FPF Reference

    C.3.A:Annex A - Regulatory and compliance alignment [A/I]

    Preface node heading:c-3-a-annex-a-regulatory-and-compliance-alignment-a-i:45617

    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

    C.3.A:A.1 Purpose and fit

    Regulations name categories such as Adult person, Class II medical device, Personal data, and Lease. A local context needs both a faithful category correspondence and explicit jurisdiction/version/time applicability. The kind channel answers “about what”; USM Scope answers “where and when”; neither answers whether one exact local candidate satisfies the target criterion.

    C.3.A:A.2 Normative obligations

    C-REG-1 (Regulatory declarations). Each used regulatory category SHALL be an exact authority-context local kind with a separately identified KindSignature declaration episteme edition. Any F value characterizes that episteme, not the kind.

    C-REG-2 (Kind correspondence). Cross-context category use SHALL recover an obtaining KindBridge relation between exact authority and local kinds plus a separate bridge assertion with mapping, pinned editions, preservation/loss, CL^k, evidence, definedness, and admitted use.

    C-REG-3 (Scope). Jurisdiction, effective dates, grace periods, and other genuinely contextual applicability conditions SHALL be Claim scope over exact context slices with explicit Gamma_time. A product-family or platform distinction belongs in Scope only when it is genuinely a context-slice dimension of the claim; when it classifies the target entity, recover it as an exact kind and, for candidate-bearing use, an exact candidate judgment. A direct candidate feature remains with its own governor and SHALL NOT be smuggled into Scope.

    C-REG-4 (No synonym shortcut). A legal label, translation row, or policy card SHALL NOT substitute for the KindBridge relation, its assertion, or the target declaration.

    C-REG-5 (Exact candidate use). Whenever a policy is applied to candidate candidate, the guard SHALL evaluate J(candidate, localKind, localSignatureEdition, localSlice) and retain true, false, or unknown. Declaration compatibility alone is insufficient.

    C-REG-6 (Consequences). Justified kind- and scope-bridge consequences SHALL affect R only. They SHALL NOT alter F, G, or the candidate judgment.

    C-REG-7 (Editioning). A change in law that changes the criterion creates another signature episteme edition; a change in applicability changes Scope. C.3.1 decides kind continuity. Guards SHALL pin editions and time and SHALL NOT rely on “latest”.

    C-REG-8 (Local adaptation). A local nuance MAY use a RoleMask declaration. If it becomes a stable conceptual distinction, the context SHALL separately identify any new local kind and establish its obtaining subkind relation; mask reuse does not perform that change.

    C.3.A:A.3 Regulatory guards

    Guard_RegAdopt(P, candidate, authorityKind, authoritySignatureEdition, localKind, localSignatureEdition, S_local).

    1. Check P's governed scope and explicit time against S_local.
    2. Recover the exact authority/local declarations, KindBridge relation, and bridge assertion.
    3. Check bridge applicability and route its consequence to R.
    4. Evaluate J(candidate, localKind, localSignatureEdition, S_local).
    5. Continue only on true; retain known false or unknown before refusing.
    6. Check freshness of relied-on regulatory and candidate support separately.

    Guard_RegChange(change, impactedDeclarations, impactedScopes).

    1. Decide whether the change alters criterion, reference scheme, applicability, or more than one.
    2. Author the required signature episteme edition and let C.3.1 settle kind continuity.
    3. Update Scope independently when jurisdiction/version/time coverage changes.
    4. Reassess the bridge assertion's mapping, loss, CL^k, evidence, and admitted use.
    5. Evaluate affected exact candidates for the new receiving use under the new declaration edition while preserving every prior judgment indexed to its prior edition and slice; do not edit a set representation or rewrite historical judgments as a substitute.

    Guard_RegXContextUse(P, candidate, sourceKind, targetKind, targetSignatureEdition, S_target). Apply Guard_XContext_Typed and then the exact target candidate judgment. A missing target dependency yields unknown; it is not cured by a high bridge assessment.

    C.3.A:A.4 Worked examples [I]

    Adult dosage across jurisdictions. Authority kind AdultPerson@RegY uses threshold 18; hospital kind AdultPatient uses 21. The obtaining KindBridge and its assertion state the boundary loss and CL^k=1. For patient P-44, the hospital evaluates its target signature edition in the dated formulary slice. Missing DOB support gives unknown; the guard refuses without asserting that P-44 is a non-adult.

    GDPR and CCPA. Two source kinds relate to independently identified product-context kinds through separate bridges/assertions. Each policy has its own jurisdiction/time Scope. A data item is governed by a fresh target judgment; an alias table is support, not classification.

    Export control. The shipping policy pins the target product signature edition, shipment candidate, destination/end-use slice, and date. Category correspondence and Scope translation have separate bridges. The exact product judgment and the shipping guard disposition remain separate; higher residual risk may require manual review.

    IFRS and US GAAP Lease. Each authority kind and local corporate kind remains independently identified. The bridge assertion records the short-term-exception loss. Test planning targets boundary candidates under pinned target declarations rather than treating one shared label as truth.

    C.3.A:A.5 Guidance and migration [I]

    1. Inventory regulatory claims, exact category declarations, and applicability slices.
    2. Recover or author target KindSignature declaration editions; keep F on those epistemes.
    3. Establish KindBridge relations and separate assertions with loss and admitted use.
    4. Rewrite candidate-bearing guards to pin candidate, local kind, signature edition, and slice.
    5. Preserve unknown and record refusal separately.
    6. Route Scope through USM and bridge consequences through R.
    7. Use RoleMask declarations for local procedural tailoring; separately establish a new kind/order relation only when the distinction truly becomes conceptual and stable.

    C.3.A:A.6 Manager's compact pattern [I]

    • Where and when? Claim scope over exact context slices.
    • About what? Exact local kind and signature declaration; KindBridge relation/assertion if foreign.
    • Which exact thing? Fresh target J(candidate, kind, signatureEdition, slice).
    • Can we act? A separate guard disposition after scope, judgment, bridge, freshness, and policy checks.

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