FPF Reference

    A.6.C:4.4 — MVPK faces are not second contracts

    Preface node heading:a-6-c-4-4-mvpk-faces-are-not-second-contracts:13291

    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

    The atomic claims grouped for one boundary use live in one canonical A.6.B Claim Register set; the four-question lens creates no parallel claim set. Publication faces present that set for a bounded reader/use under E.17:

    • Faces may select, summarize, and render claims for audiences. A selected episteme's U.View membership separately requires E.17.0 conformance to an exact viewpoint.
    • Faces must not add a new boundary claim; they project the existing classified claims.
    • Any face-level decision-relevant or normative-looking statement SHOULD cite the underlying claim ID(s) or canonical location(s). A new boundary claim MUST be added to its canonical source before publication on a face. Informative commentary may explain source claims without adding boundary semantics.

    Keyword rule (faces). If a face contains a BCP-14 keyword, each sentence MUST cite its existing classified claim ID or canonical location and direct object. Duty/recommendation/prohibition and current-grant projections cite their D claim; a gate projection cites its A claim; exercise or evaluated-finding projections cite their E claim. Use the selected A.6 A6-AW-* row for permission-looking wording. A face-level keyword manufactures no object or quadrant. If the boundary claim is not traceable, put it in its canonical source before publishing it on the face; informative commentary is limited to explanation that adds no boundary semantics. To avoid keyword-evasion, equivalent deontic phrasings (e.g., “is required to…”, “is prohibited from…”) SHOULD follow the same claim-reference discipline even when no BCP-14 keyword is present.

    Projection may be paraphrased for audience fit, but it MUST NOT change the deontic or semantic claim; if exactness is critical or disputed, use verbatim.

    This prevents faces from becoming “second contracts” by paraphrase drift.

    Last Updated: 2026-10-12 — upstream FPF commit f2bc67dd (github.com/ailev/FPF)