a record is not enough.

    Canonical form. Write the ordinary result first, then make recoverable only what settles it:

    1. the exact predicate and object that the claim concerns;
    2. the participants, work or evaluation occurrence, scope/window, comparison frame, and other conditions required by that predicate; and
    3. the evidence or source-use relation and its carrier only when a gate, plan, audit, or assurance decision relies on that support. A carrier may support the claim but does not create the work, effect, or finding.

    When permission wording is current, use the branch in §8.4.1 for the exact occurrence or finding, its failure test, predicate, and subject-pattern locator; do not repeat that subject-question catalogue here.

    Prohibitions.

    • E-* statements SHOULD NOT use RFC deontic keywords; they report adjudicable results rather than obligations.
    • An E-* statement MUST NOT hide a gate predicate; gate predicates are A-*.
    • An E-* statement MUST NOT assign agency to an interface, record, or publication. For any precise cited Work, first recover each exact actual performer through A.13 and let A.15.1 independently admit the dated Work. Add an exact A.2.1 assignment reference and F.6 only when this claim or its receiving use expressly consumes precise assignment-bound attribution through the same obtaining A.13 assignment; F.6 identifies neither the assignment nor the performer, and missing or failed F.6 leaves the Work intact. If enforceability or commitment is intended, express a separate D-* claim.

    A.7 EntityOfConcern binding. An E-* claim episteme concerns the exact work effect, evaluated finding, evidence relation, or carrier condition named by its predicate. A record or carrier is a separate object and becomes the concern only when its existence or condition is itself the claim.

    Required references (explicit).

    • If the result is conditioned on a gate decision, the E-* statement SHOULD reference the relevant A-* ID(s).
    • If another object is needed to settle the predicate, reference that object's subject pattern without importing its quadrant.
    • If evidence is used for reliance, cite the exact A.10 or G.6 evidence-use relation rather than treating carrier presence as truth.

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