#A.6.B — Boundary Norm Square (Laws / Admissibility / Deontics / Work‑Effects)

Preface node heading:a-6-b-boundary-norm-square-laws-admissibility-deontics-work-effects:9761

#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

Type: Architectural (A) Status: Stable Normativity: Normative (unless explicitly marked informative) Placement: Part A → A.6.B (matrix module; referenced by A.6 cluster overview) Builds on: E.8 (authoring template), A.6.0 (U.Signature), A.6.1 (U.Mechanism), A.6.3 (U.EpistemicViewing), E.17.0/E.17 (MVPK + “no new semantics” faces), A.7 (EntityOfConcern and Description-episteme boundary; specification-use and publication-carrier distinction), A.2.3 (promise content when contract language is current), A.2.8 (U.Commitment), A.2.8.PER (direct owner selected by the permission-word branch), A.2.9 (U.SpeechAct), E.10.D2 (EntityOfConcern and Description-episteme boundary; specification-use and refinement discipline), E.10 publication face, form, unit, and carrier discipline Purpose (one line): Provide a canonical 2×2 norm square that classifies boundary statements (L/A/D/E), constrains how each quadrant is written, and defines explicit cross‑quadrant reference rules so boundaries remain evolvable and audit‑ready.

#A.6.B:0 — Conventions

Keywords. The key words MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, MAY, and SHALL are to be interpreted as in RFC 2119/8174. Lower-case must, may, and should in explanatory prose is descriptive, not normative.

Quadrant labels. This pattern uses the classification labels L / A / D / E as statement quadrants:

• L — Laws & Definitions
• A — Admissibility & Gates
• D — Deontics & Commitments
• E — Work‑Effects & Evidence

These labels are claim-classification labels for statements, not MVPK face kinds and not pattern identifiers.

Statement identifiers (recommended). Classifiable statements SHOULD be given stable IDs with a quadrant prefix: L-*, A-*, D-*, E-*. Other sections and views SHOULD reference these IDs rather than restating the same constraint in new words.

Non-collision note (informative). The A-* prefix here is “Admissibility”, not Part-A numbering and not MVPK’s AssuranceLane face kind. If this is a readability hazard in your program, prefer an explicit G-* (“Gate”) local convention while keeping the quadrant name “Admissibility”. Also avoid introducing single-letter mnemonics for MVPK face kinds inside this cluster; spell face kinds in full to reduce collisions.

Atomic claim. An atomic claim is a sentence (or bullet) that performs exactly one logical role and is classifiable under exactly one quadrant. If a sentence mixes roles, it is not atomic and MUST be split before it can be classified.

Adjudication substrate (for classification). For the purposes of this square, an atomic claim is classified by where its own truth condition or governance content is settled. This tells you how to classify the sentence; it does not make a commitment, grant, or finding exist.

• In-description or in-theory: an L-* truth condition is settled by inspecting, proving, or type-validating the description; for a D-* claim, the description fixes the normative content and names the duty, commitment, or grant that the claim concerns.
• In-work or in-execution: deciding satisfaction requires observing executed work, inspecting carriers produced in work, or both.

Note (important). Writing a D-* claim records what the boundary says; it does not make the named duty, commitment, or grant exist or establish compliance. When the wording is about permission, use the permission-word branch in §8.4.1 to recover the exact object, what makes it obtain, and the evidence needed before reliance.

Modality family. A claim is either:

• Truth‑conditional: definitions, invariants, typing rules (“is”, “iff”, “∀”).
• Governance: governance conditions, obligations, commitments, and exclusions (the RFC keywords MUST, SHOULD, and MAY, “is admissible”, “is blocked”, “commits to”).

#A.6.B:1 — Problem frame

Boundary descriptions routinely collapse four distinct claim families into “contract soup”: definitions are written as obligations, runtime gates are hidden inside laws, governance talk is assigned to “the interface”, and “guarantees” are asserted without any evidence story. The resulting boundary is brittle: substitution becomes unclear, and auditability becomes performative rather than adjudicable.

FPF already separates the necessary strata (Signature vs Mechanism, EntityOfConcern, Description episteme, and carrier, views under viewpoints). What is still needed is a single, reusable classification primitive that any boundary text can apply consistently and that other patterns can cite as a stable authoring module.

#A.6.B:2 — Problem

When authors cannot reliably answer two questions—

1. “Is this a truth‑conditional statement or a governance statement?”
2. “Is it adjudicated by reading the description or by observing work?”

—then boundary statements drift across layers, faces fork semantics, and “compliance” becomes a matter of interpretation rather than a property that can be checked.

A boundary needs a minimal, stable classification that:

• classifies every atomic statement into a unique quadrant, and
• forces any cross‑quadrant dependencies to be explicitly referenced, not smuggled by paraphrase.

#A.6.B:3 — Forces

#Solution — the Boundary Norm Square

#Two independent distinctions

The Boundary Norm Square is the cross product of two independent distinctions:

1. Modality family: Truth‑conditional vs Governance
2. Adjudication position: In-description vs in-work

The square yields four quadrants that are mutually exclusive for atomic claims.

#A.6.B:4.2 — The square

Clarification (classify the claim, not its owner family).

• Classify the exact atomic claim by what its sentence states and by the conditions that let a reader decide it.
• The pattern that owns a referenced object supplies its predicate and obtaining conditions; it does not choose the claim's quadrant.
• When permission wording is present, use the single permission-word branch in §8.4.1. It separates the possible jobs of that wording without inventing a common “permission result” kind.

Normative rule (single quadrant). Each atomic claim MUST be classifiable under exactly one quadrant L/A/D/E.

Normative rule (no mixed sentences). A conforming boundary text SHALL decompose any sentence that bundles multiple quadrants (typical form: “MUST … if … then … and it is logged …”) into multiple atomic claims before those claims are treated as normative.

#A.6.B:4.3 — Canonical placements in the Signature Stack

The quadrants have canonical placements in the boundary stack:

• L → Signature layer: U.Signature.Laws (and mechanism‑local semantic laws if present).
• A → Mechanism layer: U.Mechanism.AdmissibilityConditions (entry gates / runtime admissibility predicates).
• D → Deontics & Commitments layer: atomic governance claims that state an accountable duty, recommendation-as-duty, prohibition, or commitment. When permission wording is live, §8.4.1 decides whether its claim also belongs here.
• E → Work-Effects & Evidence layer: truth-conditional claims whose satisfaction requires actual work, evaluation, observation, or produced carriers.

A published view MUST NOT introduce new semantic claims outside this L/A/D/E-classified claim set. E.17 (MVPK) is a specialization that enforces this rule for a fixed set of publication face kinds.

#A.6.B:5 — Quadrant specifications

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.

#A.6.B:6 — Cross‑quadrant link discipline

The square is not just classification; it is a dependency discipline. Claims often depend on each other; such dependencies MUST be explicit (by claim ID) rather than duplicated prose.

#A.6.B:6.1 — Explicit reference rule

If a claim’s meaning materially depends on another L/A/D/E-classified claim, that dependency MUST be represented as an explicit reference to the other claim’s ID (or to the canonical location where it lives), rather than by restating it.

Guideline (informative). Treat this as “import hygiene” for prose: reuse by reference, not by copy.

#A.6.B:6.2 — Canonical cross‑quadrant dependency patterns

These patterns are valid (and common). The square becomes operational when these links are used systematically.

#(D → A) Duty-to-gate linkage

When governance requires someone to comply with a gate:

• D-*: “Role MUST satisfy or enforce A-*.”

This separates what is admissible (A) from who is responsible (D).

#(E → A) Evidence-for-gate linkage

When gate decisions must be observable:

• E-*: “On rejection or acceptance due to A-*, carrier C is produced or observable under conditions …”

This separates gate semantics (A) from evidence semantics (E).

#(D → E) Duty-to-evidence linkage

When governance requires evidence production, retention, or exposure or commits to measured properties:

• D-*: “Role MUST retain or expose carrier class C used by E-* …”
• D-*: “Provider SHALL meet E-* under exclusions …”

This separates obligation or commitment (D) from adjudication (E).

#(A/E → L) Semantic grounding linkage

When a gate predicate or measurement relies on definitions or invariants:

• A-* / E-* references L-* that define terms or metrics.

This prevents “metric drift” and “definition drift” across views.

#(D → L) Governance-to-definition linkage

When an obligation or commitment relies on precise term or metric meanings:

• D-* references L-* that define the terms or metrics it uses.

This keeps governance text from accidentally redefining semantics in prose.

#A.6.B:6.3 — The “triangle decomposition” for mixed sentences

Normative rule (decomposition). A conforming boundary text SHALL decompose any mixed sentence that expresses (i) an entry condition, (ii) an obligation to satisfy or enforce it, and (iii) an observability expectation into the three quadrants:

• A: admissibility predicate (A-*)
• D: duty or commitment referencing the gate (D-* → A-*)
• E: evidence binding referencing the gate (and carriers) (E-* → A-*)

This is the canonical repair for “contract soup” around validity, authorization, compliance, audit, and security boundaries.

#A.6.B:6.4 — Dependency direction (no “upward” imports)

The square is intended to preserve layered modularity: semantics should not depend on governance text, and evidence semantics should not depend on duties.

Normative rule (no upward dependencies).

• L-* claims MUST NOT depend on or reference A-*, D-*, or E-* claims (except for purely informative notes explicitly marked informative).
• A-* claims MUST NOT depend on or reference D-* claims. (A-* may reference L-* for defined terms or invariants.)
• E-* claims MUST NOT depend on or reference D-* claims. (E-* may reference A-* for conditioning and L-* for metric or term meanings.)
• D-* claims MAY reference L-*, A-*, and E-* claims when needed, and SHOULD do so by ID rather than restating content.

Rationale (informative). This keeps foundational meaning stable (L), keeps runtime gates independent of governance prose (A), and keeps evidence semantics independent of enforcement policy (E). Governance (D) is the place where “who must do what, using which gates and which evidence” is assembled.

#A.6.B:7 — Mini-register: Claim Register (informative, recommended)

A Claim Register is a drift‑control device that lists every classifiable statement verbatim with classification metadata. It is not a new meaning authority.

Guidance (informative):

• The Statement cell should contain the normative text as authored (copied by value), not a paraphrase.
• Canonical location should point to the one place the statement “lives” (e.g., Signature.Laws, Mechanism.AdmissibilityConditions, TechCard.NormsCommitments, Evidence.Carriers), so other faces can cite it by ID.
• Stack layer should be one of {Signature, Mechanism, Norms-and-commitments, Evidence-and-carriers} to make classification auditable.
• A.7 primary side is the claim’s primary referent (EntityOfConcern, Description episteme, or publication carrier), even though the claim is always written as a Description episteme.
• Use References for explicit cross‑quadrant links (e.g., which D-* enforces which A-*, which E-* adjudicates which commitments, which L-* defines a metric used by E-*) and for external standards or policies where applicable.

#Archetypal Grounding (Tell–Show–Show)

Informative. Examples for learning the square; they do not add requirements beyond A.6.B:10.

#Tell (universal rule)

A boundary remains evolvable and auditable when every normative statement is decomposed into atomic claims, each claim is classified under exactly one quadrant of the Boundary Norm Square, and cross‑quadrant dependencies are expressed by explicit claim‑ID references rather than paraphrase.

#Show #1: Effect signature vs handler (post‑2015 effect systems)

A service boundary naturally mirrors algebraic effects & handlers practice (popularized broadly in the post‑2015 era, with mainstream effect handlers becoming especially prominent around OCaml 5):

• L: defines the operation vocabulary and laws (effect signature semantics).
• A: defines when the operation is admissible (runtime guard predicates).
• D: states who must enforce guards and what the provider commits to (operator and implementer duties; SLAs).
• E: ties “what happened” to observable carriers (traces, logs, metrics, and events) so commitments can be adjudicated.

The square prevents accidentally writing handler obligations as laws or treating observability as a definition.

#Show #2: ML evaluation protocol boundary (reproducibility discipline)

A published “evaluation protocol” boundary (common in modern ML governance) benefits from strict classification:

• L: metric definitions and invariants (e.g., what counts as AUROC; data partition invariants).
• A: admissibility gates (dataset usage-term constraints; pinned environment constraints; seed policy).
• D: checker and author duties (publish required faces; use declared dataset version; retention duties for run evidence carriers).
• E: evidence carriers (run logs, hashes, reports, trace IDs) and adjudication conditions (which viewpoint measures, what windows).

The square keeps “must use dataset vX” (D) separate from “evaluation is admissible iff dataset usage terms match” (A), and both separate from “a run produced report carrier R with hash h” (E).

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

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-….”

#A.6.B:9 — Bias‑Annotation

Lenses tested: Gov, Arch, Ontological and Epistemic, Prag, Did. Scope: Universal for boundary descriptions.

• Arch bias: favors explicit separation and explicit references; mitigated by allowing narrative faces while keeping commitments classified and referenced by ID.
• Gov bias: makes accountability explicit (D) and auditability explicit (E); mitigated by keeping evidence conceptual and carrier-referenced rather than tool-specific.
• Ontological and Epistemic bias: insists on EntityOfConcern, Description episteme, and carrier and on work‑adjudicated effects; mitigated by providing clear cross‑quadrant link patterns so authors can still express real‑world governance needs.

#A.6.B:10 — Conformance Checklist

#Common Anti‑Patterns and How to Avoid Them

#A.6.B:12 — Consequences

#A.6.B:13 — Rationale

The square is the smallest authoring primitive that forces an explicit choice across two distinctions that are otherwise routinely conflated:

• Truth vs governance (what is the case vs what is required or committed), and
• Description vs work (what can be decided by reading vs what must be decided by observing execution).

By requiring atomicity and explicit cross‑quadrant references, the square converts “contract talk” into a set of classified, evolvable claims with clear adjudication semantics.

#A.6.B:14 — SoTA‑Echoing (post‑2015 practice alignment)

Informative. Alignment notes; not normative requirements.

Representative sources (post‑2015; illustrative). See also A.6:11 for a fuller list.

• ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2022 (U.View and U.Viewpoint discipline).

• Leijen (2017) / Hillerström & Lindley (2018) (effects & handlers).

• OpenTelemetry Specification (v1.0+, 2021–) (evidence carriers as traces, logs, and metrics).

• Effect systems & handlers: clear separation between operation signature (L) and handler and runtime behavior (A/E), with governance duties (D) attached to accountable operators and implementers.

• Behavioural and session typing: protocol laws (L) and admissibility (A) remain distinct from commitments (D) and runtime traces (E), improving interpretability of “progress and safety” style boundary guarantees.

• SRE and observability discipline: treating traces, logs, and metrics as evidence carriers (E) and separating evidence semantics from retention and exposure duties (D) mirrors contemporary operational practice while staying tool‑agnostic.

#A.6.B:15 — Relations

• Used by A.6 and A.6.C: supplies the canonical matrix and cross-quadrant link discipline. Both consumers classify each exact atomic claim by predicate and adjudication, keep the claim episteme separate from its EntityOfConcern, and use the §8.4.1 branch only when permission wording is live.
• Constrains A.6.0 (U.Signature): enforces that L-* laws are truth‑conditional and do not include admissibility predicates.
• Constrains A.6.1 (U.Mechanism): enforces that admissibility lives in AdmissibilityConditions (A-*) and that evidence semantics are classified as E-* with carrier references.
• Requires A.7: binds quadrants to EntityOfConcern, Description episteme, or publication carrier so agency and evidence are not misattributed.
• Interacts with MVPK/E.17: faces are projections that cite L/A/D/E-classified claims and mint no new semantics. When the permission-word branch is selected, its row names the direct owner and obtaining or failure test; A.6.B only classifies the statement, and neither wording nor a carrier makes the referenced object obtain.

#Probe-coupled boundary claim classification

Probe-coupled boundary language does not create a fifth quadrant. A boundary sentence that says a question, metric, dashboard, workshop, bridge, or API read changes the represented state must still be atomized through the same L/A/D/E square.

Action classification:

1. Copy the boundary sentence being used for a decision.
2. Split it into atomic claims before judging it: definition or law claim, admissibility or use-condition claim, role commitment, and work-and-evidence effect claim.
3. Give each atomic claim its quadrant and identifier.
4. Put the state, probe, update, or export part in the quadrant where it belongs rather than treating "quantum-like boundary" as one claim.
5. Apply A.6.P to reusable relation words; use F.18 only when recovered terms need durable names; apply A.10 to evidence; apply B.3 to assurance; apply C.16 to measurement; apply C.26.1 to any remaining probe-coupled state-reading claim.
6. Emit a Claim Register row set or equivalent L/A/D/E-classified claim set only when the sentence is decision-bearing, reusable, contested, assurance-facing, or likely to be cited across faces.

For a local working note, the lighter action is enough: atomize the sentence mentally, write one clean L/A/D/E-classified sentence, and avoid the phrase "quantum-like boundary" as a single claim. Use the Claim Register when the L/A/D/E-classified claim set must survive reuse or dispute.

Useful outputs:

• a Claim Register row set when the boundary sentence mixes claim kinds;
• one rewritten L/A/D/E-classified sentence when the case is only a local working note;
• an ordinary A.6.B L/A/D/E-classified claim set when no quantum-like probe-coupled state-reading claim remains;
• a C.26.1 classify only for the remaining probe-coupled state-reading part;
• an A.10/B.3/C.16/F.9 classification when evidence, assurance, measurement, or bridge work is the actual claim being made.

Do not write "the boundary is quantum-like" as one unL/A/D/E-classified claim. The action is: split the claim, classify the pieces, then decide whether C.26.1 still has a remaining job.

#A.6.B:End

---

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