#A.6.B:8.4 — Worked Rewrite Kit (informative, recommended)

Preface node heading:a-6-b-8-4-worked-rewrite-kit-informative-recommended:10099

#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

Informative. This kit is a worked, copy‑pasteable restatement of A.6.B’s rules (atomicity, L/A/D/E classification, explicit references, triangle decomposition, and no‑upward dependencies). If anything here conflicts with A.6.B, A.6.B is authoritative.

#Goal

Convert a boundary-ish sentence that mixes “laws / gates / duties / evidence” into:

1. atomic L/A/D/E-classified claims (L/A/D/E),
2. explicit references by claim ID (no paraphrase duplication),
3. a readable recomposition (Tech + Plain),
4. a minimal anti-pattern lint (things we reject / flag).

#Micro-procedure (Atomize → Classify → Triangle → Link → Bind References → Recompose)

Step 1 — Atomize. Split mixed prose into atomic claims; each must classify to exactly one quadrant.

Step 2 — Classify (L/A/D/E).

• L if the claim is truth‑conditional and adjudicable in‑description (inspection, proof or type validation, or model reasoning over declared assumptions): definitions, invariants, typing and well-formedness constraints. Guardrails: L-* MUST NOT (i) use RFC deontic keywords as operators, (ii) encode runtime entry predicates (those are A-*), or (iii) assert evidence existence or measurement outcomes (those are E-*).
• A if it is an in‑work gate predicate: what the mechanism admits at application time (“admissible iff …”). It is not a duty and MUST NOT be phrased as one. Guardrails: A-* SHOULD be written in predicate form and MUST NOT (i) use RFC deontic keywords as if it were an agent obligation, (ii) claim that evidence carriers exist (that is E-*), or (iii) assign responsibility or enforcement (that is D-*). (Do not confuse this with Signature.Applicability: applicability scopes intended meaning and intended use; it is not a runtime entry gate.)
• D if the exact atomic statement assigns an accountable duty, recommendation-as-duty, prohibition, or commitment. A permissive sentence enters D only through the Grant or norm row below. Guardrails: a duty or commitment claim names its accountable subject; a grant claim instead follows the participant and ground test in the Grant or norm row. Writing either claim does not make its object obtain.
• E if it is an in-work truth-conditional claim whose satisfaction requires actual work, evaluation, observation, or produced carriers. Predicate-specific minimum: name the exact E-* predicate and object, then the actual work, evaluation, or observation, scope/window, comparison frame, and other settling conditions that this predicate needs. Add an evidence or source-use relation, carrier/schema, viewpoint, or consumer only when the receiving gate, plan, audit, assurance, or other reliance decision depends on that support. Guardrails: E-* SHOULD NOT use RFC deontic keywords, MUST NOT hide a gate predicate (that is A-*), and MUST NOT cite D-*. (If the sentence is “Role SHALL measure, retain, or expose …”, classify that obligation to D, even if it is about evidence.)

Step 3 — Triangle decomposition. If the original sentence mixes (i) an entry condition, (ii) an accountable obligation or commitment, and (iii) an observability expectation (a common failure mode with “guarantee, ensure, approved, or aligned”), decompose it into:

• A: the admissibility predicate (what must be true to treat the claim as applicable),
• D → A: who is responsible for keeping or ensuring the predicate,
• E → A: what evidence or traces are used to adjudicate the predicate.

Permission-word branch (use only when the sentence sounds permissive). Choose the row by the job the sentence performs, not by the word may, approved, authorized, or permitted.

Choose one row. If one sentence answers two questions, split it before classification. If the sentence is not permission-like, do not use this branch. The branch classifies claims and selects existing owners; it creates no permission result umbrella. Use the filled case in §8.4.5.4 when a concrete model is needed; point back to that case rather than adding another owner list.

Guideline. Keep gate semantics independent of specific evidence carriers: write the gate predicate in A-*, then bind observability in E-* that references the gate (E → A). A-* claims MUST NOT reference E-* (no upward dependencies), even though E-* is used to adjudicate gate satisfaction.

Step 4 — Link by ID, not by paraphrase. Supported directions (no upward deps):

• A-* may cite L-*
• E-* may cite L-* and A-*
• D-* may cite L-*, A-*, E-*
• Unsupported: L-* citing anything; A-* or E-* citing D-*.

Common link motifs (informative). The most reusable boundary rewrites use the canonical motifs: D→A, E→A, D→E, A/E→L, and D→L.

Step 5 — Bind references (minimal A.7 discipline).

• Place L claims in Signature.Laws (and mechanism-local semantic laws if present), and A claims in Mechanism.AdmissibilityConditions.
• Bind D claims to accountable role assignments or admitted acting systems and prefer ID references (no restatement of L-* / A-* content in new words).
• Bind each E claim first to its exact predicate/object and to the actual work, evaluation, observation, scope/window, comparison frame, and other conditions that settle that predicate. Add a carrier/schema, evidence or source-use relation, viewpoint, and consumer only when a receiving reliance decision depends on them; a claim about a carrier's own existence or condition names the carrier as its object.

Optional drift-control. Add each L/A/D/E-classified claim verbatim to a Claim Register row (A.6.B:7) with canonical location + references so faces can cite by ID without paraphrase.

Step 6 — Recompose into readable text. Produce two recompositions:

• Tech recomposition: a short L/A/D/E-classified claim bundle (sometimes called a “claim skeleton”) listing L/A/D/E claims and ID references.
• Plain recomposition: a one-paragraph narrative that summarizes the bundle and points to IDs (no new semantics). If you need a new constraint, add a new atomic L/A/D/E-classified claim; do not smuggle it into Plain.

#Anti-pattern (quick)

• AP-1 Evidence-free guarantees. “X guarantees Y” with no E-claims.
• AP-2 Interface-as-promiser. Non-agent objects “promise or commit”.
• AP-3 Gate-as-evidence. Treating the gate predicate (A) as if it were an observation (E).
• AP-4 Gate-as-law. Entry predicates as signature “laws or definitions” (L) instead of A-*.
• AP-5 Adjective smuggling. “fast, secure, approved, or aligned” used instead of qualifiers or slots.
• AP-6 Paraphrase drift. Restating L/A content in D or E with changed meaning (instead of citing by ID).
• AP-7 Deontics in predicates. RFC keywords (“MUST, SHALL, and related RFC keywords”) used as operators inside L-* or A-* predicates (should be D-* that references L-*/A-*).
• AP-8 View-fork semantics. Recomposition/face text introduces new L/A/D/E meaning not present in the L/A/D/E-classified claim set (violates “no new semantics” discipline).
• AP-9 Applicability-as-gate. Using Signature.Applicability (intended use) as a substitute for A-* runtime admission predicates.

#Example 1 — Software engineering (SLO-ish API latency)

#Draft sentence (non-conformant)

“This API guarantees p95 latency < 200ms.”

#Atomize + Classify (L/A/D/E)

L-API-01 (Definition). p95_latency(window W, population P, unit U, method M) is defined as … (formal measurement definition). (Lives in Signature.Laws or a referenced measurement definition pack.)

L-API-02 (Interface signature). The API endpoints and parameters are as declared (including parameter passing discipline / units). (Signature-level structure.)

A-API-01 (Gate predicate: admissibility). The claim “p95 < 200ms” is admissible only under declared load profile + deployment region + sampling method + window: AdmissibleLatencyClaim := (region=US) ∧ (concurrency≤X) ∧ (payload≤Y) ∧ (W=5m) ∧ (M=HDRHistogram@v…) ∧ (P=requests that match filter F) (References L-API-01 for definition.)

D-API-01 (Commitment). ServiceOwner SHALL meet the latency target p95_latency < 200ms when A-API-01 holds, adjudicated per L-API-01 using the carriers and observation conditions in E-API-01. (References L-API-01 and A-API-01 by ID; does not restate them.)

D-API-02 (Operational duty). SRE_oncall SHALL publish incident notes when the commitment D-API-01 is violated, and SHALL avoid claiming compliance outside A-API-01. (References D-API-01 and A-API-01 by ID.)

E-API-01 (Evidence / carriers). For decisions under A-API-01, the following carrier classes are produced or observable under the declared observation conditions: trace IDs and span IDs, raw histogram carriers with schema reference, percentile dashboard snapshots, and pinned sampling configuration for window W. Observation conditions (minimum): workload profile selector, sampling method and configuration pins, and computation method reference (L-API-01). Viewpoint and consumer (minimum): the role assignment, viewpoint, or consumer that uses the carriers to adjudicate the gate, audit commitments, or both (e.g., SRE or performance-reviewer). (References A-API-01 and L-API-01; avoids RFC deontics; does not smuggle gates. Note: E-* MUST NOT cite D-*.)

D-API-03 (Duty-to-evidence linkage). Operators SHALL retain or expose the carrier classes referenced in E-API-01 for the audit window required by policy. (References E-API-01 by ID.)

E-API-02 (Observed value claim). For interval Γ_time = [t1..t2] under conditions pinned to A-API-01 and using carriers in E-API-01, observed p95_latency = 173ms (computed per L-API-01). (References A-API-01, L-API-01 and E-API-01.)

#Triangle decomposition (explicit)

• A-API-01 is “the predicate”.
• D-API-01 → A-API-01 states the commitment under the gate or envelope.
• E-API-01 → A-API-01 binds adjudication (carriers used to decide the gate or commitment).
• D-API-03 → E-API-01 expresses retention and exposure obligations for those carriers.

#Readable recomposition

Tech recomposition (L/A/D/E-classified claim bundle, short):

• L-API-01 defines p95 latency computation.
• A-API-01 specifies when the latency claim is admissible.
• D-API-01 states the commitment under that envelope.
• E-API-01 lists adjudicable carriers and conditions used to adjudicate A-API-01 (and therefore any commitments that reference it).
• D-API-02 assigns operational incident-note duties.
• D-API-03 assigns retention and exposure duties for carriers in E-API-01.
• E-API-02 reports observed performance under A-API-01 for Γ_time=[t1..t2].

Plain recomposition (one paragraph, readable): “The API’s latency target uses the p95 definition in L-API-01 and is only applicable under the declared operating envelope A-API-01. The service owner commits to meeting the <200ms target under that envelope (D-API-01). Adjudication uses the telemetry carriers listed in E-API-01, which operators must retain or expose (D-API-03), and the on-call SRE must publish incident notes when the commitment is violated (D-API-02). Under that envelope, the observed p95 over Γ_time=[t1..t2] was 173ms (E-API-02).”

#Example 2 — Mechanical engineering (fit / coaxiality)

#Draft sentence (non-conformant)

“This fit ensures coaxiality.”

#Atomize + Classify

L-FIT-01 (Definition). coaxiality is defined relative to a declared base axis and measurement method (datum scheme, instrument, tolerance zone). (Truth-conditional: “what it means”.)

L-FIT-02 (Interface and boundary structure). The boundary relation involves shaft, bushing, datum axis, tolerance class, temperature window, assembly procedure class. (Signature-level arity recovery / slots.)

A-FIT-01 (Gate predicate). The coaxiality claim is admissible only if manufacturing and assembly satisfy the declared process envelope: material batch, temperature window, tool calibration validity, surface finish class, alignment procedure version. (Gate predicate; can be checked using evidence, but is not itself evidence.)

D-FIT-01 (Duty). ProcessEngineer SHALL ensure A-FIT-01 holds for the production lot and SHALL not release the lot for use when A-FIT-01 is false. (References A-FIT-01.)

E-FIT-01 (Evidence carriers). Evidence carriers used to adjudicate A-FIT-01 include CMM reports, tool calibration certificates, assembly logs, temperature traces, and datum scheme pins. (References A-FIT-01 and L-FIT-01; avoids RFC deontics.)

D-FIT-02 (Duty-to-evidence linkage). QualityEngineer SHALL retain or expose the carriers referenced in E-FIT-01 for the production lot. (References E-FIT-01 by ID.)

E-FIT-02 (Observed). For lot L123 and window Γ_time=[t1..t2], under conditions pinned to A-FIT-01 and using carriers in E-FIT-01, measured coaxiality was within tolerance zone T (interpreted per L-FIT-01). (References A-FIT-01, L-FIT-01, and E-FIT-01.)

#Readable recomposition

Tech bundle:

• Meaning of coaxiality: L-FIT-01.
• Boundary arity and participants: L-FIT-02.
• When the claim is admissible: A-FIT-01.
• Who is responsible: D-FIT-01.
• What we observe and keep as carriers: E-FIT-01 and measured outcome E-FIT-02 (with retention duty D-FIT-02).

Plain paragraph: “‘Ensures coaxiality’ is made precise by fixing the definition and datum scheme (L-FIT-01) and by making the boundary participants explicit (L-FIT-02). The coaxiality claim is only applicable under the declared manufacturing and assembly envelope (A-FIT-01), which the process engineer is accountable for maintaining (D-FIT-01). Compliance is adjudicated using the measurement and process carriers listed in E-FIT-01; for lot L123 over Γ_time=[t1..t2], the observed coaxiality was within tolerance E-FIT-02.”

#Example 3 — Management (project “approved or aligned”)

#Draft sentence (non-conformant)

“The project is approved.”

#Atomize + Classify

L-PRJ-01 (Definition). approved(project, approvalKind) is defined as a relation kind; approval kinds include: “sponsor-signoff”, “stage-gate-pass”, “budget-authorized”, “staffing-assigned”, etc. (Truth-conditional: disambiguates kind and polarity.)

A-PRJ-01 (Gate predicate: stage entry). For starting execution work, ExecutionAdmissible(project) holds iff required approvals are present and required prerequisites are satisfied (e.g., risk review completed, budget line exists, key roles staffed). (This is the real “may start work” entry predicate; it references L-PRJ-01 for what counts as approvals. If “approved” is meant as permission rather than gate evidence, use the permission-word branch in §8.4.1. An approval registry entry or evidence carrier alone remains source/display evidence and is not a grant.)

D-PRJ-01 (Duty). ProjectOwner SHALL not initiate execution unless A-PRJ-01 holds, SHALL keep the approval registry current, and SHALL retain or expose the evidence carriers referenced in E-PRJ-01. (References A-PRJ-01 and E-PRJ-01 by ID.)

E-PRJ-01 (Evidence carriers). Evidence carriers used to adjudicate A-PRJ-01 include: signed decision record IDs, meeting minutes pins, budget system references, staffing assignment records, and gate checklist snapshots. (References A-PRJ-01; avoids RFC deontics.)

E-PRJ-02 (Observed state). As of Γ_time=snapshot(t), a resolvable gate-status carrier (e.g., GateChecklistSnapshot#…) indicates A-PRJ-01 holds, with the referenced evidence set pinned as {DecisionRecord#…, BudgetLine#…, StaffingAssignments#…} (carrier classes as per E-PRJ-01). (Observed / pinned state; references A-PRJ-01 and E-PRJ-01; includes carrier instance(s), not just carrier classes.)

#Readable recomposition

Tech bundle:

• “Approved” is not one relation: L-PRJ-01 defines approval kinds.
• “May start execution” is a gate predicate: A-PRJ-01.
• Owner accountability: D-PRJ-01.
• Carriers and adjudication: E-PRJ-01 and observed snapshot E-PRJ-02.

Plain paragraph: “Instead of a generic ‘approved’, we select an explicit approval kind as defined in L-PRJ-01 and treat ‘may start execution’ as an admissibility gate (A-PRJ-01). The project owner is accountable for not starting execution unless that gate holds and for keeping the approval registry current (D-PRJ-01). Gate status is adjudicated using the pinned carriers listed in E-PRJ-01; as of snapshot t, the evidence indicates the gate holds (E-PRJ-02).”

#Filled permission case (each sentence classified)

E-CAL-01 (Instituting communicative Work). Admitted system MaintenanceCoordinator-A performed dated CalibrationGrantAct-17 : U.SpeechAct under MaintenanceCoordinator-A@DayShift; that obtaining assignment has the system as holder, covers the act, and supplies the authority ground. The act satisfies CalibrationGrantPolicy-v4 in PlantCalibrationContext and is the actual instituting Work, not a document or assignment acting in its place.

D-CAL-01 (Grant position). MaintenanceCalibrationGrant-17 : GrantedPermissionRelation@Context, instituted by CalibrationGrantAct-17—the actual speech act stated in E-CAL-01—permits beneficiary MaintenanceTechnicianRole to run CalibrationProcedure-v3 in Zone 8 during ServiceWindow-17. CalibrationGrantPolicy-v4 remains current, the grant still covers that role, procedure, zone, and window, and no valid revocation or supersession has ended this occurrence; this D-* claim records the grant but does not institute it.

A-CAL-01 (Gate). CalibrationEntryAdmissible(plan, checkTime) holds only if MaintenanceCalibrationGrant-17 is current for the plan's beneficiary, action, zone, and time and no applicable permission/norm conflict finding is unresolved. The gate consumes those inputs; it creates neither the grant nor a conflict result.

E-CAL-02 (Actual Work and actor). During the early part of ServiceWindow-17, admitted system Tech-17 performed dated CalibrationWork-17B : U.Work under obtaining assignment Tech-17@Shift-B, whose holder is Tech-17 and whose extent covers the Work. Tech-17 performed the Work; the assignment only grounds the role attribution.

E-CAL-03 (Optional exercise claim). Because this case asks whether the grant was used, CalibrationExercise-17B : PermissionExerciseRelation@Context connects CalibrationWork-17B to MaintenanceCalibrationGrant-17: the Work instantiates CalibrationProcedure-v3, Tech-17@Shift-B instantiates the beneficiary role, and the Work occurs in Zone 8 within ServiceWindow-17 while the grant is current. If the action or beneficiary test failed, this exercise relation would not obtain.

D-CAL-02 (Exercise non-use boundary). The boundary author SHOULD add E-CAL-03 only when the reader needs to know whether the grant was exercised; otherwise the author stops with the separately named grant and Work rather than asserting an exercise relation by habit.

E-CAL-04 (Later non-violation finding). Admitted system ComplianceEvaluator-4 performed dated CalibrationComplianceEvaluation-17B : U.Work under covering assignment ComplianceEvaluator-4@QualityShift; that Work checked CalibrationWork-17B against current PlantCalibrationNormativeFrame-17, explicitly complete enough for this technician, procedure, zone, and evaluation window, and returned CalibrationNonViolation-17B : NonViolationFinding@Context(result=nonViolating). A stale or insufficient frame would return unresolved, even though the grant and exercise remain separately inspectable.

E-CAL-05 (Evidence for reliance). An A.10 evidence-provenance path links the exact CalibrationNonViolation-17B finding to CalibrationComplianceEvaluation-17B, ComplianceEvaluator-4@QualityShift, CalibrationRunLog-17B, the log's source and currentness relations, and the bounded audit context. The path supports reliance on the finding; the log, assignment, and path do not perform the evaluation or create its result.

E-CAL-06 (Unresolved conflict). After CalibrationWork-17B and its evaluation, Zone8EntryProhibition-17 becomes current for the same beneficiary, action, zone, and the remaining service window, including the calibration action specified by CalibrationWorkPlan-17C; no applicable rule selects an outcome and no authorized dated decision Work with a current resolution result exists. CalibrationConflict-17 : PermissionNormConflictFinding@Context therefore remains unresolved.

A-CAL-02 (Gate outcome). At the later entry check for CalibrationWorkPlan-17C, A-CAL-01 is false because CalibrationConflict-17 is unresolved. That result blocks entry for the planned Work; it neither resolves the conflict nor revokes MaintenanceCalibrationGrant-17.

E-CAL-07 (Source/display fact). SignedGrantRecord-17 and GreenPermitTile-17 are visible carriers in this case; their presence is an observed source/display claim only.

L-CAL-01 (Tempting wrong classification, rejected). “The visible permit is D, so the grant exists, the Work exercised it, and the Work was non-violating” is not one atomic claim and is false as a classification shortcut. The carrier observation is E-CAL-07; the grant, exercise, evaluation finding, and gate outcome remain the separately classified claims above.

#A compact “recomposition pattern” you can reuse verbatim

#Tech register (2–5 lines)

“This boundary claim is defined by L-…, is applicable only under A-…, is accountable under D-…, and is adjudicated using evidence carriers E-…. Observed status or value is E-… for Γ_time=….”

#Plain register (1 paragraph)

“We mean [short label] in the sense of L-…. It’s only meant to be used when A-… holds. [Role] is responsible for maintaining that condition (D-…). Whether it holds is checked using E-…, and the latest recorded status or value is E-….”

---

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