#A.6.B:5 — Quadrant specifications

Preface node heading:a-6-b-5-quadrant-specifications:9869

#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 result from another owner 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 your prose reads like “clients must satisfy the applicability”, you almost certainly want a D-* duty + an A-* gate (linked by ID) instead.

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 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.

#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 an owner pattern 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, and its direct owner; do not repeat that owner 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. Name the admitted system that performed any cited Work and keep its covering assignment separate; 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 direct owner 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: 2026-07-28 — upstream FPF commit 17edd955 (github.com/ailev/FPF)