#A.6.C:4.2 — Routing recipe into A.6.B (L/A/D/E)

Preface node heading:a-6-c-4-2-routing-recipe-into-a-6-b-l-a-d-e:8620

#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

After unpacking, route each atomic statement using the Boundary Norm Square as defined normatively in A.6.B (quadrant semantics + form constraints + cross‑quadrant reference discipline). A.6.C does not redefine L/A/D/E; it applies them to contract-language as follows:

• Promise content → L/A (promise semantics + eligibility).
  • Put meanings, invariants, and metric definitions for what is promised in L (L-* in signature laws/definitions).
  • Put “eligible/covered/valid iff …” predicates as A (A-* admissibility/gate predicates), not as deontic obligations.
• Commitment → D (who is accountable).
  • Put “MUST/SHALL/commits to …” statements as D (D-*), preferably as U.Commitment payloads (A.2.8).
  • If compliance requires satisfying/enforcing a gate, the commitment MUST reference the relevant A-* ID(s) (D→A).
  • If the commitment is meant to be auditable, include evidence hooks by referencing E-* (D→E), preferably via U.Commitment.adjudication.evidenceRefs.
• Work + Evidence → E (how we can tell).
  • Put observable traces, audit records, measurement windows, and carrier semantics as E (E-*) with explicit carrier and observation/measurement conditions (A.6.B:5.4). Keyword placement rule (canonical claim set). Within the canonical L/A/D/E-classified claim set, BCP‑14 norm keywords (RFC 2119 + RFC 8174)—and their common synonyms (e.g., SHALL, REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, OPTIONAL)—belong in D claims only, expressed as U.Commitment.modality and normalized per A.2.8. Authors SHOULD avoid using these keywords in L/A/E claims; phrase L as definitions/invariants (“is defined as…”, “holds iff…”), A as predicates (“is admissible iff…”), and E as observable/evidenced properties. If a BCP‑14 keyword (or synonym) appears in an L/A/E claim, it SHOULD be rewritten into predicate/definition form (or explicitly marked informative) before publication.

A helpful rewrite rule:

If a sentence mixes “when allowed” + “who must comply” + “how we can tell”, decompose it into an A predicate, a D duty referencing that predicate, and an E evidence claim referencing that predicate (per A.6.B triangle decomposition).

---

Last Updated: 2026-06-08 — upstream FPF commit 093d30e8 (github.com/ailev/FPF)