#Table of Content
Preface node
heading:table-of-content:15
#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
Preface (non-normative)
| ID & Title | Status | Concise content reminder |
|---|---|---|
| What This Specification Is And How To Use It | full text | Distinguishes the fifteen practical-use cards, Preface, ToC, direct pattern bodies, ordinary use, reliance-bearing support, exact first results, and three coupled flows. |
| FPF As A Project, Not Only A Pattern List | full text | Places the evolving Core beside companion explanations, domain frameworks, local practice frameworks, publication carriers, and tools without merging their authority. |
| Why FPF Exists | full text | Explains why difficult multi-participant work needs explicit distinctions, options, evidence, decisions, and return paths. |
| Creativity And Assurance Mature Together | full text | Connects plural option generation, evidence, assurance, currentness, and bounded decisions without making them one lifecycle. |
| Local Closure Inside An Open World | full text | Uses bounded contexts and explicit reopen conditions to make decisions possible without pretending the world is closed forever. |
| FPF As An Evolutionary Architecture For Thought | full text | Treats the framework as evolving reasoning architecture whose components, relations, and evaluations change together. |
| Architectural Characteristics Of Thought | full text | Names the characteristics that make reasoning inspectable, composable, evolvable, falsifiable, and usable. |
| Beyond Bias Hunting | full text | Replaces negative error catalogues with constructive reasoning objects and direct solution moves. |
| Thinking Through Writing | full text | Explains when cards, records, tables, characteristic spaces, term sheets, patterns, and DRRs become useful thinking instruments rather than paperwork. |
| Thinking-Oriented Architecture, Not A Descriptive Upper Ontology | full text | Distinguishes FPF's work of improving reasoning from cataloguing every entity that may exist. |
| The Bitter Lesson Stance | full text | Prefers general scalable search and learning while retaining explicit constraints, evidence, and bounded use. |
| From Flat Documents To Multi-View Truth | full text | Separates EntityOfConcern, descriptions, views, publication carriers, and reader uses while preserving return to source structure. |
| Architecture As Structure Of Holons | full text | Explains architecture as selected structures of a holon in context rather than the diagram or document that describes them. |
| Boundary Statements | full text | Shows where language carries commitments, admissibility, evidence, gates, and other boundary claims. |
| Raising Semantic Precision | full text | Explains ontology-first restoration from overloaded wording to explicit kinds, relations, slots, and admissible uses. |
| Big FPF Storylines | full text | Collects the load-bearing commitments that make the framework more than a disconnected pattern list. |
| Transdisciplinarity As A Meta-Theory Of Thinking | full text | Shows how shared distinctions can connect disciplines without flattening their bounded meanings. |
| The Culinary Architecture Of Collective Thought | full text | Uses an assembly analogy to explain why familiar ingredients still need an explicit architecture and quality discipline. |
| The Intellect Stack As A Pedagogical Map | full text | Gives a teaching map for locating capabilities without turning the map into the ontology or work order. |
| Purpose, Scope, And Non-Goals | full text | States FPF's intended use, tool independence, and boundaries against domain encyclopedia or one prescribed methodology. |
| How To Continue After The readme | full text | Sends the reader from a practical-use card to the direct pattern, then to exact result, receiving use, stop, or return. |
Part A - Kernel Architecture Cluster
| § | ID & Title | Status | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A.0 | Onboarding Glossary (NQD & E/E‑LOG) | Stable | Keywords: novelty, quality-diversity (NQD), explore/exploit (E/E-LOG), declared set result, typed portfolio publication, SearchSpaceRef, OutcomeSpaceRef, DeclaredSubstrateInterpretiveView, TypedSetViews, ParetoOnly default, scale-probe, BLP. Queries: "What terms must I publish when generating, selecting, or shipping a set result?", "How do I explain search-side vs outcome-side spaces and interpretive views on first use?", "How does FPF avoid single-winner bias in creative search?" | Builds on: E.2, A.5, C.17-C.19. Coordinates with: E.7, E.8, E.10, F.17, A.19.SOURCE-SET-SPACE-SUBSTRATE, A.19.DECLARED-SUBSTRATE-INTERPRETIVE-VIEW, G.5, G.9-G.12. Constrains: any pattern/UTS row that describes a generator, selector, declared set result, typed portfolio publication, or set-return publication. |
| Cluster A.I - Foundational Ontology | ||||
| A.1 | Holon Ontic Foundation (U.Holon and Admitted Holon Kinds) | Stable | Constructive recognition of one exact U.Entity under an already admitted holon kind: six world-side components, kind-specific U.System and U.Episteme conditions, and strict separation from evaluation, assertion, evidence, currentness, reliance, whole reidentification, selected structure, delimitation, and boundary-crossing claims. | Builds on: E.24.UK, A.14, C.13. Coordinates with: B.3.5, A.15.1, A.6.1, C.2.1, A.10, B.3, G.11, B.2, A.1.1, A.22, C.30, A.3.4, C.20, E.10.ARCH. |
| A.1.1 | Bounded Model-Use Structure and DDD Bounded-Context Recovery | Stable | Use when a present engineering decision depends on the organization of where one exact model applies, how it is actually used in assigned Work, and whether a concrete expression still agrees with the model's fixed content. Recover the direct relations first; select BoundedModelUseStructure only when their joint organization changes the decision. A proposed crossing stays outside until a compatible direct governor makes it obtain. Keeps the DDD plain name “bounded context” while separating the selected U.Structure from systems, Work, epistemes, descriptions, views, representations, and publications. Queries: "Which exact applicability, actual-use, and fixed-content coherence facts matter here?", "Do their governed occurrences form one decision-relevant structure?", "Which context object or unsupported crossing must I not invent?" | Builds on: A.1, A.22, C.2.1, A.2.6, A.6.REL. Coordinates with: A.2, A.2.1, A.3.1, A.3.4, A.14, A.15.1, A.15.PROD, F.9, E.17.0, C.29, E.24.PUB, C.2.P, A.6.0, A.6.5, F.17, F.18. |
| A.1.SCR | Finding the Acting or Changed System | Stable | Use when a current engineering decision depends on which exact system acts, is intended to change, carries a capability, persists, or may be designated as the project system-of-interest, and the proposed subject is unclear. Name the decision and proposed system reading; take the direct-owner exit first; apply A.1 only while systemhood remains load-bearing. Queries: "Which exact system acts or is intended to change here?", "What decision depends on treating that entity as a system?", "Does the phrase instead name Work, Method, capability, episteme, structure, a service/access claim, or another direct relation?" | Builds on: A.1. Routes service/access through: A.6.P §4.11a. Coordinates with: A.15.6, A.1.STM, A.6.RCD, E.10, F.18 and the exact direct owners. |
| A.1.STM | Using the System-Thinking Long Mantra | Stable | Use when a project team has, or is choosing, one project system-of-interest but cannot locate the first unsupported answer on the map from the expected outside change to the work and systems that make or change it, and onward to the builders of those builders; use it also when one local result lacks a named supported next fact. Read backward only to that first unsupported answer, open its direct owner, and trace independently grounded Work and changes forward—or stop at the missing direct fact. Queries: "Which answer is first unsupported on the map from the expected outside change to the work and systems that make or change the project system-of-interest, and onward to the work and systems that make or change those builders?", "Which supported fact connects this local result next to production or change, release, runtime use, or the expected outside change?", "Which direct pattern owns the missing answer?" | Builds on: Preface, A.1, A.1.SCR, A.15.6. Coordinates with: C.32.P2S, C.30 family, A.2/A.2.1, A.3/A.15 families, E.18/E.18.NET, A.10, B.3, C.28, A.22.CGUS. |
| A.2 | Role Taxonomy | Stable | Keywords: role, assignment, holder, context, function vs identity, responsibility, U.RoleAssignment. Queries: "How to model responsibilities?", "What is the difference between what a thing is and what it does?" | Builds on: A.1, A.1.1. Prerequisite for: A.2.1-A.2.6, A.13, A.15. |
| A.2.1 | U.RoleAssignment - System Role Assignment | Stable | Keywords: assignment occurrence, holder System, role value, role-taxonomy episteme, effective ReferenceScheme, AssignmentInterval, performedUnderAssignment. Queries: "Which System holds this role under which taxonomy and scheme?", "Are these two assignment episodes the same occurrence?", "Which assignment covers this performed Work?" | Builds on: A.2, A.6.REL, A.6.5, C.2.1. Coordinates with: A.2.2, A.2.5, A.15.1, F.6. |
| A.2.2 | U.Capability: System Ability Envelope and Measures | Stable | Keywords: holder-dependent capability instance, ability envelope, measure set, qualification window, currentness, capability-fit condition. Queries: "What is a capability in FPF?", "How do I separate capability from capability statements, evidence, dashboards, and fit predicates?" | Builds on: A.2, E.24.UK. Informs: A.15, A.2.3. |
| A.2.3 | U.PromiseContent (Promise Content) | Stable | Keywords: promise content, promise content, accessSpec, acceptanceSpec, SLO, SLA, claim scope (G), Work evidence, provider/consumer roles. Queries: "What is a promise content in FPF?", "Promise content vs Work vs MethodDescription", "How do access and acceptance differ?", "How is SLO/SLA adjudicated from Work evidence?" | Builds on: A.2.2. Prerequisite for: F.12. Used by: A.2.8, A.6.C, A.6.P. |
| A.2.4 | Episteme Evidence-Use and Status-Use Relations | Stable | Keywords: evidence-use, status-use, source-use, episteme, claim, provenance. Queries: "How is an episteme used as evidence?", "How do I keep evidence use from becoming a role?", "How do I model status use around an episteme?" | Builds on: A.2. Informs: A.10, B.3. |
| A.2.5 | RoleStateRelation@BoundedContext - Role State Space and Enactable-State Admission | Stable | Keywords: state machine, RSG, role state, enactability, role-state evolution. Queries: "How to model the state of a role?", "What is a Role State Graph?" | Builds on: A.2.1. Prerequisite for: A.15. |
| A.2.6 | Unified Scope Mechanism (USM): Context Slices & Scopes | Stable | Tests one exact U.ContextSlice against one exact set-valued U.Scope and gives the receiving action one evaluation result: true, false, or unknown. Keeps claim, work, and publication scopes distinct from evaluation work, result epistemes, representations, model-applicability occurrences, and selected structures. Queries: "Does this exact slice belong to this exact scope?", "What follows from true, false, or unknown?", "When does local-sense translation require an exact F.9 Bridge occurrence?" | Builds on: C.3, A.6.0, A.6.1, C.2.1, A.7. Coordinates with: C.2.2, C.2.3, A.2.2, A.15.1, F.9, A.22, A.1.1, E.24.UK, C.29. |
| A.2.7 | RoleRelationStructure@BoundedContext - Context-Local Role Relations and Representation-Lens Boundary | Stable | Keywords: role algebra, specialization (≤), incompatibility (⊥), bundles (⊗), separation of duties (SoD), requiredRoles substitution. Queries: "What does RoleS ≤ RoleG mean in FPF?", "How do I encode Separation of Duties with ⊥?", "How do role bundles (⊗) work?" | Builds on: A.2. Prerequisite for: A.15, A.2.5. |
| A.2.8 | U.Commitment (Deontic Commitment Object) | Stable | Keywords: commitment, deontics, obligation, recommendation-as-duty, prohibition, modality normalization, scope and validity window, adjudication hooks, evidenceRefs, BCP‑14 (RFC 2119/8174). Queries: How is an accountable commitment represented? How is it kept separate from permission grants, admissibility gates, and performed work? How is it audited through evidence hooks? | Refines: A.2. Builds on: A.2.1, A.2.3, A.2.6, A.7, A.15.1. Coordinates with: A.2.8.PER, A.2.9. Used by: A.6.B (Quadrant D), A.6.C. |
| A.2.8.PER | Granted Permission, Exercise, and Non-Prohibition | Stable | Keywords: weak non-prohibition finding, policy-valid strong grant, matching dated-work exercise, checked non-violation, permission or prohibition conflict, exact policy rule or decision result. Queries: "Is this a grant, weak finding, later exercise, checked non-violation, or conflict?", "When an instituting act or exercise is claimed, which admitted system acted under which assignment?", "What exact rule or authorized decision settles this conflict, if any?" | Coordinates with: A.2.8, A.2.9, F.6, A.6, A.6.B, A.6.C, A.15.1, A.15.5, A.10. Does not replace policy, role, capability, plan, gate, work, evidence, or commitment owners. |
| A.2.9 | U.SpeechAct (Communicative Work Kind, Occurrences, and Records) | Stable | Keywords: admitted speech-act Work kind, actual communicative occurrence, performing U.System, authority-grounding assignment, optional SpeechActRecord, utterance description, institutional target and effect, publication relation, evidence carrier. Queries: "What actual communicative Work occurred?", "Who performed it under which assignment?", "Which separate record, publication, commitment, grant, status, or evidence claim is current?" | Refines: A.2. Builds on: A.2.1, A.2.6, A.7, A.10, A.15.1. Used by: A.2.8, A.6.C. |
| Cluster A.II - Transformation Engine | ||||
| A.3 | Transformer Constitution (Quartet) | Stable | Actor-side constitution for performed work: one individual of U.Work is a world-side dated occurrence standing in exact performedBy and enactsMethod relations; U.Method is run-independent, and a U.MethodDescription edition enters only when a receiving use relies on it. A Work assertion or description is a separate U.Episteme; records and carriers are not Work. A.3.4 can identify natural, formal, joint, or non-separable change without inventing an actor or quartet. | Builds on: A.2.1, A.4, A.7. Coordinates with: A.3.1, A.3.2, A.3.4, A.10, A.12-A.15, B.1.4-B.1.6, F.9. |
| A.3.1 | U.Method: Reusable Way of Doing with Explicit Applicability | Stable | Use when a project needs to name how something is done in principle. Identifies one reusable semantic way under stated generic participant meanings, applicability, preconditions, intended effect or preserved condition, and bounds; cites a reference scheme or selected structure only when it changes identification or the next decision. Keeps descriptions, plans, dated Work, mechanisms, role assignments, evidence, and publication separate. | Builds on: A.1, A.1.1, A.3. Coordinates with: A.3.2, A.6.1, A.6.5, A.6.REL, A.15.1, A.15.2, A.22, B.1.5, C.2.1, C.2.P.DR, E.20, F.9. |
| A.3.2 | U.MethodDescription: Description Episteme for a Way of Doing | Stable | Keywords: method-description membership, claim-bearing episteme, exact U.Method EntityOfConcern, substantive way-of-doing claim, same method versus equivalent descriptions, representation versus publication versus plan versus Work. Queries: "When does an episteme qualify as U.MethodDescription?", "Do these descriptions concern the same method, and are their claims equivalent?", "How do I keep a recipe or code artifact separate from enactment?" | Builds on: C.2.1, A.3.1, E.24.UK. Coordinates with: A.1.1 only when bounded model use is current, A.6.1, A.6.5, A.15.1, A.15.2, A.22, B.1.5, C.29, E.24.PUB, F.9. |
| A.3.3 | U.Dynamics: State-Space and Transition-Law Episteme | Stable | Keywords: dynamics, state space, transition law, observation relation, prediction, simulation, calibration. Queries: "How do I model a reusable law of state change?", "When is a process label a dynamics episteme rather than method, work, or transformation?" | Builds on: A.1.1, A.19. Coordinates with: A.3.1, A.3.2, A.3.4, A.15.1, A.15.2, A.6.1, C.27, C.27.TA, C.29, A.10, B.3, A.20, A.21. |
| A.3.4 | U.Transformation: Bounded Change Under Conditions | Stable | Keywords: actual bounded change, changed referent, occurrence boundary, actual subject facts, continuity and reidentification, transformation composition. Queries: "What actual change occurred?", "Which referent, boundary, and subject facts identify it?", "When may several transformations compose, and when must the claim stop at a missing-governor or missing-substrate blocker?" | Builds on: A.1, A.6.RCD, C.2.1, A.7. Coordinates with: A.3, A.6.REL, E.24, E.24.UK, F.18, A.14, C.13, A.22, A.3.1, A.3.2, A.3.3, A.6.1, A.15.1, A.15.2, A.15.PROD, E.18, C.27.TA, C.27, C.29. |
| A.3.4.P | Transformation Ontic Precision Restoration | Stable | Repairs change-situation wording by grounding any actual U.Transformation in its changed referent, boundary, actual subject facts, and continuity rule; distinguishing performed-work or other direct actor-side claims from differently typed influence sources; and routing flow structure, method, work, representation, evidence, publication, and other neighboring claims through exact governors. | Builds on: A.3.4, E.10, E.10.ARCH, E.24, A.6.5, E.8. Coordinates with: E.18, E.18.2, C.29, A.3.1, A.3.2, A.3.3, A.6.0, A.6.1, E.20, A.15.1, A.15.2, A.6.F, A.6.M, C.30.ASV, C.27.TA, C.27, A.10, C.2.P.DR, C.2.1, E.17, E.10.MOVE. |
| Cluster A.III - Time & Evolution | ||||
| A.4 | Temporal Duality & Open-Ended Evolution Principle | Stable | Keywords: design-time, run-time, evolution, versioning, open-ended state change, continuous improvement. Queries: "How does FPF handle plan vs. reality?", "How are systems updated?" | Builds on: P-10 Open-Ended Evolution. Prerequisite for: B.4. |
| Cluster A.IV - Kernel Modularity | ||||
| A.5 | Open-Ended Kernel & Extension Layering | Stable | Keywords: FPF architecture, specialization vs dependancy hierarhies, modularity, extensibility. Queries: "What is the architecture of FPF?", "How are new domains added?" | Builds on: P-4, P-5. |
| Cluster A.IV.A - Signature Stack & Boundary Discipline (A.6.)* | ||||
| A.6 | Signature Stack & Boundary Discipline | Stable | Keywords: signature and mechanism declarations, actual occurrence, publication face, atomic L/A/D/E claims, six-way authority-word branch, Work versus non-Work effect, separate result, delivery, acceptance, and evidence. Queries: "What exact boundary claim is this?", "Does authority-looking wording mean source, norm or grant, gate, exercise, evaluation or conflict?", "Which actual occurrence and separately governed consequence are current?" | Builds on: E.8, A.6.0, A.6.1, A.6.3, E.17.0, E.17, A.7, F.18, E.10.D2. Coordinates with: A.6.B, A.6.C, A.6.P, C.26, F.9, A.10, A.15, B.3, E.19. |
| A.6.RSIG | Recognition Signatures for Descriptions | Stable | description-recognition signature; encountered carrier vs defining U.Episteme; API/access description not promise; method applicability note; false neighboring description | A.6, A.6.P, F.18, E.10 |
| A.6.B | Boundary Norm Square (Laws / Admissibility / Deontics / Work-Effects) | Stable | Keywords: atomic L/A/D/E claims, laws, entry predicates, accountable norms and grants, actual exercise, evaluated findings, conflict claims, observable effects and evidence, direct obtaining conditions. Queries: "What exact claim does this boundary sentence make?", "Is authority-looking wording a norm or grant, a gate, actual exercise, evaluation, conflict, or source claim?", "How do I keep description from creating the world-side object it describes?" | Builds on: E.8, A.6.0, A.6.1, E.17, A.7, A.2.8, A.2.8.PER, A.2.9. Coordinates with: A.6, A.6.C, A.10, B.3. |
| A.6.C | Contract Unpacking for Boundaries | Stable | Keywords: four-question contract lens, promise content, speech-act Work, description and publication, commitment or grant, gate, dated Work, separate result and evidence, atomic L/A/D/E rows, obtaining versus representation, MVPK no-new-semantics. Queries: "What was promised? What was said, published, or instituted? Which governance claim exists? What happened, what followed, and what supports reliance?", "Which exact direct object and owner belongs to each atomic claim?", "Does a system act under an assignment, or is a document being mistaken for the actor or institutional fact?" | Builds on: A.6, A.6.B, A.6.P, A.7, A.2.3, A.2.8, A.2.8.PER, A.2.9, A.15.1, A.10, E.17. Coordinates with: F.12, F.18. |
| A.6.REL | Relation Obtaining and Individuated Relation Occurrences | Stable | Governs when a direct relation obtains, when a named receiving use needs one obtaining occurrence explicitly distinguished, and how assertions, descriptions, designations, references, publication occurrences, and representations remain distinct from the world-side occurrence. | Builds on: direct relation patterns for participant meanings, obtaining predicates, and occurrence-identity rules. Coordinates with: A.6.0, A.6.5, C.2.1, E.24, E.24.UK, F.18, C.29. |
| A.6.0 | U.Signature - Reusable Law-Governed Declaration Episteme | Stable | Identifies one reusable declaration episteme by its claim content, exact EntityOfConcern, and effective ReferenceScheme; governs vocabulary, laws, applicability, relation-facing RelationSignature use, and only the specialized typed declarations needed by receiving uses. | Builds on: A.7, C.2.1, C.3, A.2.6, A.6.5. Coordinates with: A.6.REL, A.6.1, A.3.1, A.15.1, C.29, E.24.UK, E.24.PUB. |
| A.6.1 | U.Mechanism - Reusable Law-Governed Operation Declaration | Stable | Keywords: U.Mechanism, operation declaration, OperationAlgebra, operation application, application binding, LawSet, AdmissibilityConditions, realization. Queries: "How do I declare a reusable operation family?", "When does one exact operation application or binding obtain?", "How do I separate declaration, realization, method, Work, evidence, and publication?" | Builds on: A.6.0, C.2.1, A.2.6. Coordinates with: A.6.REL for occurrence identity; A.6.5 only for contrasting RelationSignature SlotSpecs; A.3.1/A.15.1 for method and dated Work; F.9 only for exact cross-context SenseCell correspondence; CHR and A.1.1/A.22 for selected plane and model-use structure. |
| A.6.2 | U.EffectFreeEpistemicMorphing — Effect‑free morphisms of epistemes | Stable | Effect-free, law-constrained episteme-to-episteme morphisms over ClaimGraph, EntityOfConcern, grounding holon, viewpoint, reference scheme, representation scheme, and metadata; preserve or retarget EntityOfConcern only through declared change mode. | Builds on: A.1, A.6.0, A.6.1, A.6.5, C.2.1, E.10.D2, C.3.*. Used by: A.6.3, A.6.4, E.17.0, E.17, E.18, KD-CAL mapping rules. |
| A.6.3 | U.EpistemicViewing — EntityOfConcern-preserving morphism | Stable | EntityOfConcern-preserving effect-free projection between epistemes: content, representation, viewpoint, or reference scheme may change, but entityOfConcernRef stays fixed unless A.6.4 retargeting is explicitly opened. | Builds on: A.6.0, A.6.2, A.6.5, A.7, E.10.D2, C.2.1, C.2. Used by: E.17.0, E.17, E.17.1, E.17.2, E.18, B.5.3, KD-CAL view operators. |
| A.6.3.CSC | Controlled Semantic Coarsening | Stable | Controlled semantic coarsening of a source-bearing episteme or publication into a narrower-use rendering, with selected preserved/lost structure, admissible use, non-admissible downstream use, source return, and reopen trigger visible. | Builds on: A.6.3, A.6.3.CR, A.6.3.RT, E.17.EFP, A.6.P, E.8, E.10, E.19, F.18. Coordinates with: A.6.3.NAR, C.26, C.26.1, E.17.ID.CR, F.9, F.9.1, A.15, A.6.4, A.20, A.21, C.33. |
| A.6.3.CR | ConservativeRetextualization - entityOfConcernRef-preserving textual re-expression | Stable | Textual re-expression, summary, report rewrite, translation, or filtering that preserves entityOfConcernRef, keeps source tether and omission/loss visible, and exits to explanation, representation change, retargeting, bridge, work, evidence, gate, or assurance patterns when those claims are being made. | Builds on: A.6.3, A.6.2, A.7, E.10.D2, E.17.0, E.17, F.9, F.18, E.10. Coordinates with: A.6.3.CSC, A.6.3.RT, E.17.EFP, E.17.ID.CR, A.6.4, B.5.2, A.15. |
| A.6.3.RT | Representation-Scheme Transition: EntityOfConcern-Preserving Representation-Scheme Transition | Stable | Representation-scheme or reasoning-medium transition that preserves entityOfConcernRef, makes recoverability and loss visible, and blocks geometry, notation, carrier work, decode work, or transformation-flow language from becoming hidden ontology or action force. | Builds on: A.6.3, A.6.2, A.7, E.10.D2, C.2.7, E.17.0, E.17, F.9, F.18. Coordinates with: A.6.3.CSC, A.6.3.NAR, C.26, A.6.3.CR, E.17.EFP, E.17.ID.CR, A.6.4, A.15, A.20, A.21. |
| A.6.3.NAR | Structure-to-Narrative Rendering | Stable | EntityOfConcern-preserving rendering of selected source structure into a sequential narrative path for a declared reader or listener use, with source temporal posture, route family, narrator/reader roles, preserved/foregrounded/coarsened/lost structure, admissible use, and source return explicit. | Builds on: A.6.3, A.6.3.CSC, A.6.3.RT, A.22, C.33, C.34, E.17, E.10. Coordinates with: C.35, A.16.1, C.30, C.30.AD, C.30.ASV, C.32.P2S, E.4.DPF, E.4.DPF.DA. |
| A.6.4 | U.EpistemicRetargeting — EntityOfConcern retargeting morphism | Stable | Effect-free episteme-to-episteme morphism that intentionally changes entityOfConcernRef under a declared KindBridge, invariant, loss boundary, and admissible use while preserving only the commitments that the bridge makes reviewable. | Builds on: A.6.2, A.6.3, A.6.5, A.7, C.2.1, C.2, C.3, F.9, E.10.D2, E.18. Used by: E.18 StructuralReinterpretation, KD-CAL/LOG-CAL retargeting rules, Fourier-style and data-model retargetings. |
| A.6.P | Relational Precision Restoration — Recovering Direct Relations from Under-Specified Claims | Stable | Recover the concrete subject, participants, obtaining condition, and receiving use from under-specified relation wording. For service/access language, first distinguish service provision, Method, promise, role/assignment, permission, bearer or proposed arrangement, Work, capability, status, evidence, fulfilment, acceptance, and missing governor; the word selects none. Queries: "What exact referent or relation does this phrase assert?", "Did service wording name Work, a Method, promise content, a software/physical bearer, an arrangement, status, or another direct claim?", "Does the repaired bearer claim really require A.1 evaluation?", "Does an already recovered result need A.1.STM for project-use contribution?" | Builds on: A.6.REL, A.6.RCD, A.6.0, A.6.5, C.2.1, E.10, E.10.ARCH. Coordinates with: A.1.SCR, A.1.STM, A.6.P.WMR, A.6.RSIR, A.6.B, A.3.4, A.10, C.29, E.17.0, E.24.PUB, F.9, F.18. |
| A.6.P.WMR | Exact Relation Recovery for Method and Work Claims | Stable | Start with one boundary-word sentence about an input, raw material, source data, source material, output, result, outcome, deliverable, or handoff. Name the exact thing, what it is related to, and the direct verb that can safely be said now—or return factually unsupported, missing-information, or missing-governor. Use formal claim dimensions only when they change or check that answer; keep planning, Work, production, delivery, acceptance, transfer, and receiving use separate. | Specializes: A.6.P. Coordinates with: A.3.1, A.3.2, A.6.1, A.15.1-A.15.3, A.3.4, A.15.PROD, A.6.RCD, C.2.P, E.10, E.10.ARCH, E.18.1, F.18. |
| A.6.RCD | Needed Relation Claim Derivation and Relation-Kind Admission | Stable | Starts from one blocked relation-bearing claim with exact participants and selects the lightest truthful result: an existing direct claim, a local compound claim, reusable predicate-definition content, a derived relation-kind candidate only when occurrence semantics are needed, or an irreducible primitive candidate. Unknown facts remain an information, support, or reliance question rather than a third direct-claim polarity. | Entered from: A.6.P after direct-relation recovery. Builds on: A.6.REL, A.6.5, C.2.1. Coordinates with: A.6.0, A.11, E.24, E.24.UK, C.29, F.18. |
| A.6.RSIR | Relation, Signature, Interface, Role, and Slot Precision Restoration | Stable | Keywords: relation-signature-interface-role-slot recovery, direct relation participant, participant meaning, actual participant, RelationSignature, SlotSpec, assertion or description designation, operation argument or result declaration, exact operation application and binding, representation position and correspondence, role, role assignment, interface, port, API, reduced-use source label, shadow ontology. Queries: "Does this role, slot, field, parameter, argument, or endpoint name an actual participant, a declaration-local SlotSpec, an assertion-side designation, an operation declaration or exact binding, or a representation position?", "When does interface wording mean a module relation, functional port, signature, API publication, service-access claim, or representation?", "When may the source label remain local without making the stronger FPF claim?" | Builds on: E.10, E.10.ARCH, A.6.P, A.6.REL, A.6.0, A.6.1, A.6.5, C.2.1, A.2, A.2.1, A.15, C.29. Coordinates with: A.6.M, A.6.F, A.6.A, A.3.4.P, C.2.P, C.2.P.DR, E.17, A.10, F.10, G.6, F.18, F.19. |
| A.6.A | Action-Invitation Precision Restoration (ACT-INV) | Stable | Keywords: affordance, action invitation, action-first language, post-threshold classification, A.15 docking, language-state seam. Queries: "How do I repair overloaded affordance language in FPF?", "When does action-guiding language become an action invitation?", "How does A.6.A differ from early cue routing?" | Builds on: A.6.P, A.15, C.2.2a, A.16, B.4.1, F.9. Coordinates with: C.16.Q, B.5.2.0. |
| A.6.F | Function and Functional Precision Restoration (RPR-FUNCTION) | Stable | Keywords: function wording, functional architecture, FunctionalStructure, required behavior or effect, actual transformation, method-description membership, capability, work, module allocation, mathematical function, episteme/publication boundary. Queries: "Which exact governed object or relation does this function-like phrase name?", "Does this procedure, code, solver, recipe, protocol, or algorithm identify one C.2.1 episteme about one admitted method with a substantive way-of-doing claim, or only a representation/publication form?", "Is this required or desired behavior/effect still claim content, or is there an independently grounded actual U.Transformation?", "When is functional architecture one selected FunctionalStructure rather than a separate ontology, module, capability, method, work, or mathematical mapping?" | Builds on: A.6.P, A.6.5, A.7, C.30, C.30.ASV, C.29, A.3.1, A.3.2, C.2.1, A.3.4, A.15.1, A.15.2. Coordinates with: A.6.M, A.15, C.16.Q, A.6.0, A.6.B, A.6.C, E.18, C.30.TFS-REL, A.10, G.6, E.24.PUB. |
| A.6.M | Module Relation Repair | Stable | Keywords: module relation, component, interface, port, platform, layer, stack, open architecture, substitutability, interface specification. Queries: "When is a module relation being claimed?", "How do I keep functional links, signatures, ports, and implemented interfaces distinct?", "When does open architecture require module-interface repair?" | Builds on: A.6.P, A.6.5, A.6.B, C.30, C.30.ASV, A.6.F. Coordinates with: C.31, C.31.RSA, E.18, C.30.TFS-REL, A.10, B.3, A.20, A.21, C.28, E.20, G.5, C.11. |
| A.6.5 | Relation-Declaration Slot Discipline - SlotKind, ValueKind, RefKind, and participant-designation discipline | Stable | Types reusable direct-relation participant meanings as exact SlotSpecs inside one RelationSignature while keeping declaration-local SlotKinds, world-side participants, receiving-episteme and A.15.3 planned designations, A.6.1 operation declarations, references, and obtaining occurrences distinct. | Builds on: A.6.0 and direct relation patterns. Coordinates with: A.6.REL, A.6.P, A.6.RSIR, A.6.1, A.15.3, C.2.1, C.3, C.29, E.24.UK. |
| A.6.6 | Base Declaration Discipline - Kind-explicit, scoped, witnessed base declaration discipline (with base-change lexicon) | Stable | Keywords: base declaration, basedness, baseRelation, SWBD, witnesses, scope, Γ_time, anchoring, support-as-basedness, rebase, retime, rescope. Queries: "What is base-declaration discipline?", "How to model base-dependence without anchoring?", "When is support really base-dependence?", "What is a ScopedWitnessedBaseDeclaration (SWBD)?" | Builds on: A.6.0, A.6.5, A.2.6, A.2.4, A.7, E.8, E.10. Coordinates with: A.10, A.14, C.2.1, A.6.3-A.6.4, C.3.3, E.18, F.9, F.15, F.18. Used by: base-relative admissibility/calibration/attribution patterns; anchor* and support-as-basedness rewrites into explicit baseRelation(dependent, base). |
| A.6.7 | MechSuiteDescription — Description of a set of distinct mechanisms | Stable | Keywords: mechanism suite, distinct mechanisms, suite obligations, spec pins, CN-Spec, CG-Spec, P2W, planned baseline, crossing visibility. Queries: "What is a MechSuiteDescription?", "How to describe a bundle of distinct mechanisms without using MechFamilyDescription?", "How do suite obligations differ from gate decisions?" | Builds on: E.8, A.6.1, A.6.5, E.10, E.19. Coordinates with: E.18, A.21. Used by: Part G universalization; CHR mechanism stacks. |
| A.6.9 | Cross-Context Sameness Disambiguation - Repairing cross-context "same / equivalent / align" via explicit Bridges (RPR-XCTX) | Stable | Keywords: ambiguous sameness, direct-owner dispatch, exact F.17 SchemeSenseCell endpoints, different <ReferenceScheme, LocalSenseClaim> projections, relation-only F.9 Bridge, separate C.2.1 bounded-use claim, A.10/B.3 reliance, actual receiving object, explicit stop. Queries: "Do these words name one directly governed value or two exact local senses?", "Do the endpoint projections differ, and does this Bridge actually obtain?", "Which separate claim, reliance basis, authorization owner, and actual receiving object govern this use?" A true Bridge by itself selects, authorizes, and performs no use. | Builds on: A.6.P, F.17, F.18, F.9, C.2.1, F.0.1, F.7, F.8. Coordinates with: A.10, B.3, A.7, A.6.6, A.2.6, E.17, C.29, A.6.3.RT, C.3.3, A.22, A.2.1, F.6, A.15.1. |
| A.6.S | U.SignatureEngineeringPair - Signature engineering via a ConstructorSignature and a TargetSignature | Stable | Keywords: signature engineering, TargetSignature, ConstructorSignature, two-signature arrangement, EFEM, editioning, retargeting, slot/base change lexicon, MVPK views (no new semantics), claim register, no epistemic agency. Queries: "What is U.SignatureEngineeringPair in FPF?", "How do I model TargetSignature vs ConstructorSignature (and keep Work out of edits)?", "How do slot/base change verbs compose into a reproducible signature evolution account?" | Builds on: A.6.0, A.6.2, A.6.3, A.6.4, A.6.5, A.6.6, A.6.B, A.3, A.7, A.12, C.2.1, E.17, E.10. Coordinates with: E.18, E.19. |
| A.6.H | Wholeness Language Unpacking (RPR-WHOLE) | Stable | Keywords: wholeness, integrity, part-of, boundary, environment, mereology, completeness, order/time, publication-carrier and EntityOfConcern/Description distinction, role-method-work. Queries: "How to unpack 'whole/part/integrity' in FPF?", "RPR-WHOLE trigger words", "ComponentOf vs ConstituentOf vs PortionOf vs MemberOf vs PhaseOf", "How to separate order/time from mereology?" | Builds on: A.6.P, A.6.5, A.7. Coordinates with: A.14, B.1.1, B.1.4, A.15. |
| Cluster A.V - Constitutional Principles of the Kernel | ||||
| A.7 | Strict Distinction (Clarity Lattice) | Stable | Keywords: category error, EntityOfConcern ≠ Description episteme, Role ≠ Work, ontology. Queries: "How to avoid common modeling mistakes?", "What are FPF's core distinctions?" | Builds on: A.1, A.2, A.3. Constrains: all patterns. |
| A.7.1 | Consequence-Guided Ontological Problem Solving | Stable | Keywords: wrong engineering consequence, smallest defeated claim, exact subject and direct owner, one selected analysis apparatus, actual system performing under an assignment, bounded unresolved result. Queries: "Which ontological distinction must change to repair this engineering consequence?", "Can one already selected apparatus reach the result affordably, or is generation or choice genuinely current?" | Specializes: C.19.2. Consumes: exact A.7.CP claims when load-bearing. Coordinates with: A.7.2, A.7, E.24, E.24.UK. |
| A.7.2 | FPF Ontology-Premise Reconciliation | Stable | Keywords: dated FPF applications, result claims or decisions, same receiving claim or consequence, exact used clauses and premises, actual source-use relations, context split, optional convergence. Queries: "Which dated applications produced incompatible results for this receiving use?", "Which exact claims and source uses did each application rely on?", "Is this a real conflict or only different wording, scope, or source function?" | Coordinates with: A.7.1. Consumes: exact A.7.CP claims when load-bearing. Defines: OntologyClaimSourceUseRelation@Context and OntologySourceUseConflictFinding@Context. |
| A.7.CP | Constructive-Premise Compact and Reasoning-Basis Use | Stable | Keywords: constructive-premise claim, dated reasoning Work, exact receiving claim or result, adopted premise or conditional assumption, ClaimUsedAsReasoningBasisRelation@Context, selective reopen. Queries: "Which exact compact claim did this actual reasoning Work use for this exact result?", "Which other result from the same Work remains unaffected if that premise changes?" | Support owner consumed by: A.7.1, A.7.2. Not a parent method, performer, work plan, catalogue-reading episode, public prerequisite, or twelve-kind taxonomy. |
| A.8 | Universal Core Principle | Stable | Keywords: universality, transdisciplinary, domain-agnostic, kernel-level U-kind admission. Queries: "How does FPF test whether a U-kind belongs in the universal core?" | Builds on: E.24.UK, A.11, C.3, F.8, F.18. Constrains: kernel-level durable U-kind candidates. |
| A.9 | Cross-Scale Consistency (C-3) | Stable | Keywords: composition, aggregation, holarchy, invariants, roll-up. Queries: "How do rules compose across different scales?", "How to aggregate metrics safely?" | Builds on: A.1, A.8. Prerequisite for: B.1. |
| A.10 | Evidence Graph Referring (C-4) | Stable | Keywords: relied-on claim, bounded use, claim/result episteme, source publication, carrier, dated work, direct relation, evidence-provenance path, currentness, rival explanation, RelianceDisposition, unsupported overread, actual-use relation. Queries: "What exact claim and bounded use does this source, carrier, credential, dashboard, generated explanation, or review note support?", "How do I recover sources, carriers, work, local result, result episteme, provenance, currentness, bounded reliance, and actual use without letting a path edge create facts?", "When should first-use classification stay in A.2.4, representation go to C.29, or assurance go to B.3?" | Builds on: C.2.1, E.17, A.15.1, A.6.1; A.15.PROD when inception is current. Coordinates with: A.2.4, G.11, C.29, B.3, C.16, C.28, A.19, G.4, C.11, A.21. |
| A.11 | Ontological Parsimony | Stable | Keywords: parsimony, composition, non-redundancy, kernel growth, U-kind admission. Queries: "How does FPF avoid adding redundant core concepts?", "When should a candidate be expressed by slots, relations, records, forms, lenses, or an existing root?" | Builds on: E.24.UK, A.8, F.8, F.18. Constrains: new core-concept and durable U-kind proposals. |
| A.12 | Acting-Side Externalization and Reflexive Split | Stable | Separate one exact continuing changed subject from one exact entity proposed for the acting side. Keep A.1 recognition, same-entity systemhood, causal or interaction participation, Work-facing role assignment, A.3.4 transformation, Method, Work, evidence, boundary crossing, and parthood under their direct owners. For a self-action claim, identify two exact entity parts or subsystems of one containing holon; for a document case, choose carrier change, episteme edition, or relation-occurrence change before filling singular positions. Queries: "Which exact referent continues as the changed subject?", "Which exact entity occupies the acting side, and has A.1 recognized it as a system?", "Which participation, assignment, transformation, Work, evidence, crossing, or part relation independently obtains?", "Does a qualifier change episteme identity, claim scope, bounded model use, or another directly governed fact?" | Builds on: A.1, A.2.1, A.2.7, A.3.4. Coordinates with: A.1.1, A.2.6, A.6.RCD, A.7, A.10, A.14, C.13, A.15, A.15.1, F.6, C.2.1, E.17, E.24.PUB, and B.2.5. |
| A.13 | The Agential Role & Agency Spectrum | Stable | Keywords: agency as role, agency spectrum, contextual role assignment, autonomy grading, substrate-neutral autonomy. Queries: "How does FPF model agency without minting a root agent kind?", "How do I grade autonomy on an evidence-backed spectrum?" | Builds on: A.2, A.2.1, A.12. Informs: E.16. Coordinates with: A.17, A.18, A.19, C.16, A.10, and planned C.9 as future profile consolidation only. |
| A.14 | Advanced Mereology: Components, Portions, Aspects & Phases | Stable | Keywords: mereology, part-of, ComponentOf, PortionOf, PhaseOf, composition. Queries: "How to model different kinds of 'part-of' relationships?" | Refines: A.1. Prerequisite for: B.1.1. |
| A.15 | Role-Method-Work Alignment (Contextual Enactment) | Stable | Keywords: role-method-work distinction, U.Role, U.Method, U.MethodDescription, U.WorkPlan, actual U.Work, work-entry readiness, contextual enactment, coordinated-work evidence, work admission display, appearance-based reliance boundary. Queries: "How do role, method, plan, readiness, and work stay distinct in FPF?", "When can coordinated work evidence a state that no one report carries?", "When is authorization-looking material an appearance-based reliance repair problem rather than work enactment?", "When does something that looks like permission or prohibition to start work need the governing FPF pattern and project-side record behind it first?" | Integrates: A.2, A.4, A.12. Builds on / coordinates with: A.6, A.10, B.3, E.17, E.17.EFP, A.20, A.21, and C.26.2. Prerequisite for: A.15.1-A.15.5, C.24, E.16. |
| A.15.1 | U.Work: Dated Performed Work Occurrence | Stable | Keywords: admitted U.Work kind, world-side dated occurrence, actual performer U.System, covering U.RoleAssignment, performedUnderAssignment, enacted method, temporal extent, containing system, optional direct bindings and resource use, separate result or consequence. Queries: "What identifies one actual Work occurrence?", "Which system performed it under which assignment?", "Which result, change, production, delivery, evidence, or acceptance claim needs its own direct owner?" | Builds on: A.1, A.2.1, A.3.1, C.2.1. Coordinates with: F.6, A.6.1, A.3.4, A.15.PROD, B.1.4, B.1.6, A.10. |
| A.15.2 | U.WorkPlan: The Schedule of Intent | Stable | Keywords: intended-work episteme, present EntityOfConcern, possible future performance, PlanItem content, horizon, performer and capability conditions, positive or governed-negative local fulfilment assertion, reusable predicate semantics, variance, no actuality by plan. Queries: "What identifies a WorkPlan without inventing future Work?", "When does fulfilment stop at a local assertion or predicate definition, and when does occurrence-facing use justify a relation-kind candidate?", "How are negative fulfilment, missing information, and missing governor distinguished?", "How do planned values, actual Work, B.1.4/B.1.6 aggregates, and F.9 sense Bridges stay separate?" | Refines: A.15. Builds on: C.2.1. Coordinates with: A.2.1, A.2.2, A.3.1, A.3.2, A.15.1, A.15.3, A.6.1, A.6.5, A.6.RCD, E.24, E.24.UK, A.6.REL, B.1.4, B.1.6, F.9. |
| A.15.3 | SlotFillingsPlanItem — Declaration-Local Planned Designation | Stable | Keywords: WorkPlan claim content, intended-performance designator, exact declaration member, direct owner, participant/argument/result meaning, actual-use predicate, positive planned designation, semantic cardinality, concrete RefKind and policy, edition pin, open-world omission, baseline replay, no actuality by plan. Queries: "When is a planned value an A.15.3 row rather than ordinary plan content?", "Which exact declaration member and direct owner supply the reusable meaning and later actual-use predicate?", "How do cardinality, alternatives, exclusions, pins, actual use, and later variance remain separately governed?" | Builds on: C.2.1, A.15.2, A.6.5, A.6.1, and the target declaration's direct pattern. Coordinates with: A.15.1, A.6.RCD, A.15.5, direct relation patterns, E.17, and E.24.PUB. |
| A.15.4 | Work-Relevant Appearance-Based Reliance Repair | Stable | Keywords: appearance-based reliance, exact attempted use, independent required-position rows, governing pattern and direct object, project-side reference, allowed or blocked use, orientation and source-finding, dashboard, credential, generated explanation, copied approval, publication face. Queries: "Which exact positions are missing before this appearance may guide work or reliance?", "What can be used now, and what remains blocked?", "How do I keep a cue, register row, grant, conflict finding, gate, Work, evidence, and institutional effect separate?" | Builds on: A.15, E.17, C.2.1. Coordinates with: A.10, B.3, A.6, A.2.1, A.2.8, A.2.8.PER, A.2.9, A.15.5, A.20, A.21, E.10, E.10.MOVE, E.17.EFP. |
| A.15.5 | Work-Entry Readiness and Full-Kit Preparation | Stable | Keywords: work-entry readiness, full-kit condition, readiness before work entry, commitment disposition, prospective permission inputs, retrospective exercise evidence, resource-readiness refs, launch gate, WIP and flow policy, planned slot fillings, blocked readiness overread. Queries: "Is this intended work ready to start?", "What is missing before commitment to work entry is honest?", "How do I keep readiness separate from permission, performed work, work plans, gates, resources, and evidence?" | Builds on: A.15, A.15.2, A.15.3, B.1.6, A.21. Coordinates with: A.2.8.PER, A.15.1, A.15.4, A.10, B.3, A.20, E.18, and E.10.MOVE. |
| A.15.6 | Project, Process, and Case Recovery through Work, Method, and Transformation | Stable | Recover actual project as composite U.Work; process as U.Method, an A.22-selected U.Structure, or one TFS; and case as one exact subject or claim followed to a separately governed closure with a named-but-excluded downstream use. Keep project system-of-interest designation, actual/intended system identity, project-relevant E.18.NET selection, role assignment, Work, change, evidence, records, and results distinct. Queries: "What does this project, process, or case claim directly concern?", "Which project-relevant network answers the named question without becoming the project?", "What exact case subject or claim closes here, and which downstream use remains outside?", "Is an actor-side participant or Work claim independently grounded?" | Builds on: A.15.1, A.3.1, A.22, A.3.4, C.2.1. Coordinates with: A.1, A.1.STM, A.2/A.2.1, A.12, A.15.2, A.15.PROD, A.6.RCD, A.6.P.WMR, A.6.1, E.18/E.18.NET, E.17, E.24.PUB. |
| A.15.PROD | Production Work, Entity-Identity Inception, and Production Completion Recovery | Stable | Recovers three separate receiver-selected claims: whether exact dated work is the whole production work or its proper part, when exact governed work first made one entity satisfy its applicable identity rule, and when production satisfied its applicable completion criterion at a historical boundary. Work, actual change, entity identity, completion, delivery, acceptance, release, publication, and availability remain separate. | Builds on: A.15.1, A.3.1, A.3.4, C.2.1, A.6.RCD. Coordinates with: A.1, direct subject-identity patterns, A.15.2, A.15.6, G.11, A.6.P.WMR, E.18.1, F.18, and direct work-to-change, evidence, completion, delivery, acceptance, release, publication, and availability patterns. |
| A.16 | Language-State Move Coordination | Stable | Keywords: language-state, move, admissible language-state move, reopen, sketch-backoff, respecify, retire, responsibility transfer. Queries: "How do governed epistemes move across the language-state chart?", "What are the admissible language-state move kinds in FPF?" | Builds on: C.2.2a, C.2.LS, A.19. Coordinates with: A.16.0-A.16.2, B.4.1, E.18, and E.10.MOVE when move-like wording leaves the local language-state object. |
| A.16.0 | U.LanguageStateMoveTrajectory - Optional trajectory-account normal form over the language-state U.CharacteristicSpace | Stable | Keywords: trajectory account, lineage, fork, merge, supersedes, responsibility transfer, heavy history. Queries: "When do I publish a language-state trajectory account?", "How does FPF record lineage and branch history?" | Builds on: A.16, C.2.2a, E.17, E.18. Used by: A.16.1, A.16.2, B.4.1, B.5.2.0. Coordinates with: E.10.MOVE when move-like wording is not a language-state trajectory-account claim. |
| A.16.1 | U.PreArticulationCuePack | Stable | Keywords: cue pack, pre-articulation, early publication, cue nucleus, primary witness, candidate route cues. Queries: "What is a PreArticulationCuePack?", "How do I preserve early cues before RoutedCueSet publication?" | Builds on: A.16, C.2.2a, C.2.LS. Coordinates with: B.4.1, A.16.2. |
| A.16.2 | Reopen / SketchBackoff / Respecify | Stable | Keywords: reopen, backoff, respecify, retire, retreat, branch withdrawal, authority withdrawal. Queries: "How do I admissibly reopen or back off a language-state publication?", "How do I retire a branch without silent deletion?" | Builds on: A.16, A.16.0, C.2.2a. Coordinates with: A.6.P, B.4.1. |
| A.17 | A.CHR-NORM — Canonical “Characteristic” & rename (Dimension/Axis → Characteristic) | Stable | Keywords: characteristic, measurement, property, attribute, dimension, axis. Queries: "What is the correct term for a measurable property?", "How to define a metric?" | Prerequisite for: A.18, A.19, C.16. |
| A.18 | A.CSLC-KERNEL — Minimal CSLC in Kernel (Characteristic/Scale/Level/Coordinate) | Stable | Keywords: CSLC, Characteristic, Scale, Level, Coordinate, polarity, ordinal vs cardinal scale, one-characteristic-one-scale rule, lawful comparability, no illegal averaging, measurement interpretability. Queries: "What must be declared before a value is interpretable?", "When can two measurements be compared?", "Why can ordinal labels not be averaged?" | Builds on: A.17. Coordinates with: C.16, A.19, A.19.CN, G.0, B.3. Prerequisite for: measurement, scoring, comparison, aggregation, and CHR mechanism patterns. |
| A.19 | CharacteristicSpace & Dynamics Hook (A.CHR‑SPACE) | Stable | Keywords: CharacteristicSpace, U.Dynamics.stateSpace, state trajectories, declared Characteristics and Scales, subspace, embedding, product, structural overlays, coordinatewise comparability, role-specific space refs stay outside A.19. Queries: "How do I declare the state space a dynamics model moves through?", "How do Characteristics become a multi-coordinate state space?", "What stays inside A.19 and what belongs in source-set/space substrate or interpretive-view patterns?" | Builds on: A.17, A.18, A.2.5. Coordinates with: C.16, A.19.CN, A.19.SOURCE-SET-SPACE-SUBSTRATE, A.19.DECLARED-SUBSTRATE-INTERPRETIVE-VIEW, A.19.CHR, G.0, E.18, A.3.3. Prerequisite for: CHR mechanisms and dynamics models that quantify over trajectories. |
| A.19.ECS | Evaluation CharacteristicSpace Construction | Stable | Constructs or repairs the evaluation CharacteristicSpace for one evaluated object kind and use: characteristics, scales, value meanings, evidence rules, missingness, protected trade-offs, status meanings, stop or reopen conditions, and declarative governing-neighbour relations without route or reference boilerplate. | Builds on: A.17-A.19, C.16, F.18. Coordinates with: E.22, E.23, C.25, E.21, E.9.DA, E.2.DA, E.8.ECSPF, F.19. |
| A.19.SPR | State-Family Precision Restoration | Stable | Repairs state, status, posture, readiness, stance, currentness, and close state-family wording by recovering bearer, state frame or governing pattern, value set, admissible use, blocked overread, and reopen condition. | Builds on: E.10, E.10.ARCH, A.19, A.3.3, C.2.2a, A.16.*, A.10, B.3, A.20, A.21, C.27, C.29, E.17, E.9.DA, E.21, F.18. Coordinates with: A.17, A.18, C.16, C.16.P, C.16.Q, A.6.P, C.2.P, C.30.P, E.8, E.19, E.11. |
| A.19.SOURCE-SET-SPACE-SUBSTRATE | Source-Set and Search/Outcome-Space Substrate | Stable | Keywords: source set, search-side space ref, outcome-side space ref, source-set/space substrate, SpaceRefRelationKind, SourceToOutcomeRelation, DistortionPosture, SourceSetRef, sameDeclaredSpaceAs, distinctDeclaredSpaceFrom. Queries: "How do I declare one source set plus search-side and outcome-side refs?", "How do I keep source-to-outcome relation and distortion posture explicit?", "When do search and outcome refs resolve to the same declared CharacteristicSpace?" | Builds on: A.19, A.17, A.18. Coordinates with: C.18, C.19, G.5, G.10, A.19.DECLARED-SUBSTRATE-INTERPRETIVE-VIEW, A.6.P, A.0. Specialized by: A.19.DECLARED-SUBSTRATE-INTERPRETIVE-VIEW and later interpretive-view or atlas specializations. |
| A.19.DECLARED-SUBSTRATE-INTERPRETIVE-VIEW | Declared-Substrate Interpretive View | Stable | Keywords: declared-substrate interpretive view, thin interpretation, atlas-form interpretation, DeclaredSubstrateInterpretiveView, DeclaredSubstrateAtlasView, TraditionAtlasView, TypedSetViews, interpretive qualifiers, interpretive-only reading. Queries: "When do I use an interpretive view over an already-declared substrate?", "When is thin interpretation enough and when do I need atlas form?", "How does TraditionAtlasView stay a local specialization instead of the generic head?" | Builds on: A.19.SOURCE-SET-SPACE-SUBSTRATE, A.19, A.6.3, E.17.0, E.17. Coordinates with: G.2, G.5, G.10, C.19, C.24, A.6.P, A.0. Specialized locally by: DeclaredSubstrateAtlasView and TraditionAtlasView under G.2. |
| A.19.CN | CN-frame (comparability & normalization) | Stable | Keywords: CN-frame, CN-Spec, chart, comparability modes, normalization refs, indicator policy refs, Γ-fold governance, registry, bridges, CL/loss notes, WLNK discipline, conformance checklist, SCR/RSCR harness, RSG admission hooks. Queries: "What is a CN-frame in FPF?", "How does CN-Spec govern comparability and normalization by reference?", "How do CN-frames use bridges and CL for cross-context reuse?", "What are the conformance and regression checks for CN-frames?" | Builds on: A.19. Coordinates with: A.6.1 (mechanism intension cards), C.16 (evidence/backing), F.9 (Bridges & CL), G.0 (CG-Spec admissibility gate). |
| A.19.CHR | CHRMechanismSuite — CHR mechanism-suite anchor (suite obligations + P2W planned baseline) | Stable | Keywords: CHR suite, characterization core, CN-Spec, CG-Spec, admissibility gate, suite obligations, set-return selection, tri-state guard decision, crossing visibility, Bridge-only transport, penalties→R_eff, planned baseline, SlotFillingsPlanItem, P2W seam, no hidden scalarization, no hidden thresholds. Queries: "What is CHRMechanismSuite in FPF?", "How do CHR mechanisms cite CN-Spec/CG-Spec?", "How to enforce planned slot filling in WorkPlanning only?", "How to keep UNM/UINDM/ULSAM explicit (no hidden tails)?" | Builds on: A.6.7, A.15.3, A.6.1, A.6.5, A.19, G.0, E.18, E.10, E.19. Coordinates with: A.21, G.5, G.10, C.23. Used by: Part G universalization; CHR mechanism stacks. |
| A.19.UNM | Unified Normalization Mechanism (UNM) | Stable | Keywords: normalization, CV→NCV, ≡_UNM, NormalizationMethodId, NormalizationMethodInstanceId, NormalizationInvariant[*], NormalizationFixSpec, validity window (no implicit “latest”), fail-closed tri-state guard (`pass | degrade |
| A.19.UINDM | Unified Indicatorization Mechanism (UINDM) | Stable | Keywords: indicatorization, indicator set, IndicatorChoicePolicy, CN-Spec.indicator_policy, CHR suite stage indicatorize, tri-state admissibility (`pass | degrade |
| A.19.USCM | Unified Scoring Mechanism (USCM) | Stable | Keywords: scoring, score profile, ScoringMethodDescription, ScaleComplianceProfile (SCP), CSLC-lawful transforms, CG-Spec.MinimalEvidence, tri-state admissibility (`pass | degrade |
| A.19.ULSAM | Unified Lawful Scale Aggregation Mechanism (ULSAM) | Stable | Keywords: lawful aggregation, scale-lawful fold, fold_Γ?, ΓFoldRef, CG-Spec.Γ_fold, CG-Spec.SCP, MinimalEvidence, tri-state guard (`pass | degrade |
| A.19.CPM | Unified Comparison Mechanism (CPM) | Stable | Keywords: comparison, comparator, ComparatorSpecRef, ComparatorSet, set-valued comparison outcome, partial order, tri-state admissibility (`pass | degrade |
| A.19.SelectorMechanism | Unified Selection Kernel (SelectorMechanism) | Stable | Keywords: selection kernel, set-returning selection, selected set, SelectEligibility, tri-state guard (`pass | degrade |
| A.20 | Flow Constraint Validity — Eulerian | Stable | Keywords: flow, ConstraintValidity, Eulerian, TransformationFlowStructure, GateFit, MVPK, SquareLaw, Sentinel, PathSlice. Queries: "What is ConstraintValidity in FPF?", "What is the Eulerian stance in FPF flows?", "How does E.18 relate to flows?" | Builds on: E.18. Coordinates with: A.21, E.17, F.9, F.17, A.19.SelectorMechanism, C.18, C.19, G.5, G.6, G.11. |
| A.21 | GateProfilization: OperationalGate(profile) (GateFit core) | Stable | Keywords: OperationalGate, GateFit, GateProfile, GateChecks, join-semilattice, GateDecision, DecisionLog, EquivalenceWitness, LaunchGate, CV⇒GF. Queries: "What is GateProfilization in FPF?", "How does OperationalGate aggregate GateChecks?", "What is the CV⇒GF activation predicate?" | Builds on: E.18, E.17 (MVPK), A.7. Coordinates with: A.20, A.2.6, F.9, F.17, G.6, G.11, A.19, G.0, G.5, C.18, C.19, G.9. |
| A.22 | Structure and Structural Views (STRUCT-CAL) | Stable | Guides a practitioner to select one exact non-agentive organization among independently identified constituents and obtaining relations under applied constraints for a named use. Keeps that structure distinct from the selecting system or practitioner, descriptions, views, graphs, decisions, and mathematical representations. Queries: "Which organization is selected for this named use?", "Which exact constituents, obtaining relations, and applied constraints identify it?", "What remains outside the structure, and when must the use stop?" | Builds on: A.1, C.13, C.2.1, A.6.REL, A.6.0, A.6.5, A.3.1, A.6.1, A.15.1, A.6.P, A.7, A.6.3, A.14, C.16, C.29, E.10, E.17.0, E.24. Coordinates with: A.1.1, A.2.6, A.22.CGUS, C.30, C.30.ASV, E.18, E.18.NET, C.33, C.34, C.35. |
| A.22.CGUS | Constraint-Governed Unfolding Structure | Stable | A.22 specialization for graph-shaped or partially ordered structures over typed positions, exact referenced relations, cross-position constraints, preserved structures, C.33 adequacy notes, and admissible next-form kinds. Separates provisional demonstrations, post-admission whole-structure descriptions, and post-admission demonstrative slices; a selected E.18.NET network uses one mutually exclusive owner-defined network locator family while member-local TFS bindings remain nested. Queries: "When is a readable chain only a provisional demonstration?", "How do I preserve branches, joins, cycles, alternatives, and nested network positions behind one walkthrough?" | Specializes: A.22. Coordinates with: E.18.NET, E.18.3, E.18.1, E.23, C.32.P2S, E.11, F.17, C.33, C.35. |
Part B - Trans-disciplinary Reasoning Cluster
| § | ID & Title | Status | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B.1 | Holon Aggregation and Part-Whole Construction | Stable | Recovers part-whole, membership, collection-as-whole, role or method relation structure, work occurrence holarchy, selected architecture structure, or mathematical-description claims before using aggregation notation. | Builds on: A.1, A.14, C.13. Coordinates with: A.15.1, C.29, C.30.ASV, B.2, B.3.5. |
| B.1.1 | Dependency Structure and Relation Grounding | Stable | Keeps dependency structure, graph or representation lens, relation grounding, constructive grounding, and proof or evidence claims separate. | Builds on: B.1, A.14, C.13. Coordinates with: C.29, A.10, B.3.5. |
| B.1.2 | System Aggregation and Holon Delimitation | Stable | Coordinate one named aggregation or delimitation decision for one exact entity recognized as a system under A.1 or still being evaluated there. Recover system identity, obtaining part and assembly relations, exact boundary-crossing relations, any use-relative boundary choice, function/bearer allocations, whole-level characteristics, evidence, descriptions, and blockers from their direct owners; select a non-agentive A.22 U.Structure only when their joint organization changes the decision. Queries: "Which exact entity and decision are current?", "Which constituents are parts and which exact relations only cross the selected boundary?", "What direct result makes a use-relative inclusion or exclusion current?", "Does the joint organization itself require an A.22 structure?" | Builds on: B.1, A.1, A.14, C.13, A.22, and the direct relation owners selected for the current decision. Coordinates with: C.11, C.32.PAD, C.2.1, A.6.F, A.6.M, C.16, A.19, C.29, A.10, B.3, A.3.4, A.12, C.30, E.17, the exact crossing-relation owners, and B.2 when whole reidentification is needed. |
| B.1.3 | Γ_epist — Knowledge-Specific Aggregation | Stable | Keywords: knowledge aggregation, epistemic, provenance, trust, KD-CAL. Queries: "How to combine epistemes?", "How does trust propagate in FPF?" | Builds on: B.1, A.1, C.2. |
| B.1.4 | Contextual and Temporal Aggregation | Stable | Aggregates bounded-context slices, temporal slices, phases, windows, and context-local whole claims without treating context, time, or process wording as generic interaction ontology. | Builds on: B.1, A.1.1, A.14, C.27.TA. Coordinates with: A.15.1, A.3.4, C.29. |
| B.1.5 | Gamma_method - Order-Sensitive Method Composition and Work Enactment | Stable | Keywords: method composition, methodPartOf, submethod, order-sensitive method, method relation structure, composite-Method boundary account, typed join, A.6.RCD claim disposition, capability continuity, work enactment, method/work granularity, assurance hooks. Queries: "How do I combine methods?", "When is a step a submethod rather than a work part, plan item, or description node?", "Which part Methods stand in methodPartOf, and how do other whole-forming claims stop at A.6.RCD's lightest sufficient disposition?", "How do the composite-Method boundary account, typed joins, Gamma_ctx, Gamma_work, and B.3 assurance hooks stay distinct?" | Builds on: B.1, B.1.4, A.3.1, A.6.RCD. Coordinates with: A.15.1, B.1.6, B.3. |
| B.1.6 | Work-Resource Aggregation | Stable | Keywords: work-resource aggregation, resource Characteristic, C.16 measurement work/result episteme, typed input, Scale/Unit, dated work set, work parthood/phase/overlap, edition-pinned aggregation policy, allocation/deduplication, aggregation work, typed aggregation result, uncertainty, provenance. Queries: "How do I aggregate measured resource use over an exact dated work set without double counting shared stocks, people, meters, tools, data, or time?", "Which measurement results, work/overlap relations, policy edition, actual aggregation work, typed result, result episteme, and provenance must remain separately recoverable?", "When is a ledger, plan, phase label, method, or dashboard not an obtained work-resource aggregation?" | Builds on: A.15.1, A.6.1, C.2.1, C.16. Coordinates with: A.3.1, A.3.2, A.15.2, A.15.5, B.1.4, C.27, A.1, B.1, A.14, C.13, A.3.4, A.10, G.6, G.11, C.29, E.17, and the direct comparison, assurance, transformation, reidentification, or decision owner. |
| B.2 | Meta-Holon Transition — Whole Reidentification | Stable | Decide whether the exact existing whole still carries the current subject claim or one exact new whole must be identified. Recover the trigger profile, direct facts that challenge the existing explanation, the proposed new whole, its already admitted public kind, complete A.1 and kind-specific basis, whole-reidentification claim, evidence, currentness, reliance, and blocked overread without treating a record, metric, transformation, or interaction as the new whole. Queries: "Which exact existing whole currently explains the claim?", "Which separately governed facts defeat that explanation?", "What exact new whole and admitted kind are proposed?", "Does the complete recognition and reidentification basis pass, fail, or remain unknown?" | Builds on: A.1, A.14, B.1, C.13. Coordinates with: B.1.2, B.2.P, B.2.2, B.2.3, B.2.4, B.2.5, A.12, A.3.4, A.15.1, C.16, C.29, C.30.ILC, C.2.1, and E.24.UK. |
| B.2.P | Emergence and MHT Precision Restoration | Stable | Repairs emergence, synergy, higher-level property, MHT, MET, MFT, metric mirage, and collection words entangled with whole-reidentification by recovering the claim kind first. | Builds on: E.10, E.10.ARCH, B.2, A.14, C.13, B.3.5. Coordinates with: B.2.2, B.2.3, B.2.4, C.16, A.2.2, A.6.F, A.3.4, C.30.ILC. |
| B.2.2 | Meta-System Transition — System Specialization of MHT | Stable | Specialize B.2 when its one exact proposed new whole must be recognized under the already admitted U.System kind. Apply the complete A.1 construction test and direct system criterion to that same individual; keep delimitation, objective, coordination, capability, role, Method, Work, transformation, functioning, architecture, evidence, assurance, and time claims under their direct owners, and re-base component evidence rather than transferring it by label. Queries: "Which exact new whole did B.2 identify?", "Does that same individual pass complete A.1 and the direct U.System criterion?", "Which additional result-system claims independently obtain?", "Which component evidence remains applicable to the recognized result system?" | Builds on: B.2, A.1, B.1.2, A.14, C.13. Coordinates with: A.12, A.3.4, A.15, A.15.1, A.2.1, A.2.2, A.6.F, A.10, B.3, B.3.5, B.2.4, B.2.5, C.16, C.27, C.30, A.22, and E.24.UK. |
| B.2.3 | Meta-Holon Transition With Episteme Result | Stable | Specializes B.2 for an exact candidate new whole independently recognized as U.Episteme. C.2.1 governs its obtaining EpistemeConstitutionRelation; publication and source-use claims stay with their direct owners. | Specializes: B.2. Builds on: A.1, C.2.1, E.24.UK. Coordinates with: C.2.P, C.2.P.DR, E.17, A.10, B.3, B.3.5, C.29. |
| B.2.4 | Capability and Functioning Whole Reidentification | Stable | B.2 specialization for cases where independently governed capability, functioning, or selected in-life transformation-flow facts leave a whole-reidentification question after direct-owner and existing-whole explanations are tested. Evidence only supports or challenges claims about those facts. | Specializes: B.2. Coordinates with: A.2.2, C.16, A.6.F, A.3.4, E.18, C.30.TFS-REL, A.15, A.15.1, A.6.M, C.30, C.29. |
| B.2.5 | Supervisor-Subholon Feedback Relation | Stable | Governs supervisor-subholon feedback relation claims without turning supervisor wording into generic interaction, transformer, or loop-mathematical-lens ontology. | Builds on: B.2, A.1, A.12. Coordinates with: A.2.1, A.3.4, C.30.LCA, C.29, A.10, B.3. |
| B.3 | Trust & Assurance Calculus (F–G–R with Congruence) | Stable | Keywords: trust, assurance, reliability, F-G-R, formality, scope, congruence, evidence, claim-support posture, authority-looking labels, dashboard tiles, probe/distributed/export/causal assurance. Queries: "How is trust calculated in FPF?", "When does an authority-looking label or dashboard tile fail to raise assurance?", "How does FPF handle evidence and confidence?" | Builds on: A.10. Coordinates with: A.6, A.15, E.17.EFP, A.20, A.21, C.26, C.26.1, C.26.2, C.26.3, C.16, C.28, F.9. Prerequisite for: B.3.* family members and D.4. |
| B.3.3 | Assurance Subtypes & Levels | Stable | Keywords: assurance levels, L0-L2, TA, VA, LA, typing, verification, validation. Queries: "What are the assurance levels in FPF?", "How does an assurance record mature in FPF?" | Builds on: B.3. |
| B.3.4 | Evidence Decay & Epistemic Debt | Stable | Keywords: evidence aging, decay, freshness, epistemic debt, stale data. Queries: "How does FPF handle outdated evidence?", "What is epistemic debt?" | Builds on: B.3. |
| B.3.5 | Working-Model Relations & Grounding (CT2R-LOG) | Stable | Keywords: grounding, constructive trace, working model, assurance layer, CT2R, Compose-CAL. Queries: "How are FPF models grounded in evidence?", "What is the CT2R-LOG?" | Builds on: B.3, E.14, C.13. |
| B.4 | Canonical Evolution Loop | Stable | Keywords: evolution loop, DesignRunTag feedback, observe-notice-stabilize-route, drift repair, knowledge refinement, method refinement, open-ended evolution. Queries: "How does FPF evolve a system or episteme without design-reality drift?", "Where do knowledge and method instantiation sit in the canonical loop?", "Where does pre-abductive routing sit?" | Builds on: A.4, A.12. Refined by: B.4.1. Carries embedded slices for: knowledge instantiation and method instantiation. |
| B.4.1 | Observe -> Notice -> Stabilize -> Route | Stable | Keywords: routed cue set, route plurality, route selection, pre-abductive seam, task-family specialization route. Queries: "How do under-articulated cues become routed before endpoint claim publication?", "When should a cue become a routed cue set instead of an abductive prompt?" | Builds on: A.16, A.16.1, C.2.2a. Coordinates with: B.5.2.0, C.16.Q, A.6.A, C.22.1. |
| B.5 | Canonical Reasoning Cycle | Stable | Keywords: reasoning, problem-solving, Abduction-Deduction-Induction, scientific method. Queries: "How does FPF model problem-solving?", "What is the canonical reasoning cycle?" | Builds on: A.10. Prerequisite for: B.5.* family members. |
| B.5.1 | Explore → Shape → Evidence → Operate | Stable | Keywords: development state cycle, open-ended progression, state machine, Explore, Shape, Evidence, Operate. Queries: "What states can project work and its records pass through in FPF?" | Builds on: B.5. |
| B.5.2 | Abductive Loop | Stable | Keywords: abduction, explanatory prompt, candidate hypotheses, plausibility filters, origin trace, route-to-hypothesis. Queries: "How does FPF model abductive hypothesis generation?", "What is the abductive loop?" | Builds on: B.5, B.5.2.0, A.10, B.3.3. Coordinates with: B.4.1, A.16, A.6.P. |
| B.5.2.0 | U.AbductivePrompt | Stable | Keywords: abductive prompt, prompt species, rival-set discipline, threshold crossing, explanation-ready cue. Queries: "When is a routed cue ready to enter abduction?", "What prompt species does FPF distinguish before hypothesis work begins?" | Builds on: B.4.1, A.16, C.2.2a. Coordinates with: A.6.P, A.6.A, C.16.Q. Used by: B.5.2. |
| B.5.2.1 | Creative Abduction with NQD | Stable | Keywords: creative abduction, NQD binding, Γ_nqd.generate, Creativity-CHR, Q-front, declared Q components, retained exploration/archive evidence, Novelty@context, ΔDiversity_P, E/E-LOG, DecisionSubject note. Queries: "How do I make abductive idea generation instrumented instead of ad-hoc?", "How does B.5.2 delegate generation to C.18 and pool policy to C.19?", "Why does creative abduction return a front/evidence set rather than one bundled winner?" | Builds on: B.5.2, A.17, A.18, C.17, C.18, C.19. Coordinates with: B.4, C.11, G.5. |
| B.5.3 | Domain-Concept Bridge | Stable | Keywords: domain vocabulary, concept bridge, local sense, bounded context, bridge scope, role assignment boundary. Queries: "How does FPF integrate domain-specific language without minting false kinds?", "When is a domain word a role, a kind, a characteristic, or a local sense?" | Builds on: A.2, A.6.5, C.3, E.24.UK, F.1, F.2, F.3, F.5, F.8. |
Part C - Kernel Extension Specifications
| § | ID & Title | Status | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cluster C.I – Core CALs / LOGs / CHRs | ||||
| C.1 | Physical System State, Conservation, and Resource-Flow Calculus (Sys-CAL) | Planned | Keywords: physical system, composition, conservation law, stock-flow, energy, mass, resource flow, U.System. Queries: "How to model physical systems in FPF?", "What conservation or stock-flow claim is being made?", "How do resources move through a system?" | Builds on: A.1, A.14, A.22, A.3.4, A.19, C.16. Coordinates with: B.1.6, planned C.5, planned C.14, C.30. |
| C.2 | KD‑CAL | Stable | Keywords: knowledge, epistemic, evidence, trust, assurance, F-G-R, Formality, ClaimScope, Reliability, provenance. Queries: "What is F-G-R?", "How does FPF handle evidence and trust?", "How to model a scientific theory?". | Builds on: A.1, A.10, B.3. Prerequisite for: All patterns using F-G-R. |
| C.2.1 | U.Episteme: Constitution, Empirical Grounding, and Edition Relations | Stable | Identifies one episteme through exact claim content, exact EntityOfConcern, and effective ReferenceScheme under EpistemeConstitutionRelation; governs its empirical-grounding and edition relations while keeping declarations, views, publications, carriers, and representations separate. | Builds on: A.1, A.6.REL, A.6.0, A.6.5, A.7, C.29. Coordinates with: C.3.2, E.17.0, E.24.UK, E.24.PUB, A.10, B.3, G.11. |
| C.2.P | Epistemic Precision Restoration | Stable | Restores precision for source expression, claim-bearing episteme, publication, view, face, carrier, PublicationUnit, EntityOfConcern, grounding relation, pattern-application wording, and FPF-governed use dispositions without turning files or names into claim objects. | Builds on: E.10, C.2.1, A.7, E.17.0, E.17, A.6.P, F.18. Coordinates with: E.8, E.12, E.17.AUD, E.17.EFP, E.17.ID.CR, A.10, A.15, A.20, A.21, B.3, C.11. |
| C.2.2 | Reliability R in the F–G–R triad | Stable | Keywords: Reliability (R), warrant, evidence-bound, F–G–R, ClaimScope (G), Bridge-only reuse, Congruence Level (CL / CL^k / CL^plane), weakest-link, pathwise justification (PathId), TA/VA/LA lanes, no implicit averaging. Queries: "What is R in F–G–R?", "How does FPF propagate reliability?", "How do CL penalties route under transport?", "Bridge-only reuse of claims in FPF". | Builds on: C.2, A.2.6, C.2.3, B.3, B.1.3, C.3, F.9. Coordinates with: G.6, G.7, E.14, E.18. Constrains: any cross-context claim reuse and any publication of R_eff. |
| C.2.2a | U.LanguageStateSpace - Language-state chart over U.CharacteristicSpace | Stable | Keywords: language-state chart, characteristic space, position claim, partial coordinates, thresholds, governed episteme publication. Queries: "What is the language-state space in FPF?", "How do I publish a position claim before endpoint claim publication?" | Builds on: A.19, E.10, F.18. Used by: C.2.LS, A.16, B.4.1, C.16.Q, A.6.A. |
| C.2.3 | Unified Formality Characteristic F | Stable | Keywords: Formality, F-scale, F0-F9, rigor, proof, specification, language-state separation. Queries: "What is Formality F in FPF?", "How does F differ from articulation, closure, or anchoring?" | Builds on: C.2. Constrains: all patterns referencing F-G-R or language-state facets. |
| C.2.LS | U.LanguageStateFacetProfile - Thin profile bundle for language-state facets | Stable | Keywords: facet profile, articulation, closure, anchoring, representation factors, threshold package. Queries: "How are language-state facets named together in FPF?", "What is a LanguageStateFacetProfile?" | Builds on: C.2.2a, C.2.4-C.2.7. Coordinates with: A.16. |
| C.2.4 | U.ArticulationExplicitness | Stable | Keywords: articulation explicitness, semantic shape, under-articulated cue, explicitness, early repair readiness. Queries: "How explicit is a governed episteme already?", "What is ArticulationExplicitness in FPF?" | Builds on: C.2.2a. Coordinates with: C.2.LS, A.16. |
| C.2.5 | U.LanguageStateClosureDegree | Stable | Keywords: closure degree, candidate-space closure, reopen, rival routes, settledness. Queries: "How closed is the current candidate space?", "What is LanguageStateClosureDegree in FPF?" | Builds on: C.2.2a. Coordinates with: C.2.LS, A.16. |
| C.2.6 | U.LanguageStateAnchoringMode | Stable | Keywords: anchoring mode, embodiment, trace, model state, document, operator loop. Queries: "How is a language-state claim anchored in FPF?", "What is LanguageStateAnchoringMode?" | Builds on: C.2.2a. Coordinates with: C.2.LS, F.9.1. |
| C.2.7 | U.LanguageStateRepresentationFactorBundle | Stable | Keywords: representation factors, locality, sparsity, symbolicity, factor bundle, representation organization. Queries: "How does FPF describe representation factors in language-state work?", "What is the representation-factor bundle?" | Builds on: C.2.2a. Coordinates with: C.2.LS, C.2.6. |
| C.2.P.DR | Declarative Representation Precision Restoration | Stable | Repairs declarative-shape overread by separating the visible expression or artifact, the exact current direct object or relation, an exact representation/correspondence use or none, and the blocked stronger action claim. Applies to graph and evidence paths, queries, dashboards, schemas, formal substrates, method descriptions, publication faces, tables, and pattern relations; uses four plain questions and exact direct owners. Procedure/code/solver/recipe form establishes no U.MethodDescription; required or desired change remains claim content, while an actual U.Transformation needs its independent A.3.4 basis. | Builds on: C.2.P, E.10, E.10.ARCH, F.19, C.29, C.2.1, A.3.1, A.3.2, A.3.4. Coordinates with: E.18, E.18.1, A.10, E.17, A.6.1, E.20, A.15.1, A.15.2, C.16, A.19, A.21. |
| C.3 | Kinds, Intent and Extent, and Typed Reasoning | Stable | Keywords: bounded-context local kind, intent-bearing KindSignature, effective ReferenceScheme, three-valued candidate judgment, optional slice-indexed extension, SubkindOf, KindBridge. Queries: "Which local kind and exact signature edition govern this classification?", "Is this candidate in, out, or unknown?", "Did the bounded context change, or only the scheme edition or observation slice?" | Builds on: A.1, A.2.6, C.2.1. Coordinates with: C.3.1, C.3.2, C.3.3, E.24.UK, F.9. |
| C.3.1 | U.Kind and U.SubkindOf Core | Stable | Keywords: local kind, U.SubkindOf direct relation, relation-obtaining predicate, relation occurrence, assertion episteme, partial order. Queries: "What makes a subkind relation obtain?", "When do I need an identified subkind-relation occurrence rather than an assertion?". | Builds on: A.1, A.2.6 (USM), A.6.REL, C.2.1. Prerequisite for: C.3.2, C.3.3. |
| C.3.2 | Kind Intent, Membership Judgment, and Extension | Stable | Governs one local KindSignature intent, one exact candidate judgment (true, false, or unknown) in a pinned context slice, and an optional KindExtension only when a named set-consuming use needs it. The judgment is not an A.14 membership relation, evidence record, or guard decision; the extension is a representation, not ontology. Queries: "What makes this exact candidate count as this local kind in this slice?", "How do I distinguish kind intent, classification, evidence, and an optional extension?" | Builds on: C.3, C.3.1, A.6.0, C.2.1, A.2.6. Prerequisite for: C.3.3, C.3.4, C.3.5, C.3.A. Coordinates with: C.29, A.14, E.24.UK. |
| C.3.3 | KindBridge & CL^k — Cross-context Mapping of Kinds | Stable | Keywords: KindBridge direct relation, bridge assertion episteme, target judgment, CL^k, loss, R penalty. Queries: "Which exact source and target local kinds are related?", "What does the bridge assertion add without creating target truth?". | Builds on: C.3.1, C.3.2, C.2.1, A.2.6, C.2.2. Coordinates with: A.6.REL, F.9. |
| C.3.4 | RoleMask — Contextual Adaptation of Kinds (without cloning) | Stable | Keywords: RoleMask declaration episteme, masked judgment, candidate-feature constraint, vocabulary binding, stable-refinement review. Queries: "How do I tailor a local kind use without cloning or silently admitting another kind?", "What must a guard-addressable RoleMask edition expose?". | Builds on: C.3.1, C.3.2, C.2.1. Coordinates with: C.3.3, C.3.A. |
| C.3.5 | KindAT — Intentional Abstraction Facet for Kinds (K0…K3) | Stable | Keywords: KindAT, K0-K3, editorial facet, declaration planning, assurance planning. Queries: "Which intentional abstraction stance does this exact local kind use?", "Where should declaration or assurance effort go without gating on abstraction?" | Builds on: C.3, C.3.1, C.3.2, C.3.3, C.3.4, A.2.6, C.2.2, C.2.3. Used by: C.3.A only as an explicit non-input to guards. |
| C.3.A | Typed Guard Macros for Kinds + USM (Annex) | Stable | Keywords: declaration compatibility, exact candidate judgment, true/false/unknown, guard refusal, regulatory, assurance, ESG, Method-Work. Queries: "How do I check a claim quantified over a kind without inventing a candidate?", "How do I apply it to this exact candidate?", "How do I keep an actual Work occurrence distinct?" | Builds on: C.3, C.3.1-C.3.5, A.2.6, C.2.2, C.2.3, A.15, A.15.1. |
| C.5 | Resource Use and Work-Cost Calculus (Resrc-CAL) | Planned | Keywords: resource use, dated consumption, work cost, budget, cost bearer, resource ledger, efficiency claim. Queries: "How does FPF model resource use by work?", "How to keep resource cost separate from evidence or value?", "What resource ledger supports a work-cost claim?" | Builds on: A.15.1, A.15.2, B.1.6, C.16, A.10. Coordinates with: planned C.1, C.24, G.9, B.3. |
| C.6 | Proof and Inference Use Calculus (LOG-CAL) | Planned | Keywords: proof use, inference rule, typed guard, claim entailment, proof obligation, reasoning support. Queries: "What inference is licensed here?", "When is a proof claim separate from evidence?", "Which typed rule supports this conclusion?" | Builds on: C.3, C.2.1, A.10, B.3. Coordinates with: B.3.5, C.23, G.8, A.6.B. |
| Cluster C.II – Domain‑Specific Patterns | ||||
| C.9 | Agency Characteristic Profile | Planned | Keywords: agency, autonomy, responsibility threshold, decision capacity, intervention capacity, agentive role. Queries: "What agency claim is being made?", "When does a system or role holder count as agentive enough for this decision?", "How should autonomy be characterized without minting a new agent kind?" | Builds on: A.13, A.17, A.18, A.19, C.16, A.10. Coordinates with: B.3, C.11, C.24, D.2. |
| C.11 | Decision Theory (Decsn-CAL) | Stable | Keywords: decision theory, DecisionSubject, OptionSet, comparison basis, ChoiceRule, ChoiceResult, question order, probe-worthiness, non-shared comparison frame, ValueOfInformation, ValueOfComputation, choose now, reject current set, probe again, reroute. Queries: "When should one choose now versus probe again?", "What must be explicit before a choice among already-available options is lawful?", "When do question order or incompatible frames require C.26 rather than ordinary choice?" | Builds on: A.6.P, A.6.5, A.13, A.18, A.19. Coordinates with: planned C.9, C.26, C.18, C.19, C.24, G.5. |
| Cluster C.III – Meta‑Infrastructure CALs | ||||
| C.13 | Constructional Mereology (Compose‑CAL) | Stable | Keywords: mereology, part-whole, composition, sum, set, slice, construction account. Queries: "How can I show, without creating it by notation, how already identified constituents and relations assemble a whole, form a collection, or distinguish an aspect?", "What is Compose-CAL?". | Builds on: A.14 and direct part-relation patterns. Coordinates with: C.2.1. Is used by: A.1, B.3.5, and subject patterns needing a compact construction account. |
| Cluster C.IV – Composite & Macro‑Scale | ||||
| C.14 | System-of-Systems and Infrastructure Calculus (M-Sys-CAL) | Planned | Keywords: system-of-systems, infrastructure, inter-system dependency, service network, infrastructure boundary, operational coupling. Queries: "How to model a complex infrastructure such as a power grid?", "Which cross-system dependency changes the claim?", "When is this a system-of-systems rather than one system?" | Builds on: planned C.1, B.2.2, A.22, C.30, B.1.6. Coordinates with: C.30.ILC, planned C.5, D.2, G.6, B.3. |
| C.16 | Measurement & Metrics Characterization (MM‑CHR) | Stable | Keywords: measurand, measurement subject, Characteristic, Scale, Level/Coordinate, Unit, polarity, method, model, calibration, dated measurement work, actual bindings, input/output quantities, uncertainty, measurement result, C.2.1 result episteme, comparability, provenance, bounded later use. Queries: "How do I recover a complete measurement chain from a reading, score, rating, sensor indication, dashboard value, or claimed comparison?", "How do I distinguish emitted output, indication, actual subject state, measurement result, result episteme, diagnosis, criterion verdict, and decision?", "When should ambiguous measurement wording go first to C.16.P, comparison or selection go to A.19, and provenance go to A.10/G.6?" | Builds on: A.17, A.18; uses A.15.1/A.6.1 for dated work and actual bindings and C.2.1 for the result episteme. Coordinates with: C.16.P, A.19, C.28, A.10, G.6, G.11, B.3, G.4, C.11, C.29. Used by: patterns that consume typed measurement-result epistemes, including G.4 and B.1.6. |
| C.16.P | Characteristic and Scale Precision Restoration | Stable | Repairs overloaded characteristic, scale, coordinate, metric, score, indicator, threshold, comparison, and scalar-quality wording before C.16/A.17-A.19/C.25/C.29/E.21 or another governing pattern is applied. | Builds on: E.10, E.10.ARCH, A.17, A.18, C.16, A.19, C.25, C.29, E.21, F.18, A.6.P. Coordinates with: C.16.Q, A.19.ECS, evidence, assurance, gate, decision, causal-use, benchmark, and publication patterns governing those claims. |
| C.16.Q | Quality-Term Precision Restoration | Stable | Repairs overloaded quality and evaluative-characterization wording by selecting an endpoint-governed evaluative form or a bounded transitional quality-term repair form with declared bearer, evaluation frame, sense family, admissible normal form, and governing pattern. | Builds on: E.10, E.10.ARCH, C.16.P, C.16, C.25, E.21, A.17, A.18, A.19, A.7, C.2.1, E.8, F.9, F.18. Coordinates with: A.6.P, A.6.A, A.16, B.4.1, B.5.2.0, A.10, B.3, F.9.1. |
| C.17 | Creativity‑CHR — Characterising Generative Novelty & Value | Stable | Keywords: Creativity-CHR, Novelty@context, Use-Value and ValueGain, Surprise, ConstraintFit, Diversity_P, Originality, ResourceEfficiency, MM-CHR measurement templates, ReferenceBase, evidence, portfolio composition. Queries: "How do I make a creativity claim measurable and evidence-bound?", "Which characteristics distinguish novelty, value, surprise, constraint fit, diversity, originality, and resource efficiency?", "How do creative outputs compose from individuals to portfolios?" | Builds on: C.16, A.17, A.18, A.19. Coordinates with: B.5.2.1, C.18, C.19, A.13, A.10, planned C.9, B.3, B.4, F.5/F.18. |
| C.18 | Open-Ended Search Archive and Front Stewardship | Stable | Keywords: open-ended search, generation, exploration archive, non-dominated front, descriptors, lineage, telemetry, retained exploration value, currentness, refresh. Queries: "Which generation, archive, or front claim is current?", "What distinguishes the non-dominated front from retained exploration value?", "When does live-pool treatment move to C.19 or selected-set publication to G.5?" | Builds on: C.16, A.19, E.18. Coordinates with: C.19, G.5, G.9, G.11, E.23, E.18.1, C.30, C.36, A.15. |
| C.18.1 | Scaling‑Law Lens Binding (SLL) | Stable | Keywords: scaling law, scale variables (S), compute‑elasticity, data‑elasticity, resolution‑elasticity, exponent class, knee, diminishing returns. Queries: "How to make search scale‑savvy?", "Where to declare scale variables and expected elasticities?" | Builds on: C.16, C.17, C.18. Coordinates with: C.19, G.5, G.9, G.10. |
| C.19 | Explore-Exploit Live-Pool Governor | Stable | Keywords: explore-exploit, already-live candidate pool, pool-policy result, governing lens, widen, keep frontier, narrow to subset, sunset line, change trigger. Queries: "How should one govern a still-live candidate pool?", "When does fresh generation or front recomputation return to C.18?", "When does a retained subset require G.5 selected-set publication?" | Builds on: C.18, C.16, A.19.CPM, A.19.SelectorMechanism, B.3. Coordinates with: C.11, C.24, G.5, G.9, G.11. |
| C.19.1 | Bitter‑Lesson Preference (BLP) | Stable | BLP comparison and waiver discipline for scalable general methods versus bounded specialization, including E.23 method-family choice and cost/risk posture. | Builds on: C.19, C.24, B.3. Coordinates with: E.23, G.5, G.8, G.9, G.11, A.0. |
| C.19.2 | Use-Bounded Apparatus Application | Stable | Keywords: use-bounded apparatus application, one selected apparatus, configuration or adaptation work, setup cost, declared result and guarantee, reuse horizon. Queries: When can one existing apparatus be applied without opening option search? When must generation or choice become current? | Coordinates with: C.18, C.19, C.19.1, C.22.1, E.23, C.11 when a live eligible set exists, A.15.1, A.15.2. Specialized by: A.7.1. |
| C.20 | Composition of U.Discipline (Discipline-CAL) | Stable | Keywords: discipline construction, practice-and-knowledge whole, DisciplinePartOfRelation, exact constituents, whole-forming claims, assembly, reidentification, composition-grounded characteristic. Queries: "When is an apparent field one durable discipline rather than a label or collection?", "Which exact parts and obtaining relations form the whole?", "What preserves or ends its identity through change?" | Builds on: A.1, A.6.REL, A.14, C.13, A.17, A.18, E.24.UK. Coordinates with: C.2.1, A.3.1, B.1.5, A.15.1, A.22, B.2, C.21, A.19.CPM, F.9, G.5. |
| C.21 | Discipline‑CHR - Field Health & Structure | Stable | Keywords: discipline, field health, reproducibility, standardisation, alignment, disruption. Queries: "How to measure the health of a scientific field?", "What is reproducibility rate?". | Builds on: C.16, C.2, A.2.6, B.3. Coordinates with: C.20, G.2. |
| C.22 | Task Typing and TaskSignature Assignment (Problem-CHR) | Stable | Constitutes one selector-facing TaskSignature as a C.2.1 episteme and species of U.Signature; when a receiving use is current, separately relates the exact problem-side episteme, exact TaskSignature, and exact receiving-use episteme through TaskSignatureAssignmentRelation. Keeps CHR typing, unknowns, scope, evidence-use relations, currentness, and required crossings visible without adding a generic setting, carrier, or organization as a constituent or assignment participant. Queries: "When is a stable problem-side episteme ready for a selector-facing TaskSignature?", "Which typed fields and unknowns belong in its exact edition?", "How do I relate the problem-side episteme, TaskSignature, and receiving use without preselecting a method?" | Builds on: A.6.0, C.16, G.0. Coordinates with: C.22.1, C.22.2, C.23, G.4, G.5. |
| C.22.1 | Task-family adaptation signature | Stable | Durable task-family specialization fields: threshold target, time-to-threshold, budget-to-threshold, prior exposure, transfer, retention, downside, and corridor entry. | Builds on: C.22, C.19.1, A.15, C.24, E.16. Coordinates with: E.23, G.5, G.9, G.11. |
| C.22.PFR | Problematic-For Relation | Stable | Governs one actual adverse condition as a ProblematicForRelation for one exact entity, use scope, and criterion-applicability window. A signal, evaluation, assessment claim, or ProblemCard may support or describe the claim but does not create the actual Problem; separately adverse episodes receive separate occurrence identities. Queries: "Which actual condition is adverse for this exact entity and use?", "Which criterion-applicability relation supplies the predicate, scope, and window?", "Is this the actual Problem, or only a signal, assessment, or ProblemCard?" | Builds on: A.6.REL, A.6.5, A.19. Coordinates with: C.22, C.22.2, A.15.1, A.3.4, E.18.1, E.23, A.10, B.3, G.11. |
| C.22.2 | ProblemCard | Stable | Constitutes one compact C.2.1 episteme from one exact ClaimGraph, one independently identified joint EntityOfConcern, and one effective U.ReferenceScheme. Preserves actual PFR assertion versus anticipated-condition or solvability claims, evidence/currentness boundaries, unknowns, and honest next use without turning a setting, carrier, organization, task, method, plan, or Work occurrence into its identity. Queries: "How do I turn a messy signal into a reviewable ProblemCard episteme before P2W?", "What makes a ProblemCard P2W-ready?", "How do I keep actual PFR, evidence, gates, autonomy, archives, task typing, and method selection with their neighboring governors?" | Builds on: C.2.1, E.2, E.9, E.10, C.2.P, A.6.P, C.16.Q, C.16, A.19, C.22, C.25, C.29, G.5, G.9, A.6.3.RT, A.6.4. Coordinates with: C.11, C.18, C.19, C.22.1, C.22.PFR, C.24, C.27, C.28, A.15, A.15.5, A.21, E.16, G.6, G.11, A.10, B.3, E.17, E.17.ID.CR, A.6.3, F.9, E.18, E.18.1, C.32.P2S, E.10.MOVE. |
| C.23 | Method‑SoS‑LOG — MethodFamily Evidence & Maturity | Stable | Keywords: MethodFamily, evidence, maturity, SoS-LOG, admit, degrade, abstain, selector. Queries: "How is method family maturity assessed?", "What is the SoS-LOG for selection?". | Builds on: G.5, G.4, C.22, B.3. |
| C.24 | Agentic Tool-Use and Call Planning (C.Agent-Tools-CAL) | Stable | Call-route and call-plan discipline for tool-using agents: plan/work separation, checkpoint return, tool-call budget, stop or replan condition, and overread boundaries. | Builds on: A.15, A.15.1, A.15.2, B.1.6, C.16, A.10, B.3, C.18, C.19. Coordinates with: planned C.5, E.23, C.11, C.28, G.5, G.6, G.9. |
| C.25 | Q-Bundle: Authoring "-ilities" as Structured Quality Bundles | Stable | Keywords: quality bundle, -ility, quality family, characteristic plus scope, mechanism/status slots, endpoint classification, viability envelope, proxy metric, admissible quality-family use, failure mode. Queries: "What is a Q-Bundle in FPF?", "When is an -ility one characteristic and when is it a bundle?", "When does a viability claim need C.26.3 rather than one metric?" | Builds on: A.2.6, A.6.1, C.16, B.3. Coordinates with: C.16.Q, A.15, C.26.3. |
| C.26 | Quantum-Like Modeling Lens | Stable | Keywords: quantum-like, QL-lite, QL-NQ, probe frame, order effect, incompatible probes, instrument update, state export, source-loss coarsening, minimal admissible output. Queries: "When is quantum-like useful as a mathematical lens in FPF?", "What representational mistake does QL-lite prevent?", "How do I use QL without making a physical quantum claim?" | Builds on: C.11, C.16, A.6, A.10, B.3, F.9, A.6.3.CSC, A.6.3.RT. Constrains: C.26.1-C.26.3. Coordinates with: A.15, C.25, C.18, C.19. |
| C.26.1 | Probe-Coupled Boundary Interaction | Stable | Keywords: probe-coupled boundary, passive read, dashboard as instrument, workshop as state-changing interaction, API read, survey, bridge result, export loss, evidence window. Queries: "When does a dashboard, workshop, metric, or API read change what it reports?", "How do I stop treating a boundary interaction as a passive read?", "When should a probe-coupled case apply evidence or assurance patterns?" | Builds on: C.26, A.6, A.6.B, A.6.P, A.10, B.3, C.16, F.9, A.15. Coordinates with: C.26.2, C.26.3. |
| C.26.2 | Enacted Distributed State Evidence | Stable | Keywords: distributed-state evidence, coordinated work, enacted state, minimal state reading, evidence carrier, window, rival explanation, no group mind, report/export loss. Queries: "When does coordinated work evidence a state no participant report carries?", "How do I bound a distributed-state reading?", "When is a survey or dashboard thinner than the enacted state?" | Builds on: C.26, A.15, A.10, B.3, F.9, C.16. Coordinates with: C.26.1, C.26.3. |
| C.26.3 | Viability-Envelope Boundary Regulation | Stable | Keywords: viability envelope, homeostasis, allostasis, boundary regulation, sensor/probe/actuator split, metric-induced distortion, service viability, quality bundle, failure mode. Queries: "When is viability more than one green metric?", "How do boundary probes or metrics change a viability envelope?", "When does a service split or support load need envelope regulation?" | Builds on: C.26, C.25, U.Dynamics, A.6, A.15, C.16, A.10, B.3, A.3, A.19, C.18, C.19. Coordinates with: C.26.1, C.26.2. |
| C.27 | Temporal Claim Adequacy: State Readings, Temporal Trends, and Intervention-Sensitive Temporal Change | Stable | Keywords: temporal claim adequacy, temporal claim, state reading, rate reading, temporal trend, rate-change, intervention-sensitive temporal change, effort window, resistance/inertia, rhythm/cadence, throughput, recovery, braking, coasting, stabilization, dynamic benchmark. Queries: "When does a speed, rhythm, throughput, or recovery claim need temporal adequacy?", "How do I separate state, rate, and intervention-sensitive rate-change?", "When is faster improvement not enough for benchmark, quality, viability, or QL claims?" | Builds on: C.16, A.3.3, B.1.4, B.1.6. Coordinates with: C.27.TA, A.3.4, C.18.1, C.19, C.22.1, C.24, C.25, C.26, C.26.3, G.9, A.10, B.3. |
| C.27.TA | Temporal Aspect: Time Windows, Rhythm, Cadence, and Currentness | Stable | Keywords: temporal aspect, time window, freshness, currentness, rhythm, cadence, validity window, recovery timing. Queries: "Which time relation matters for this claim or object?", "How do I state freshness, rhythm, latency, or validity window without turning it into evidence, work, or dynamics law?" | Builds on: A.3.4, A.3.3, C.27, E.24. Coordinates with: A.10, B.3, A.15.1, A.15.2, A.20, A.21, C.16, C.29, E.18, G.11. |
| C.28 | CausalUse-CAL: Causal-Use Questions, Causality-Ladder Rungs, Identification and Realizability | Stable | Keywords: causal-use question, causality ladder, association, intervention, counterfactual, Pearl Causal Hierarchy, Structural Causal Model, causal diagram, causal estimand, identification, counterfactual sampling realizability, causal evidence support basis, target trial, causal fairness, off-policy causal evaluation, causal-RL evaluation. Queries: "Can I say this caused that?", "Is this intervention claim supported?", "What evidence supports a counterfactual claim?", "When does a fairness metric need causal support?", "Is simulation enough for a counterfactual claim?", "Which pattern handles causal benchmark parity?", "When should causal language be downgraded to association, measurement, temporal, QL, or local prose?" | Builds on: A.10, B.3, C.11, C.19, C.24, C.26, C.27, D.5, G.5, G.9. Coordinates with: A.2.4, A.3.2, A.6, A.15, C.16, G.11. |
| C.29 | Mathematical Lens Use | Stable | Keywords: mathematical lens, structure-preserving representation, lens mapping mode, preserved structure, lost structure, invariants, stop condition, scale window, coarse-graining, rival lens, LensUseAdmissibilityValue, validation boundary, learned lens, ontology smuggling. Queries: "When does a mathematical analogy become an admissible FPF lens?", "What structure is preserved by this lens?", "Where must this math transfer stop?", "How do I use mathematical structure without importing ontology?" | Builds on: A.1.1, A.6.P, A.6.RCD, A.3.3, A.19, A.10, A.15, B.3, C.16, E.17.EFP, E.17.ID.CR, A.6.3.RT, A.6.3.CSC, F.9. Constrained by: E.8, E.10, C.2.P, E.19. Decision basis: E.9 and C.29:13a. Coordinates with: C.11, A.15.1, A.15.4, C.18.1, C.19.1, C.26, C.27, C.28, G.5, G.9, G.2, G.10. |
| C.30 | Grounded Architecture and Selected-Structure Adequacy | Stable | Keywords: grounded architecture, ArchitectureOf@Context, selected structure, architecture claim, architecture question card, candidate architecture use, architecture-description boundary, artifact-as-architecture guard. Queries: "How do I recover a grounded architecture claim?", "Which selected structure changes the architecture move?", "When does candidate synthesis go to C.32 rather than C.30?" | Builds on: A.22, C.2.1, A.6.3, A.7, E.17.0, E.17, E.10.D2, F.18. Coordinates with: C.30.AD, C.30.ASV, A.6.F, C.30.TFS-REL, C.30.LCA, C.30.ILC, C.32, C.32.MLAO, C.32.CONWAY, C.32.PAD, C.32.ADR, C.32.ADA, C.29, C.16, C.25, C.28, A.19.CPM, A.19.SelectorMechanism, C.18, C.19, G.5, C.11, A.10, B.3, A.20, A.21, A.15. |
| C.30.AD | Architecture Description Adequacy | Stable | Keywords: architecture description, ArchitectureDescription@Context, architecture description use card, architecture structural view, viewpoint, correspondence, source return, specification-use boundary, candidate-description boundary. Queries: "When is an architecture description the EntityOfConcern under repair?", "How do I keep views, viewpoints, selected structures, and publication boundaries distinct?", "Where do described candidate palettes and residual frames go?" | Builds on: C.30, C.30.ASV, A.22, A.7, A.6.3, E.17.0, E.17.1, E.17.2, E.17, C.2.P, E.10, E.10.ARCH. Coordinates with: C.30.P, C.30.TFS-REL, C.30.LCA, C.30.ILC, C.32, C.32.MLAO, A.19.CPM, A.19.SelectorMechanism, C.18, C.19, G.5, C.11, A.6.F, A.6.M, C.29, C.16, C.16.P, A.10, B.3, A.20, A.21, A.15, C.28, E.8, F.18. |
| C.30.AD.BA | Built-Asset Architecture Description and Reference Designation | Stable | Built-asset architecture-description use for BIM, IFC, asset registers, digital-twin views, handover tables, and ISO/IEC 81346-style reference designations without turning descriptions into assets, evidence, gates, work, or decisions. | Builds on: C.30, C.30.AD, C.30.ASV, A.22, E.17. Coordinates with: A.6.F, A.6.M, C.30.TFS-REL, C.30.LCA, C.30.ILC, A.10, B.3, A.20, A.21, C.11, C.28. |
| C.30.P | Architecture and Structure Precision Restoration | Stable | Repairs architecture or structure wording whose EntityOfConcern or claim kind is hidden before A.22, C.30, C.30.AD, C.30.ASV, a selected C.30.* pattern, C.32-family synthesis work, or another governing pattern is applied. | Builds on: E.10, E.10.ARCH, A.22, C.30, C.30.AD, C.30.ASV, C.2.P, A.6.P, A.6.F, C.29, C.16.P, C.16, C.25, E.17, E.8. Coordinates with: C.30.TFS-REL, C.30.LCA, C.30.ILC, C.32, C.32.MLAO, C.32.CONWAY, C.32.FAIL, A.19.CPM, A.19.SelectorMechanism, C.18, C.19, G.5, A.10, B.3, A.20, A.21, C.11, C.28, A.15, E.11. |
| C.30.STRAT | Stratification Wording Precision Restoration | Stable | Repairs source-label uses such as layer, level, tier, stack, ladder, rung, block, expert, cache, router, and gate by recovering selected ontological neighborhood, primary EntityOfConcern kind, governing pattern, admissible use, and remaining reader use before FPF-governed use. | Builds on: E.10, E.10.ARCH, E.8, F.18, C.30.P, A.22, C.30. Coordinates with: C.30.ASV, C.30.LCA, C.30.TFS-REL, C.30.ILC, A.6.M, A.6.F, E.18, C.16.P, C.16, A.19.SPR, C.2.P, E.17, C.29, C.28, A.10, G.6, B.3, A.20, A.21, A.15, A.2, G.5, C.11, E.11, I.2. |
| C.30.ASV | Architecture Structural View Adequacy (ASV) | Stable | Keywords: architecture structural view, ArchitectureStructureKindRef, VF.ARCH.STRUCTURE, viewpoint bundle, structure kind, hidden or lost structure, correspondence, source return. Queries: "Which structure kind does this architecture view describe?", "How do viewpoint and structure kind stay distinct?", "When does a view hide or lose structure?" | Builds on: C.30, A.22, A.6.3, E.17.0, E.17.1, E.17.2, E.17, E.10.D2. Coordinates with: A.6.F, C.30.TFS-REL, C.30.LCA, C.30.ILC, E.18, C.29. |
| C.30.LCA | Control Structure View Adequacy (LCA) | Stable | Keywords: control-structure view, layered control architecture, supervisor loop, controller and plant, rate band, control layer, proof overread. Queries: "When is LCA a control-structure view rather than proof?", "How do layer, level, stack, and rate labels recover fields named by value?", "Where do stability, safety, evidence, and gate claims go?" | Builds on: C.30, C.30.ASV, B.2.5, A.22. Coordinates with: A.3.3, C.27, C.28, A.10, G.6, B.3, A.20, A.21, C.29. |
| C.30.ILC | Cross-Scope Architecture Residual Triage | Stable | Keywords: cross-scope residual, interlevel conflict, frustration, declared scope, structure kind, local repair, residual-bearing locus, first architecture move. Queries: "What is the first architecture move when a local fix creates a residual elsewhere?", "When does residual-reducing synthesis go to C.32.MLAO and C.32?", "When should the case exit to measurement, scale, evidence, decision, or selected-set publication?" | Builds on: C.30, C.30.ASV, A.22. Coordinates with: C.32.MLAO, C.32, C.32.PAD, C.31.ASAP, C.16, C.29, G.5, C.11, C.28, A.10, B.3, G.6, D.3, D.4. |
| C.30.TFS-REL | Architecture Transformation-Flow Structure Relation | Stable | Relates one named architecture locus to one selected E.18 TFS or E.18.NET network for a bounded architecture use. Keeps architecture, function or functional view, transformation-flow structure, graph or mathematical description, and candidate synthesis distinct. A network use chooses a named-containing-holon or explicit-inter-holon branch and keeps architecture bearers, member-local paths or valuations, and exact network-row locators distinct. Queries: "Which architecture claim uses this selected TFS or network?", "How do architecture, function or functional view, and transformation flow stay distinct, and when do selected TFS variants become C.32 candidate inputs?", "Does one named containing holon or an explicit inter-holon use supply the architecture side, and which stronger architecture, Work, evidence, gate, or decision claim must return to its owner?" | Builds on: C.30, C.30.ASV, E.18, E.18.NET, A.22. Coordinates with: C.32, C.32.CONWAY, A.6.F, E.18.2, E.18.3, C.29, C.16, C.28, A.10, B.3, A.20, A.21, A.15. |
| C.31 | Modularity and Reusable Structure Characteristics | Stable | Keywords: modularity characteristics, reusable-structure characteristics, coupling, cohesion, substitutability, interface variation, evidence reuse, bespoke residue, ModularityVectorLite. Queries: "Which modularity characteristic is under evaluation?", "When is a modularity score report-only?", "How do I keep module, interface, reuse, and evidence-reuse claims distinct?" | Builds on: C.16, A.17, A.18, A.19, C.25, C.30, C.30.ASV. Coordinates with: A.6.M, C.31.RSA, C.31.ASAP, C.32, C.29, A.10, B.3, G.5, C.11. |
| C.31.RSA | Reusable Structure Accounting | Stable | Keywords: reusable-structure accounting, reusable share, bespoke residue, accounting basis, report-only share, source return, refactoring opportunity. Queries: "Where is reusable structure located?", "When is a reusable share only report-only?", "What gets worse when we increase reuse?" | Builds on: C.31, C.30, C.30.ASV, C.16, A.19. Coordinates with: A.6.M, C.31.ASAP, C.29, A.10, B.3, G.6, C.27, C.28, G.5, C.11. |
| C.31.ASAP | Architecture Scale-Amenability Preference | Stable | Keywords: architecture scale preference, scale amenability, ScaleClaimTriage, scale variable, scale window, architecture alternatives, source-return condition, coarse-graining, RG, platform scale claim, waiver reason. Queries: "When does modularity or platform wording carry an architecture scale-preference claim?", "How can scale preference inform C.32 candidate generation without selecting the architecture?", "When is coarse-graining or RG-like language only a mathematical lens?" | Builds on: C.31, C.31.RSA, C.16, A.17, A.18, A.19, C.18.1, C.19.1, C.29. Coordinates with: C.32, C.32.PAD, A.6.M, C.30, C.30.ASV, C.30.LCA, C.30.ILC, A.10, B.3, G.6, G.5, G.9, C.11. |
| C.32 | Architecture Candidate Synthesis | Stable | Keywords: architecture candidate synthesis, CandidateArchitecturePalette@Project, selected structures, architecture characteristics, synthesis structure map, candidate configurations, trade-off front, retained alternatives. Queries: "How do I synthesize candidate architecture configurations before comparison?", "Which selected structures and architecture characteristics change?", "When does C.32 stop before comparison, selected-set publication, local choice, or project architecture decision?" | Builds on: C.30, A.22, A.6.F, A.6.M, C.16, C.25, C.31, C.30.ILC. Coordinates with: C.32.P2S, C.32.HCS, C.32.ACS, C.32.ACE, C.32.CONWAY, C.32.MLAO, C.32.FAIL, C.32.PAD, A.19.CPM, A.19.SelectorMechanism, C.18, C.19, G.5, C.11, A.10, B.3. |
| C.32.P2S | Problem-to-Structure Architecturing Unfolding | Stable | Carry an external-use hypothesis for one project system-of-interest through architecture pressure, structural uncertainty, candidate and selected structures, decision, realization Work, subject-side actual-structure feedback, and the next governed action. Stop before internal architecture when the expected outside change, relying use, project designation/boundary, or functioning hypothesis is missing or contested. Queries: "What outside change and relying use justify this architecture pressure?", "Which actual or intended project system-of-interest and boundary are current?", "What functioning hypothesis must be intelligible before choosing internal structure?", "Which direct owner supplies the missing prerequisite?" | Builds on: A.1/A.1.SCR, A.15.6, A.1.STM when needed, C.22.2, A.22, C.30 family, C.32 family, C.33–C.35, C.25, C.31, C.29, E.17, E.24.PUB. Coordinates with: the existing P2S receiving patterns for selection, decision, Work, transformation, evidence, publication, feedback, refresh, and repair. |
| C.32.HCS | Architecture-Bearing Family Characteristic Starter Packs | Stable | Keywords: architecture-bearing family characteristic starter pack, architecture characteristic heads, source catalogue narrowing, first criteria questions, characteristic transfer. Queries: "Which few architecture-characteristic heads should we inspect first?", "How do software-quality catalogues transfer to systems, methods, roles, cultures, AI workflows, or evidence practices without admitting those source labels as holon kinds?", "When does starter work hand off to ACS?" | Builds on: C.32, C.25, C.16, E.13. Coordinates with: C.32.ACS, C.32.ACE, C.30, C.31, A.19, G.5, C.11, C.32.PAD. |
| C.32.ACS | Architecture Characteristic Criteria Set for Improvement Cycles | Stable | Keywords: architecture characteristic criteria set, criteria row, Q-Bundle, improvement cycle, proxy risk, protected counter-characteristic, anti-Goodhart guard. Queries: "How do I turn broad -ility names into project criteria rows?", "Which three to five characteristics enter optimization and which remain guardrails?", "How does the criteria set feed eval and candidate synthesis?" | Builds on: C.32.HCS, C.25, C.16, E.13. Coordinates with: C.32, C.32.ACE, C.32.PAD, E.22, E.23, A.19.CPM, G.5, C.11, A.10, B.3. |
| C.32.ACE | Architecture Characteristic Eval Programs | Stable | Keywords: architecture-characteristic eval program, eval result, measurement boundary, parity frame, missing-data policy, proxy risk, comparison input. Queries: "How do I evaluate architecture candidates against criteria rows?", "Why is eval not the characteristic itself?", "When does an eval result feed comparison, publication, or decision without replacing them?" | Builds on: C.32.ACS, C.16, C.25, E.13. Coordinates with: C.32, C.32.MLAO, C.32.PAD, A.19.CPM, G.5, C.11, A.10, B.3. |
| C.32.CONWAY | Architecture-Influence and Transformed-Architecture Correspondence | Stable | Prepares candidate changes from one separately typed influence-source architecture and one transformed architecture without treating an architecture, structure, network, or correspondence record as an actor. Keeps changed referent, current acting and Work facts, influence source and direct relation, one local synthesis frame, and any exact pair episteme separate; a network may cite a pair row only as a qualified reading. Formerly indexed as Transformer and Transformed Architecture Correspondence; that phrase remains search lineage, not an acting-architecture ontology. Queries: "Which architecture influences the candidate and which architecture is being changed?", "Are actor, role, Work, and direct influence facts current or only provisional pressure?", "Which few governed characteristic rows or Q-Bundle slots make the trade-off real?", "When is mirroring only a source cue rather than evidence of architecture adequacy?" | Builds on: C.32, A.3.4, A.12, A.15.1, A.22, C.30, C.32.ACS, C.25. Coordinates with: E.18.NET, C.30.TFS-REL, C.32.MLAO, C.32.FAIL, C.32.PAD, A.19.CPM, G.5, C.11, A.10, B.3. |
| C.32.MLAO | Multilevel Architecture Residual Optimization | Stable | Keywords: multilevel architecture residual optimization, residual-reducing candidate frame, declared level, declared scope, Pareto front, stepping stone, ideality pressure, scale amenability. Queries: "How do I prepare candidate architecture changes after cross-scope residual triage?", "How do residuals, fronts, archives, and stepping stones inform synthesis without deciding?", "When does the case return to C.30.ILC, C.29, C.31.ASAP, C.32, G.5, C.11, or C.32.PAD?" | Builds on: C.30.ILC, C.32, C.32.ACS, C.32.ACE, C.29, C.31.ASAP. Coordinates with: C.32.CONWAY, C.32.FAIL, C.32.PAD, C.18, C.19, G.5, C.11, A.10, B.3. |
| C.32.FAIL | Architecture Failure Recognition and Repair | Stable | Keywords: architecture failure cue, architecture repair cue, stressed architecture object, selected-structure relation, candidate repair, repair-entry family, source overread. Queries: "How do I turn an architecture warning into the smallest repair action?", "Which governing pattern owns the repair?", "When should evidence, assurance, comparison, selection, publication, choice, or decision claims leave the repair cue?" | Builds on: C.32, C.30.P, A.6.F, A.6.M, C.31, C.29, E.10. Coordinates with: C.32.MLAO, C.32.CONWAY, C.32.PAD, C.30, A.19.CPM, A.19.SelectorMechanism, C.18, C.19, G.5, C.11, E.17, E.24.PUB, A.10, B.3, A.20, A.21. |
| C.32.PAD | Project Architecture Decision After Candidate Synthesis | Stable | Keywords: project architecture decision, ArchitectureDecisionRelation@Project, selected architecture option, affected selected structure, architecture-characteristic trade-off, accepted loss, method-use instruction, architect-developer split, reopen condition. Queries: "How do I turn candidate architecture configurations into a project decision?", "Which selected structures and accepted losses does the architecture decision commit?", "How does an architecture decision guide developer methods without becoming an ADR or work plan?" | Builds on: C.32, C.32.MLAO, C.32.CONWAY, C.32.FAIL, A.19.CPM, A.19.SelectorMechanism, C.11, G.5, C.30, C.30.AD, C.30.ASV. Coordinates with: C.32.ADR, C.32.ADA, C.32.ACS, C.32.ACE, C.16, C.25, C.29, A.15, E.8, E.11.PUR, E.17, E.24.PUB, A.10, B.3, A.21, B.2, B.2.P. |
| C.32.ADR | Architecture Decision Record Projection | Stable | Keywords: architecture decision record, ADR projection, ArchitectureDecisionDescription@Project, ArchitectureDecisionRecordProjection@Project, section function, rationale, consequences, method-use instruction, supersession, publication boundary. Queries: "How do I write an ADR-like record from an architecture decision relation?", "Which ADR sections are required by the decision use?", "When is an ADR only a publication projection rather than the decision?" | Builds on: C.32.PAD, C.30.AD, C.30.ASV, E.17, E.24.PUB, A.15, E.8, E.11.PUR. Coordinates with: C.32.ADA, A.10, B.3, A.21, C.16, C.25, C.29. |
| C.32.ADA | Architecture Decision Adequacy Scales | Stable | Keywords: architecture decision adequacy, ArchitectureDecisionAdequacyEvaluation@Project, declared use, complete coordinate set, E.21 labels, method docking, publication projection, no average, repair target. Queries: "How do I evaluate whether an architecture decision is adequate for a declared use?", "Which weak coordinate should be repaired before developer work?", "Why does an ADR score not approve an architecture decision?" | Builds on: C.32.PAD, C.32.ADR, E.21, E.22. Coordinates with: C.32, C.32.ACS, C.32.ACE, C.30.AD, A.15, C.16, C.25, C.29, E.13, E.17, E.24.PUB, A.10, B.3, A.21. |
| C.33 | Structural Information Adequacy for Architecture Capture and Missing-Structure Return | Stable | Keywords: structural information adequacy, captured selected structure, missing structure, lost structure, missing-structure return, carrier, observer boundary, selected structure. Queries: "What selected structure can I safely take from this carrier?", "What structure did the view, ADR, graph, report, or observation lose?", "When must architecture work return to a receiving governing pattern because selected structure is missing?" | Builds on: A.22, C.30, C.30.AD, C.30.ASV, C.32.P2S, C.32. Coordinates with: C.29, C.16, C.25, C.32.ACE, C.30.STRAT, C.30.TFS-REL, A.6.M, C.31, C.31.ASAP, C.32.PAD, C.32.ADR, G.5, C.18, C.19, E.18, F.9, F.15. |
| C.34 | Structural Correspondence, Equivalence, and Morphism Adequacy | Stable | Keywords: structural correspondence, equivalence, morphism, mapping mode, preserved structure, lost structure, directionality, scope. Queries: "When are two structure-bearing objects same enough for architecture work?", "Which selected structure is preserved and what is lost?", "When is a graph match or morphism only a lens?" | Builds on: A.22, C.30, C.30.ASV, C.30.AD, C.29, F.9. Coordinates with: C.16, C.25, C.32.ACE, C.32, C.32.PAD, C.32.ADR, C.30.TFS-REL, C.30.STRAT, A.6.M, C.31, C.31.ASAP, E.18, F.15. |
| C.35 | Structural Synthesis and Discovery Adequacy | Stable | Keywords: structural synthesis, structural discovery, generated carrier, produced carrier, described structure, candidate admission, source return, DSM, NAS, LLM. Queries: "Can a generated architecture output seed synthesis?", "When is a DSM cluster, NAS graph, LLM diagram, or model transformation ready for C.32?", "What must be recovered before treating a discovered structure as architecture material?" | Builds on: C.30, C.30.AD, C.30.ASV, A.22, C.32.P2S, C.32. Coordinates with: C.33, C.34, C.29, C.30.STRAT, C.30.TFS-REL, A.6.M, C.31, C.31.ASAP, C.32.ACS, C.32.ACE, C.16, C.25, G.5, C.18, C.19, E.18, C.32.PAD, C.32.ADR. |
| C.36 | Cultural Evolution and Cultural-Evolution Engineering | Stable | Cultural-evolution and cultural-evolution-engineering case use: collective holons, roles, work and method families, canon or memory epistemes, recognition and selection regimes, mediation systems, variant sets, term bridges, intervention, measurement, and refresh relations without minting root culture, style, or tradition kinds. | Builds on: A.1, A.2.1, A.3.1, A.15, C.18, C.19, C.20, C.23, E.18.1, F.9, F.17, F.18, G.5, G.11. Coordinates with: C.36.P, E.10, E.10.ARCH, C.30, C.16, C.11, A.10, B.3. |
| C.36.P | Cultural-Evolution Wording-Use Precision Restoration | Stable | Recovers the FPF object hidden by culture, style, tradition, genre, scene, practice, technique, platform, regime, attractor, or developmental-machinery wording; returns subject work to C.36 or the direct governing pattern. | Builds on: E.10, E.10.ARCH, C.36, F.17, F.18, F.9. Coordinates with: A.3.1, A.3.2, A.15, C.18, C.19, G.5, G.11. |
Part D - Multi-scale Ethics and Conflict Optimization
| § | ID & Title | Status | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D.1 | Ethical Value Plurality and FPF Boundary | Stable | Makes value concerns, affected EntityOfConcern, evidence, currentness, and admissible use explicit when an FPF claim, method, work plan, architecture move, policy, recommendation, model, or system change has ethical force. | Builds on: E.2, A.1, A.7. Coordinates with: D.2, D.3, D.4, D.5, A.10, B.3, C.11. |
| D.2 | Multilevel Ethics For System-Holon Work | Stable | Entry pattern for ethical questions where a system, holon, method, work, policy, recommendation, or architecture move may improve one declared level or scope while harming another. | Builds on: D.1, A.1, B.1, C.30.ILC. Coordinates with: D.3, D.4, D.5, A.15, A.3.4, C.16. |
| D.3 | Interlevel Ethical Conflict Structure | Stable | Maps affected holons and systems, declared levels or scopes, interests, role holders, agency or responsibility thresholds, methods, work, transformations, evidence, uncertainty, value theories, and consequence horizons. | Builds on: D.1, D.2, A.1, A.14, C.13. Coordinates with: D.4, C.2.1, E.17, C.30.ILC, C.16, A.10, B.3. |
| D.4 | Ethical Mediation and Decision Use | Stable | Governs how an interlevel ethical conflict structure is used in mediation, refusal, decision, evidence demand, causal return, assurance return, or architecture return. | Builds on: D.3, C.11. Coordinates with: D.5, A.10, B.3, C.28, C.30.ILC, A.20, A.21. |
| D.5 | Bias Audit and Ethical Assurance | Stable | Bias, fairness, human or group impact audit, causal-fairness audit consumption, and ethical assurance boundary that complements multilevel ethics without replacing D.1-D.4. | Builds on: D.1, D.4, E.5.4. Coordinates with: A.10, B.3, C.16, C.28, E.13. |
Part E - The FPF Constitution and Authoring Guides
| § | ID & Title | Status | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cluster E.I — The FPF Constitution | ||||
| E.1 | Vision & Mission | Stable | Keywords: vision, mission, operating system for thought, purpose, scope, goals, non-goals. Queries: "What is FPF?", "What is the purpose of the First Principles Framework?", "What problem does FPF solve?". | Prerequisite for: All other patterns, especially E.2. |
| E.2 | The Eleven Pillars | Stable | Keywords: principles, constitution, pillars, invariants, core values, rules, P-1 to P-11. Queries: "What are the core principles of FPF?", "What are the eleven pillars?". | Builds on: E.1. Prerequisite for: E.3 and all normative patterns. |
| E.2.DA | FPF Pillar-Adequacy Evaluation CharacteristicSpace | Stable | FPF-level object-under-improvement evaluation derived from the E.2 Pillars for FPF as a whole, a corpus slice, release candidate, pattern family, projection set, or host set, including content-loss and excess-apparatus regressions. | Builds on: E.2, A.19.ECS. Coordinates with: E.21, E.9.DA, E.22, E.23, E.11, E.10, F.18, F.19. |
| E.3 | Principle Taxonomy & Precedence Model | Stable | Keywords: taxonomy, precedence, conflict resolution, hierarchy, principles, classification, Gov, Arch, Epist, Prag, Did. Queries: "How does FPF resolve conflicting principles?", "What is the hierarchy of FPF rules?". | Builds on: E.2. Constrains: All patterns and DRRs. |
| E.4 | FPF Ecosystem Family Architecture | Stable | FPF-grounded pattern ecosystem family architecture; separates the FPF edition, domain principle frameworks, local practice frameworks, source packs, relation records, decisions, publication/access carriers, quality and refresh owners, while treating principle frameworks as reader-facing renderings of selected problem-solution architecture. | Builds on: E.1, E.2/P-5, E.5.3. Coordinates with: E.4.FPF, E.4.PFAD, E.4.DPF, E.4.DPF.DA, E.4.PFR, E.11, E.17, G.2, G.5, G.11, C.33, C.34, C.35, F.18, E.21, E.23, E.19. |
| E.4.FPF | First Principles Framework Form and Publication-or-Access Carrier Assembly | Stable | Treats FPF itself as one first-principles framework edition with selected Core pattern set, publication/access carriers, relation and edition records, quality route through E.2.DA, currentness route, and blocked overreads. | Builds on: E.4, E.2.DA, E.11, E.17, E.21. Coordinates with: E.4.PFAD, E.4.PFR, E.4.DPF, E.4.DPF.DA, G.11, F.18. |
| E.4.PFAD | Principle-Framework Architecture Decision | Stable | Framework-local architecture decision relation for a domain or local principle framework: selected pattern set, relation structure, publication unit, dependency boundary, source basis, quality route, and refresh or supersession. | Builds on: E.4, E.9, C.32.PAD. Coordinates with: C.32.ADR, E.17, E.4.PFR, F.18, G.2, G.11, E.21, E.19. |
| E.4.DPF | Domain Principle Framework Authoring and Publication-or-Access Carrier Assembly | Stable | Evolutionary authoring spine for DPF and local-practice frameworks. Distinguishes pre-PFAD proposal, binding PFAD, post-existence architecture-description use, and post-PFAD dependency description; then carries sources, E.8 patterns, PFR relations, reader carriers, evaluation, improvement, and currentness without reverse Core dependency. | Builds on: E.4, G.2, E.8, E.10, F.18. Coordinates with: E.4.PFAD, E.4.PFR, E.4.DPF.DA, E.11, E.17, E.21, E.22, E.23, G.11, C.33-C.35. |
| E.4.DPF.DA | Domain Principle Framework Package-Adequacy Evaluation CharacteristicSpace | Stable | DPF-specific package evaluation characteristic space for one declared domain or local use, covering domain scope, source basis, Core dependency, package form, pattern-set coverage, relation records, publication/access carriers, refresh, and adoption utility. | Builds on: E.4.DPF, E.4.PFAD, E.4.PFR, E.21, E.2.DA, E.22, E.23, A.19.ECS. Coordinates with: G.2, G.11, E.11, E.17, C.33, C.34, C.35. |
| E.4.PFR | Pattern-Framework Relation and Edition Discipline | Stable | Relation and edition records for FPF-grounded pattern frameworks: relation functions, dependency direction, compatibility boundaries, publication, source/decision reuse, produced-carrier admission, deprecation, supersession, and refresh. | Builds on: E.5.3, E.4. Coordinates with: E.4.PFAD, E.11.PUR, E.11, E.17, G.5, F.18, G.11, E.21, E.22, E.23, C.33, C.34, C.35, G.2, E.9, A.10. |
| E.5 | Four Guard-Rails of FPF | Stable | Keywords: guardrails, constraints, architecture, rules, safety, GR-1 to GR-4. Queries: "What are the main architectural constraints in FPF?". | Builds on: E.2, E.3. Prerequisite for: E.5.1, E.5.2, E.5.3, E.5.4. |
| E.5.1 | DevOps Lexical Firewall | Stable | Keywords: lexical firewall, jargon, tool-agnostic, conceptual purity, DevOps, CI/CD, yaml. Queries: "Can I use terms like 'CI/CD' in FPF core patterns?". | Refines: E.5. Constrains: All Core patterns. |
| E.5.2 | Notational Independence | Stable | Keywords: notation, syntax, semantics, tool-agnostic, diagram, UML, BPMN. Queries: "Does FPF require a specific diagram style?", "How is meaning defined in FPF?". | Refines: E.5. Constrains: All Core patterns. |
| E.5.3 | Unidirectional Dependency | Stable | Keywords: dependency, layers, architecture, modularity, acyclic, Core, Tooling, Pedagogy. Queries: "What are the dependency rules between FPF ecosystem families?". | Refines: E.5. Constrains: E.4. |
| E.5.4 | Cross-Disciplinary Bias Audit | Stable | Keywords: bias, audit, ethics, fairness, trans-disciplinary, neutrality, review. Queries: "How does FPF handle bias?", "Is there an ethics review process in FPF?". | Refines: E.5. Constrains: All Core patterns. Links to: Part D. |
| Cluster E.II — The Author’s Handbook | ||||
| E.6 | Didactic Architecture of the Spec | Stable | Keywords: didactic, pedagogy, structure, narrative flow, on-ramp, learning. Queries: "How is the FPF specification structured for learning?", "What is the 'On-Ramp first' principle?". | Builds on: E.2 (P-2 Didactic Primacy). |
| E.7 | Archetypal Grounding Principle | Stable | Keywords: grounding, examples, archetypes, U.System, U.Episteme, Tell-Show-Show. Queries: "How are FPF patterns explained?", "What are the standard examples in FPF?". | Builds on: E.6. Constrains: All architectural patterns. |
| E.8 | FPF Authoring Conventions & Style Guide | Stable | Pattern body as user-facing pattern body; recognition text and assurance text; intended-reader / performing-system / role-assignment / method / dated-work / result separation when actual work is prescribed; positive subject/action spine; precision-restoration profile and phrase-apparatus cleanup; evaluation-characteristic-space pattern publication form is delegated to E.8.ECSPF. | E.6, E.7, E.8.ECSPF, E.9, E.10, E.19, E.21, F.18, F.19 |
| E.8.ECSPF | Evaluation CharacteristicSpace FPF Pattern Publication Form | Stable | Authoring form for publishing an accepted evaluation CharacteristicSpace as an FPF pattern while preserving working-reader recognition, value meanings, non-use boundaries, neighbour relations, governing-pattern references, and phrase-apparatus discipline. | Builds on: E.8, A.19.ECS. Coordinates with: E.21, E.9.DA, E.2.DA, E.22, E.23, F.18, F.19, C.25. |
| E.9 | Design-Rationale Record (DRR) Method | Stable | DRR as one bounded decision and rationale record: exact basis, selected answer, source and decision carry-through, positive content distribution to patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, kind-or-boilerplate diagnostic for draft wording, and decision-adequacy evaluations through E.9.DA. | E.2, E.8, E.9.DA, E.10, E.19, E.22, F.19 |
| E.9.DA | DRR Decision-Adequacy Evaluation CharacteristicSpace | Stable | Evaluates whether one DRR is decisive enough for its declared FPF authoring use: selected answer, source carry-through, selected-locus distribution, rejected alternatives, first drafting action, and phrase-apparatus or boilerplate debt before pattern drafting. | Builds on: E.9, A.19.ECS. Coordinates with: E.8, E.10, E.19, E.21, E.22, E.23, F.19. |
| E.10 | Unified Lexical Rules for FPF | Stable | Plain-first word, head, and use precision: write the ordinary sentence, then distinguish an obtaining world-side relation, a reusable relation declaration, a claim/report episteme, and a representation with explicit correspondence; keep ordinary non-use or return an explicit blocker instead of an owner catalogue. Supplies register, morphology, naming, and trigger-registry guards; sends a recognizable support claim to its direct subject owner or a common lexical owner without minting SupportRelation; recovers work/method-boundary wording through A.6.P.WMR and authority wording through A.2.8/A.2.8.PER/A.2.9; and closes only on readable wording plus the direct governing result. | Builds on: A.7, E.5, F.5, F.18. Coordinates with: E.10.ARCH, E.10.MOVE, A.6.P, A.6.P.WMR, A.6.RCD, A.6.5, C.2.1, C.29, A.3.2, A.15.2, A.15.PROD, C.2.P, A.19.SPR, A.6.6, A.10, B.3, A.2.8, A.2.8.PER, A.2.9, E.24.CD, E.24.PUB, F.19. |
| E.10.MOVE | Move and Readiness Wording Precision Restoration | Stable | Restores the governed value hidden by move, movement, step, action, and readiness wording. Keeps mantra move only for one A.22.CGUS demonstrated row, restores evaluation-result change to an E.23 prediction, and sends recommendation, transformation, readiness, gate, publication, and Work claims to their direct patterns. | Builds on: E.10, E.10.ARCH, A.3.4.P, A.22.CGUS, E.11.PUR, E.23, A.15.5. Coordinates with: E.18.1, A.15, A.21, C.24, C.30, F.17, G.11. |
| E.10.ARCH | Wording-Use Ontological Precision Restoration Architecture | Stable | Authoring architecture for wording-use ontological repair, not a practitioner form: E.10 recognizes overloaded wording; E.10.ARCH bounds the exact use, recovers the exact subject and claim, bypasses to the direct owner when clear, adds declaration/designation/reference/publication/representation apparatus only for a named receiver, and returns the shortest usable sentence. Keeps an obtaining relation and actual participants, reusable RelationSignature/A.6.5 SlotSpec declaration, claim-bearing episteme and participant designations, C.29 representation and correspondence, separately governed method/work/result/structure/architecture objects, and the four A.6.P.WMR exits distinct; F.19 handles residual phrase apparatus, and subject patterns keep thin pointers. | Builds on: E.10, A.6.P, A.6.5, A.6.P.WMR, A.6.RCD, A.6.F, C.2.P, C.2.P.DR, C.30.STRAT, A.19.SPR, A.6.3.CSC, A.3.1, A.3.2, A.6.0, A.6.1, E.20, A.15.PROD, E.24, E.24.CD, E.24.PUB, F.18, F.19, E.8, E.19, E.2. Coordinates with: C.2.1, A.22, C.30, C.30.P, C.30.ASV, C.16, A.17, A.18, A.19, C.25, C.27.TA, C.27, C.29, A.3.3, A.3.4, A.15.1, A.15.2, A.10, E.21, E.11, I.2. |
| E.10.P | Conceptual Prefixes (policy & registry) | Stable | Keywords: prefixes, U., Γ_, ut:, tv:, namespace, registry. Queries: "What do the prefixes like 'U.' mean in FPF?". | Depends on: E.9. Constrains: E.5.1, E.5.2. |
| E.10.D1 | Lexical Discipline for “Context” (D.CTX) | Stable | Keywords: context, U.BoundedContext, anchor, domain, frame. Queries: "What is the formal meaning of 'Context' in FPF?". | Builds on: A.7, A.4. Coordinates with: F.1, F.2, F.3, F.7, F.9. |
| E.10.D2 | EntityOfConcern, Description Episteme, and Specification-Use Discipline | Stable | Keywords: EntityOfConcern, Description episteme, specification use, DescriptionContext, testable, verifiable. Queries: "Difference between a description and a specification in FPF?". | Builds on: A.7, E.10.D1, C.2.1, C.2.3. Constrains: F.4, F.5, F.8, F.9, F.15. |
| E.11 | Practical-Use Guidance and Pattern Discovery | Stable | FPF authors and maintainers publish or refresh sixteen context-free public practical-use cards, each with a recognizable situation, a truthful potential-result promise or exact blocker, direct Solution refs, boundaries, and exactly one justified ordinary walkthrough or one A.22.CGUS-admitted demonstrative slice. A practitioner, manager, or assisting agent compares the published cards by the current practical question, recognizable situation, and potential first result or exact blocker, then opens the named direct pattern; ordinary card use creates no project instance or framework-publishing duty. Addressable comparison history appears only under named reliance. | Builds on: E.8, E.17.AUD, F.17, F.18. Leads to: E.11.PUA and E.11.PUR. Coordinates with: A.22.CGUS, E.18, G.11. |
| E.11.PUA | Pattern Use in a Working Situation and First Useful Result | Stable | Applies one inspected direct pattern to a current working situation. Keeps ordinary use light and materializes support only under named reliance. Keeps the returned entity or relation with its direct owner, says which exact method, plan, dated Work, transformation, evaluation, decision, or other separately governed object it answers, and cites the direct relation, A.6.1 binding, or supported local claim that makes that answer true. A receiving pattern is named only for an actual continuation or later reliance; selection, application, and downstream-work positions remain descriptive and distinct. In cross-flow carry-through, when later participation is called an input, tool, context, or constraint, those words are cues only: the use still requires the exact source position, exact receiving position, and an independently governed relation occurrence, while the result keeps its kind. | Builds on: E.11, E.8. Coordinates with: E.11.PUR, E.18, E.18.NET, E.18.1, E.18.3, A.15, and every selected direct pattern. |
| E.11.PUR | Pattern-Use Applicability, Recommendation, and Coordination | Stable | Governs reliance-bearing applicability findings, one pattern-use recommendation, and coordination among candidate pattern uses. Pairwise order exists only for prerequisite result, method precondition, or shared-constraint resolution; presentation order is not workflow or WorkPlan order. | Builds on: E.11, E.11.PUA, E.10.MOVE. Coordinates with: E.18.1, A.15, A.21, C.24, C.30, and direct decision patterns. |
| E.12 | Didactic Primacy & Cognitive Ergonomics | Stable | Keywords: didactic, cognitive load, ergonomics, usability, Rationale Mandate, HF-Loop. Queries: "How does FPF ensure it's understandable?", "What is the 'So What?' test in FPF?". | Builds on: E.2 (P-2). Complements: E.13. |
| E.13 | Pragmatic Utility and Value Alignment | Stable | Keywords: pragmatic utility, proxy-to-value alignment, Goodhart, Campbell, surrogation, minimally viable value slice. Queries: "How does FPF keep measures from replacing value?", "What got worse when the score improved?". | Builds on: E.2 (P-7). Complements: E.12 and E.14; coordinates with E.8, E.19, E.21, E.22, E.23, E.9.DA, and E.2.DA. |
| E.14 | Human-Centric Working-Model | Stable | Keywords: working model, human-centric, publication surface, grounding, assurance layers. Queries: "What is the main interface for FPF users?", "How does FPF separate human-readable models from formal assurance?". | Builds on: E.7, E.8, C.2.3. Coordinates with: B.3.5, C.13, E.10. |
| E.15 | Lexical Authoring & Evolution Protocol (LEX-AUTH) | Stable | Keywords: lexical authoring, evolution protocol, LAT, delta-classes. Queries: "How are FPF patterns authored and evolved?", "What is a Lexical Authoring Trace (LAT)?". | Builds on: E.9, E.10, B.4, C.18, C.19, A.10, B.3, F.15. |
| E.16 | RoC‑Autonomy Budget & Enforcement | Stable | Keywords: autonomy budget, guarded enactment, autonomy ledger, override speech act, scout/probe/commit checkpoint. Queries: "How does FPF make autonomy enforceable and auditable?", "How do bounded specialization budgets stay separate from committed rollout?" | Builds on: A.13, A.15, A.21, B.3. Coordinates with: C.24, G.4, G.5, G.9. |
| E.17.0 | U.MultiViewDescribing - Viewpoints, Views & Correspondences | Stable | Multi-view describing for families of Description epistemes and specification-use Description epistemes indexed by EntityOfConcernClass, EntityOfConcernRef, bounded context, and viewpoint; keeps viewpoint, episteme-lane view, publication face/form, and carrier distinct. | Builds on: C.2.1, A.6.2, A.6.3, A.6.4, A.7, E.10.D1, E.10.D2. Used by: E.17, E.17.1, E.17.2, E.18, domain-specific description schemes. |
| E.17.1 | U.ViewpointBundleLibrary — Reusable Viewpoint Bundles | Stable | Keywords: viewpoint bundle, reusable viewpoint family, import discipline, alias discipline, governance, engineering/management/research bundles. Queries: "How do I define reusable viewpoint bundles in FPF?", "What is a ViewpointBundleLibrary?" | Builds on: E.17.0, A.6.2-A.6.4, A.7, E.7, E.10. Used by: E.17.2, E.18, domain-specific viewpoint-bundle libraries. |
| E.17.2 | TEVB - Typical Engineering Viewpoints Bundle | Stable | Archetypal engineering viewpoint bundle for holons, with Functional, Procedural, Role-Enactor or Device-Structure, and Module-Interface viewpoints over an EntityOfConcernClass = U.Holon; architecture-specific viewpoint bundles import TEVB rather than mutating it. | Builds on: E.17.0, E.17.1, C.2.1, A.1, A.6.2-A.6.4, A.7, E.10.D2. Used by: E.18, E.17, engineering Description-episteme and specification-use patterns, ISO-aligned architecture-description bundles. |
| E.17 | Multi‑View Publication Kit | Stable | Publication discipline for generic publication faces and governed MVPK faces; U.View, publication form, carrier and front-end, source pins, admissible publication use, and no face becoming evidence, gate, decision, or work by presentation. | E.17.0, E.17.1, E.17.2, A.7, E.10, C.2.P; coordinates with E.17.EFP, E.17.ID.CR, E.17.AUD |
| E.17.EFP | ExplanationFaithfulnessProfile — explanation-use discipline over existing MVPK faces | Stable | Explanation-facing rendering classes; source-pinned rendering, source-linked reconstruction, didactic retelling, speculative retelling; admissible explanation use and boundary to evidence, permission result, commitment, issuing act, gate, work, and source return. | E.17, A.7, A.6.B, F.9, F.18; coordinates with A.10, A.2.8, A.2.8.PER, A.2.9, A.15, A.15.4, A.6.3.CSC, E.17.ID.CR |
| E.17.ID.CR | ComparativeReviewUnit - bounded comparison over comparative review units | Stable | Comparative review unit, source anchors, comparison basis, bounded lift, blocked downstream claim or effect, and boundary to decision, equivalence, bridge, coarsening, explanation, prompt, ontology, or gate work. | C.2.2a, A.16.0, F.9, E.14; coordinates with E.17.EFP, E.17.AUD.LHR, E.17.AUD.OOTD, A.6.3.*, A.15, A.20, A.21 |
| E.17.AUD | PublicationUnit Stability Discipline | Stable | One bounded publication unit as a readable unit; primary EntityOfConcern or subject named by value, carried publication move, and outside boundary to work, decision, gate, or reliance claim; choose local head restoration, whole-unit stabilization, bounded comparison, or neighboring pattern. | C.2.2a, A.16.0, A.7, E.10, F.18, E.14, E.19; coordinates with E.17.AUD.LHR, E.17.AUD.OOTD, E.17.ID.CR, E.17.EFP |
| E.17.AUD.LHR | PublicationUnit Stability Discipline and Local Head Restoration | Stable | Repair one overloaded local lexical head inside one publication unit before the whole publication unit inherits ambiguity; recover local head kind, active local reading, local head kind, carried action or question under repair, and outside-work boundary. | A.6.P, A.7, E.10, C.2.P, F.18, E.14; coordinates with E.17.AUD, E.17.AUD.OOTD, E.17.ID.CR, E.17.EFP |
| E.17.AUD.OOTD | PublicationUnit Stability Discipline and PublicationUnit Primary EntityOfConcern Discipline | Stable | Keep one publication unit explicit about one primary EntityOfConcern or subject named by value, one carried move over that entity, and one outside-work boundary; stop quiet shifts into another primary EntityOfConcern, concern, or wider process. | A.6.P, A.7, E.10, F.18, E.14, E.19, C.2.2a, A.16.0; coordinates with E.17.AUD.LHR, E.17.ID.CR, E.17.EFP |
| E.18 | Transformation Flow Structure | Stable | Selects one exact transformation-flow structure whose loci may bind independently grounded transformations and adjacent governed values, with internal U.Transfer, local valuations, paths, crossings, and parent-relative SubflowRef portions. Selected adjacency and internal U.Transfer occurrences do not by themselves establish composition of the transformations. A structural GateCrossing identifies changed state bindings at one A.21 gate; it does not establish an F.9 semantic Bridge, which requires two exact F.17 cells and its own obtaining relation while bounded use and reliance remain separate. Several valuations or one internal subflow do not create a network; independently identified TFS values connected across their boundaries return to E.18.NET. Queries: "Is this one TFS, one internal subflow, or independently identified members?", "Which state remains local to this TFS position?", "When is the visible graph a mathematical description or publication rather than the selected structure?" | Builds on: A.3.4, E.17, E.8, E.10, A.7. Coordinates with: E.18.NET, A.15.1, A.15.PROD, A.6.RCD, E.18.1, E.18.2, C.29, A.20, A.21, A.2.6, F.9, F.17, G.5, G.9, G.11, C.30.TFS-REL. |
| E.18.1 | P2W Problem-to-Work Carry-Through | Stable | Carries one accepted ProblemCard@Context claim into one named receiving use by selecting the exact direct governor and accepting only its returned value or honest stop; splits independently governed claims and returns locally after a relied-on value changes. Reliance notes and explicit E.18.3 structure are conditional, not a P2W relation species or project-work order. | Builds on: E.18, C.22.2, A.6.REL. Coordinates with: E.11.PUA, E.11.PUR, E.18.3, A.15, A.6.P.WMR, A.15.PROD, G.2, G.11, and every continuing direct pattern. |
| E.18.2 | Transformation Flow Mathematical Description | Stable | Records how one graph, algebraic, categorical, tuple, path, slice, morphism, quotient, fold, refinement, factorization, wiring, or related mathematical expression describes exactly one selected E.18 TFS or E.18.NET network: what it represents, preserves, loses, and may be used for. Keeps the mathematical description distinct from the selected structure, C.29 lens-use claim, and E.17 publication face. Queries: "Which exact TFS or network does this expression describe?", "What structure does the expression preserve or lose?", "Which stronger work, evidence, gate, architecture, or decision claim must return to its owner?" | Builds on: E.18, E.18.NET, C.29, C.2.1, A.3.4, E.17. Coordinates with: A.6.0, A.10, B.3, A.20, A.21, C.30.TFS-REL, E.18.1, E.18.3. |
| E.18.3 | Constraint-Governed Transformation-Flow Unfolding Structure | Stable | Transformation-flow specialization of A.22.CGUS with typed transformation positions; exact dependency, transfer, crossing, and guard relation references; connections to separately governed positions; preserved structures and C.33 adequacy notes; mutually exclusive one-TFS and network locator families; and separate E.18 slice-local refresh and G.11 currentness. A network slice consumes E.18.NET member paths and exact current row locators without turning the network, an obtaining occurrence, or a relation-reference episteme into one another. | Builds on: E.18, E.18.NET, A.22.CGUS, A.3.4. Coordinates with: E.18.1, C.32.P2S, C.30.TFS-REL, E.23, C.18, C.19, G.5, A.15, G.11. |
| E.18.NET | Network of Transformation-Flow Structures | Stable | Select a recursive non-agentive U.Structure from independently identified TFS or nested-network members, exact obtaining cross-boundary relation occurrences, applied constraints, resolved endpoint bindings, and one use frame. For a project system-of-interest question, jointly select the operation/use and production, inception, later-change, assurance, feedback, or recursive-builder members without identifying the network with the project or importing a CreatorGraph edge. Before grounding, keep the A.1.STM display Plain and provisional; after admission, a CGUS teaching slice remains separate. Queries: "Which independent TFS members answer this concrete project question together?", "Which exact occurrences and endpoint bindings connect them?", "Is this still a provisional long-mantra map or an admitted network?", "Where does a builder case close before its named downstream use?" | Builds on: A.22, E.18, A.6.REL, A.6.RCD, C.2.1. Coordinates with: A.15.6, A.1.STM, E.18.2, A.22.CGUS, E.18.3, C.30.TFS-REL, C.32.CONWAY, A.3.4, A.12, A.15 family, E.11.PUA, E.17, C.29. |
| E.19 | Pattern Quality Gates: Review and Refresh Profiles | Stable | Reviews one new, materially revised, or aging FPF pattern for practical use and return-for-repair decisions. Its stable-candidate replay checks distinct prior and candidate-only uses, every materially changed normative wording group for extension, modal force, valid and alien boundary cases, and interpretation burden, plus positive Solution and triggered enumerations; bounded edits stay bounded and no per-keystroke ledger or positive recital is created. | Builds on: E.8, E.9, E.10. Coordinates with: E.21, E.22, E.23, E.9.DA, E.2.DA, F.18, F.19, A.6.P, A.15.1. |
| E.20 | Mechanism Introduction Protocol (MIP) | Stable | Keywords: mechanism introduction, authoring protocol, governing-definition assignment, MIP-run manifest, canonical card-first, no dangling …IntensionRef, suite boundary hygiene, P2W seam, SlotKind lexicon discipline, alias docking, typed RSCR triggers, regression envelope, PQG profiles. Queries: "How to introduce a new mechanism in FPF?", "How to avoid dangling IntensionRefs in suites?", "How to assign mechanism changes to their governing definitions?", "How to evolve mechanism suites without drift?" | Builds on: E.8, E.9, E.10, E.15, E.19. Coordinates with: A.6.1, A.6.7, A.15.3, F.18, E.18, G.Core, G.2, G.x:Ext.*. Constrains: Any change-set that introduces or revises mechanisms, suites, planned baselines, wiring modules, or citeable tokens. |
| E.21 | FPF Pattern-Quality Evaluation CharacteristicSpace | Stable | Evaluates one FPF pattern version for a declared reader, use, and scope with one required coordinate set, ordinal values with short rationales, protected trade-offs, precision-restoration profile, status, and stop or reopen conditions. | Builds on: E.8, E.19, C.25, C.16, A.17-A.19, F.18, A.19.ECS. Coordinates with: E.22, E.23, E.9.DA, E.2.DA, E.10, F.19, A.6.P, C.2.P, E.11, I.2. |
| E.22 | Improvement-Oriented Quality Evaluation Question Framing | Stable | Frames one quality evaluation over an object version, evaluation use, purpose, floor or aim, protected trade-offs, evidence basis, and result form. Returns typed finding or proposal epistemes without turning proposals into selected repairs, Work, evidence, release, or improvement proof. | Builds on: A.19.ECS, E.21, E.9.DA, E.2.DA. Coordinates with: E.23, E.19, E.10, C.25, C.17-C.19, G.5, G.9, G.11. |
| E.23 | Quality Improvement Loop Method | Stable | Repeatedly changes one object version and re-evaluates it under one declared evaluation. Uses exact E.22 proposal rows, scale-qualified predicted evaluation-result changes, protected trade-offs, evidence basis, and one loop decision; a visible cycle stays provisional until A.22.CGUS admission. | Builds on: E.22, A.19.ECS. Coordinates with: E.21, E.9.DA, E.2.DA, A.22.CGUS, C.17-C.19, G.5, G.9, G.11. |
| E.24 | U.Ontic and Ontic Introduction Discipline | Stable | Decides whether a selected ontology need warrants one durable connected ontic, a bounded local episteme coordinating already governed claims, direct use of existing governing patterns, or an unresolved stop. The independent source-use status remains not-current, quote-only, reduced, or one selected stronger use and never substitutes for the ontology disposition. | Builds on: A.6.REL, A.6.0, A.6.5, C.2.1. Coordinates with: E.8, E.10, E.10.ARCH, F.18, E.24.CD, E.24.UK, E.24.PUB, E.17.0, C.29. |
| E.24.CD | Ontic Candidate Detection and First-Use Disposition | Stable | Use when process, source, quality, architecture, problem, view, role, function, mechanism, or method—or a recurring card, table, schema, diagram, record, draft pattern row, or field bundle—looks like a new FPF subject. State the blocked action and subject, ignore the wrapper, then take the first truthful next use: a direct governing pattern, C.2.1 episteme constitution, C.3 local typed classification, description, publication, or C.29 representation handling, bounded wording repair or F.18 naming, E.24 admission with a separate E.24.UK kind decision when needed, or a precise unresolved stop. Visible form and repetition create neither an ontic, a public U.* kind, nor a candidate registry. | Builds on: E.24, E.24.UK, C.2.1, C.3, C.3.1, C.3.2, E.24.PUB, C.29, C.2.P.DR, A.6.5, A.6.RSIR, A.6.F, A.6.P, E.10, E.10.ARCH, F.18. Coordinates with: A.6.RCD, E.17.0, A.1, B.1, B.2, A.14, C.13, A.3.4, A.15.1, the temporal patterns, C.28, A.6.0, C.22.PFR, C.22.2, E.18.1, E.23, A.19, A.19.ECS. |
| E.24.PUB | Ontic Description and Publication Discipline | Stable | Keeps an ontic, its description episteme, its publication, and the publication form distinct; prevents cards, records, tables, schemas, diagrams, views, pattern hosts, or source packets from becoming the ontic by appearance. | Builds on: E.24, C.2.1, E.17, E.8, E.10, F.19. Coordinates with: E.24.CD, C.30.AD, E.21, E.9.DA. |
| E.24.UK | U-kind Admission and Ontic Settlement | Stable | Applies explicit root or dependent-kind admission tests and returns one accepted result: reuse an admitted durable kind, declare a bounded C.3 local kind, admit a genuinely needed durable kind, or recover a non-kind object under its direct owner. For an already identified U.Structure, it records current BoundedModelUseStructure membership and only the conditional A.22 crossing-analysis rule. Until an independent direct crossing governor supplies exact obtaining occurrences and all four A.22 discriminators, there is no positive crossing member and no public crossing-specialization term; a context, view, publication, representation, or selected use creates neither the base structure nor specialization membership. | Specializes: E.24. Uses: A.6.REL, A.6.0, A.6.5, C.2.1, F.18, C.29. Coordinates with: A.22, A.1.1, A.2.6, C.3.2, E.24.CD, E.24.PUB, E.17.0, A.8, A.11, E.10. |
Part F - The Unification Suite (U-Suite): Concept-Sets, SenseCells & Contextual Role Assignment
| § | ID & Title | Status | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F.0.1 | Contextual Lexicon Principles | Stable | Keywords: local meaning, context, semantic boundary, bridge, congruence, lexicon, U.BoundedContext. Queries: "How does FPF handle ambiguity?", "What is the principle of local meaning?", "How do different contexts communicate?". | Builds on: A.1.1. Prerequisite for: All patterns in Part F. |
| Cluster F.I — Context of Meaning and Lexical Inputs | ||||
| F.1 | Domain‑Family Landscape Survey | Stable | Keywords: domain‑family survey, context map, canon, scope notes, versioning, authoritative source. | Builds on: E.10.D1, F.0.1, A.7. Prerequisite for: F.2, F.3, F.4, F.9. |
| F.2 | Term Harvesting & Normalisation | Stable | Keywords: term harvesting, lexical unit, normalization, provenance, source-text terms. Queries: "How to extract terminology from a standard?", "What is a local lexical unit?", "How to handle synonyms within one domain?". | Builds on: F.1. Prerequisite for: F.3. |
| F.3 | Intra‑Context Sense Clustering | Stable | Keywords: sense clustering, disambiguation, Local-Sense, SenseCell, counter-examples. Queries: "How to group similar terms within a single domain?", "What is a SenseCell?", "How to handle words with multiple meanings in one context?". | Builds on: F.2. Prerequisite for: F.4, F.7, F.9. |
| Cluster F.II — Concept-Sets & Role Assignment/Description (definition, naming, decision) | ||||
| F.4 | Role Description (RCS + RoleStateGraph + Checklists) | Stable | Keywords: role template, status template, invariants, RoleStateGraph (RSG), Role Characterisation Space (RCS). Queries: "How to define a role in FPF?", "What is a Role Description?", "How to specify the states of a role?". | Builds on: F.3, A.2.1. Prerequisite for: F.6, F.8. |
| F.5 | Naming Discipline for U-kind Names and RoleDescription Labels | Stable | Keywords: naming conventions, lexical rules, morphology, twin registers, U-kind naming, role-description labels. Queries: "How do I name admitted U-kinds and role descriptions?", "How do I avoid false kindhood from a useful label?" | Builds on: F.4, E.10, E.24.UK, F.18. |
| F.6 | RoleAssignment and Performed-Work Attribution Check | Stable | Keywords: actual performing U.System, exact U.RoleAssignment, performedUnderAssignment, assignment coverage, world-side attribution, separate assertion and evidence. Queries: "Who actually performed this dated Work, under which obtaining assignment?", "Did the assignment cover the attributed extent?", "When is explicit attribution identity needed?" | Builds on: A.6.REL, A.2, A.2.1, A.15.1. Coordinates with: F.4, A.10, E.10. |
| F.7 | Concept‑Set Table Construction | Stable | Keywords: concept-set, table, row, columns, differences, comparisons. Queries: "How do I create a concept-set table?", "How do I compare concepts across contexts?". | Builds on: F.3, F.9. Coordinates with: A.6.9. Prerequisite for: F.8. |
| F.8 | Mint-or-Reuse Decision | Stable | Keywords: decision lattice, type explosion, reuse, minting new U-kinds, parsimony. Queries: "When should I create a new U-kind or reuse an existing governed value?", "How do I avoid creating too many roles or kinds?", "Decision guide for new concepts." | Builds on: F.4, F.7, E.24.UK, A.11. |
| Cluster F.III — Cross‑Context Alignment & Applied Bindings | ||||
| F.9 | Alignment and Bridge across Contexts | Stable | Keywords: exact F.17 SchemeSenseCell endpoints, different <ReferenceScheme, LocalSenseClaim> projections, relation-semantic profile, obtaining Bridge, optional CL evidence-strength shorthand, separate C.2.1 bounded-use claim, A.10/B.3 reliance, inverse/composition checks, quantum/coarsening exit, optional card. Queries: "Do the endpoint projections differ?", "Does this exact Bridge obtain?", "For which action, direction, rule, and tolerance is it separately claimed suitable, and what authorizes or performs the receiving use?" Relation truth, suitability for one use, reliance, authorization, performance, and packaging remain separate. | Builds on: F.17, F.18, C.2.1, F.0.1, F.7, F.8. Coordinates with: A.10, B.3, A.6.9, A.6.3.CSC, C.26.1, C.26.2, E.17.ID.CR, F.9.1, C.29. Prerequisite for: F.7, F.10. |
| F.9.1 | Bridge Stance Overlay | Stable | Keywords: bridge stance, stance overlay, interpretive gloss, projection note, rename note, language-state comparisons, overlay annotation. Queries: "How do I add a stance gloss to a bridge card without changing bridge semantics?", "What is the Bridge Stance Overlay?", "When does a stance label still depend on the underlying F.9 bridge card?" | Builds on: F.9, C.2.2a, A.16.0. Coordinates with: A.6.3.CSC, E.17.ID.CR, E.17.1, C.16.Q, A.6.A. |
| F.10 | Status Families Mapping (Evidence • Standard • Requirement) | Stable | Keywords: status, evidence, standard, requirement, polarity, applicability windows. Queries: "How to map different types of status like 'evidence' and 'requirement'?", "How does FPF handle compliance?". | Builds on: F.9, B.3. |
| F.11 | Method Quartet Harmonisation | Stable | Keywords: Method, MethodDescription, Work, Actuation, Role–Method–Work alignment. Queries: "How to align the concepts of 'method' and 'work' across domains?", "What is the method quartet?". | Builds on: F.9, A.15. |
| F.12 | Service Acceptance Binding | Stable | Keywords: Service Level Objective (SLO), Service Level Agreement (SLA), acceptance criteria, binding, observation. Queries: "How to bind an SLO to actual work?", "How is service acceptance modeled in FPF?". | Builds on: F.9, A.2.3, KD-CAL. |
| Cluster F.IV — Lexical Development Cycle, Growth Control, Tests & Examples | ||||
| F.13 | Lexical Continuity & Deprecation | Stable | Keywords: evolution, deprecation, renaming, splitting terms, merging terms. Queries: "How to manage changes to terminology over time?", "What is the process for renaming a concept?". | Builds on: F.5. |
| F.14 | Anti‑Explosion Control (Roles & Statuses) | Stable | Keywords: vocabulary growth, guard-rails, separation-of-duties, bundles, reuse. Queries: "How to prevent having too many roles and statuses?", "What are the strategies for controlling vocabulary size?". | Builds on: F.4, F.8. |
| F.15 | Static and Regression Conformance Harness for Unification | Stable | Keywords: static checks, regression tests, acceptance tests, validation, SenseCell testing. Queries: "How is the unification process validated?", "What are SCR/RSCR tests in FPF?". | Builds on: All of F.1-F.14. |
| F.16 | Worked‑Example Template (Cross‑Domain) | Stable | Keywords: didactic template, example, pedagogy, cross-domain illustration. Queries: "What is the standard format for a worked example in FPF?", "How to show a concept applied across different fields?". | Builds on: All of F.1-F.12. |
| F.17 | Unified Term Sheet | Stable | Publishes one already-governed value and exact kind with its direct pattern, F.18 NameCard, one-expression scheme-based SchemeSenseCell coordinates, local-sense basis relations, an obtaining relation-only F.9 Bridge when different <ReferenceScheme, LocalSenseClaim> projections are related, the separate C.2.1 row-use claim and A.10/B.3 reliance, blocked use, and currentness. Includes the four bounded-model-use rows BoundedModelUseStructure, ModelApplicabilityRelation, ModelUseRelation, and ModelExpressionCoherenceRelation, plus demonstrative walkthrough, seminar mantra, and seminar mantra move; a row creates no kind, relation, occurrence, authorization, or performed use. | Builds on: F.2/F.3 for discovery only, C.2.1, F.5, F.7, F.8, F.9, F.15, F.18, and A.1.1 for the four bounded-model-use values. Coordinates with: A.10, B.3, A.22.CGUS, E.10.MOVE, E.11. |
| F.18 | Local-First Unification Naming Protocol | Stable | Names one exact already-governed value: a one-off claim stays in plain local wording, while a durable C.2.1 NameCard records the selected Tech and Plain designations, one exact local sense, candidate coverage and rejections, lineage, and reopen condition under an effective by-value U.ReferenceScheme. For a named use between different <ReferenceScheme, LocalSenseClaim> projections, F.9 supplies relation truth only, C.2.1 carries the naming-use claim, and A.10/B.3 supplies reliance; F.17 may consume those objects without absorbing them into the NameCard. No Bridge, claim, reliance disposition, row, or card authorizes or performs the use, and E.24.PUB separately governs actual availability. | Builds on: F.0.1, F.2, F.3, F.5, F.8, F.9, F.13, F.14, F.15, C.2.1, E.24.PUB. Coordinates with: F.17, A.10, B.3, E.10, E.10.ARCH, A.6.P, A.6.P.WMR, A.6.RCD, A.6.REL, A.15.1, A.19.DECLARED-SUBSTRATE-INTERPRETIVE-VIEW, G.2, G.6, G.10. |
| F.19 | Ontology-First Plain Technical Rewriting | Stable | Ontology-first plain rewriting; phrase-level boilerplate; negative catalogue; pattern-application drift; kind-preserving plain technical prose. | Builds on: E.8, E.10, E.10.ARCH, F.18, A.6.P, A.7, E.18, E.21. Coordinates with: E.19, E.22, E.23, A.19.SPR, C.2.P, C.16.P, C.30.P, E.11, I.2. |
Part G - Discipline SoTA Patterns Kit
| § | ID & Title | Status | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G.Core | Part G Core Invariants | Stable | Keywords: Part‑G invariants, delegation-first core, RSCR trigger kinds, Default Governing Definition Index, ID continuity, core linkage. Queries: "How to universalize Part G without drift?", "How to make RSCR triggers id-based?" | Builds on: E.8/E.10/E.19, A.6.7, A.15.3, A.19, G.0, A.19.CHR. Used by: all G.0…G.13. |
| G.0 | CG-Spec — Frame Standard & Comparability Governance | Stable | Keywords: CG-Spec, CG-Frame, admissibility gate, ComparatorSet, ScaleComplianceProfile (SCP), MinimalEvidence, Γ-fold, Φ(CL), Φ_plane, CL-routing, ReferencePlane, edition pins, RSCRTriggerKindId. Queries: "What is CG-Spec in FPF?", "How does CG-Spec constrain lawful comparison and aggregation?", "What must be pinned for CG-Spec reproducibility?" | Builds on: G.Core, A.19 (CN-Spec), A.10, A.17–A.19 / C.16 (MM-CHR admissibility), A.18 (CSLC), B.3, Part F (Bridges/UTS), E.10, E.5.2. Prerequisite for: G.1–G.6. |
| G.1 | CG-Frame-Ready Generator | Stable | Keywords: generator chassis, generator, selector, and set-result scaffold, six-card kit (M1-M6), CGKitId manifest, SoTA_SetId, VariantPoolId, ShortlistId, CGFrameLibraryId, RefreshReadinessCardId, set-return selection, set-result outcome, UTS/Name Cards, RSCR linkage surfaces, edition pins, shipping and refresh boundaries. Queries: "How do I author a reusable CG-Frame generator kit?", "What belongs in the six-card chassis M1-M6?", "How do G.2 harvesting, G.5 set-return selection, G.10 shipping, and G.11 refresh connect without becoming one method spec?" | Builds on: G.Core, E.8, E.10, E.19. Uses: A.10, A.15.3, A.19 (CN-Spec), G.0 (CG-Spec), G.2, G.3, G.4, G.5, G.10, G.11; (via Extensions) C.17, C.18, C.19. Produces: CGKitId plus reusable CG-Frame kit or chassis, set-result scaffold, and linkage surfaces (UTS and RSCR ready). |
| G.2 | SoTA Harvester & Synthesis | Stable | Keywords: SoTA harvest, synthesis, SoTA Synthesis Pack@CG-Frame, SoTAPaletteDescription, Tradition, TraditionAtlasView, DeclaredSubstrateAtlasView, TypedSetViews, BridgeMatrix, GammaEpistSynthId, FlowRecord, palette-first. Queries: "How does FPF harvest and synthesize SoTA for a CG-Frame?", "When is TraditionAtlasView lawful and when is palette-first or thinner interpretation enough?", "How do competing Traditions stay plural while bridgeable and refreshable?" | Builds on: G.Core, E.8, E.10, E.19, A.10, B.3, F.9, F.17, G.0. Used by: G.1, G.3-G.5, G.10, G.11. Coordinates with: A.19.DECLARED-SUBSTRATE-INTERPRETIVE-VIEW, A.6.P, G.13. |
| G.3 | CHR Authoring: Characteristics - Scales - Levels - Coordinates | Stable | Keywords: CHR authoring, characteristics, scales, levels, coordinates, CSLC lawfulness, typed measurement, CHR Pack@CG-Frame, ReferencePlane, Φ/CL policy pins, edition pins, RSCRTriggerKindId. Queries: "How do I author CHR packs (typed characteristics and scales) for a CG-Frame?", "How to keep measurement lawful (CSLC) and refreshable (RSCR)?" | Builds on: G.Core, G.2, G.0, A.17–A.19, A.18 (CSLC), C.16 (MM-CHR), A.19.CHR, A.15.3, G.6, F.17. Prerequisite for: G.4. Used by: G.4, G.5, G.10, G.11. |
| G.4 | CAL Authoring: Calculi - Acceptance - Evidence | Stable | Keywords: CAL Pack@CG-Frame, Context charter, typed operator card, acceptance clause, legal flow, pass | fail | unknown, evidence/currentness profile, proof-or-gap row, TaskMap, declaration/runtime boundary, dated EvaluationWork, actual A.6.1 bindings, verdict episteme. Queries: "How do I author the smallest reusable CAL pack before any candidate is evaluated?", "How do I keep a stored operator, clause, flow, manifest, proof row, or evidence ref separate from dated evaluation work and its verdict?", "Which optional extension governor, entry condition, and stop condition are required before extra method wiring enters?" | Builds on: G.Core and E.8. Uses: G.1, G.2, G.3, G.0, A.19, A.18, A.6.1, A.15.1, C.2.1, A.10, G.11, B.3, C.11. Uses conditionally: G.6 only through G.4:Ext.EvidenceGraphWiring; C.18/C.19/C.23 only through their governed extensions. Used by: G.5, G.8, G.9, G.10, G.11. |
| G.5 | Multi‑Method Dispatcher & MethodFamily Registry | Stable | Keywords: method-family registry, generator-family registry, dispatcher, SelectorOutcomeKind, selected-set publication, set-result outcome, Shortlist, RankedShortlist, ShortlistId, SpecialistHandoff, abstain/escalation result, basis pins, no hidden scalar winner. Queries: "How does FPF dispatch among rival method families without hidden scalarization?", "How do I publish a Shortlist or RankedShortlist honestly?", "When does G.5 begin after C.11 choice, C.19 pool policy, or C.24 planning?" | Builds on: G.Core, G.0, G.2-G.4, G.6. Coordinates with: C.11, C.19, C.24, G.9-G.11. |
| G.6 | Evidence Graph & Provenance Ledger | Stable | Keywords: EvidenceGraph, PathId, PathSliceId, PathCitationRecord, provenance ledger, exact represented objects, exact direct relations, direct governors, obtaining claims, unresolved gaps, NotCarried, source/currentness, representation correspondence, downstream work, actual-use relation, local refresh. Queries: "When do several downstream consumers need one shared addressable provenance path rather than a local A.10 account?", "How do I cite exact objects and already obtaining direct relations without letting graph nodes, edges, or ledger rows create facts?", "Which smallest path, slice, node projection, or relation-edge projection reopens when a source, relation, edition, window, bridge, currentness result, or reliance boundary changes?" | Builds on: A.10, A.2.4, C.2.1, C.29. Coordinates with: A.15.1, A.2.1, A.6.1, A.15.PROD, C.16, G.4, B.1.6, C.28, F.10, F.9, E.18/E.18.2, G.11, B.3, E.17, and every exact result or later-use governor cited by a path. Used by: G.5, G.9, G.11 and other selector, benchmark, replication, audit, refresh, assurance, maturity, or release patterns needing stable provenance-path citation. |
| G.7 | Cross-Tradition Bridge Calibration Kit (BridgeMatrix → BridgeCards + BCT/Sentinels) | Stable | Keywords: bridge calibration, BridgeCard, BridgeCalibrationTable (BCT), RegressionSet, SentinelSet, BridgeSentinel, Congruence Level (CL/CL^k/CL^plane), loss notes, waivers, ReferencePlane, Φ(CL)/Ψ(CL^k)/Φ_plane policy pins, PathSliceId, GateCrossing, UTS, RSCRTriggerKindId. Queries: "How to calibrate cross-Tradition bridges in Part G?", "What is BCT and how is it used?", "How do Bridge Sentinels trigger RSCR?" | Builds on: G.Core, G.2, F.9, F.3, F.7, B.3, G.6, E.18, A.21, E.10, C.21. Prerequisite for: G.5. Used by: G.9–G.11, G.10, G.12. |
| G.8 | SoS-LOG Bundles & Maturity Ladders | Stable | Keywords: SoS-LOG, rule ids, admissibility ledger, tri-state `{pass | degrade |
| G.9 | Parity / Benchmark Harness | Stable | Keywords: parity harness, benchmark plan, adaptation parity, freshness windows, comparator pins, selected-set outcomes. Queries: "How does FPF run reproducible parity with explicit pins and windows?", "How do adaptation-speed and specialization claims become lawful parity questions?" | Builds on: G.Core, G.5, G.6, G.4, F.15. Uses: G.0, A.19, C.22.1. Coordinates with: C.27 when parity compares rate-change, rhythm change, recovery speed, intervention effect, effort budget, or dynamic outcome. |
| G.10 | SoTA Pack Shipping (pack-boundary governing definition; SoTA-Pack(Core)) | Stable | Keywords: shipping, SoTA-Pack(Core), pack-boundary governing definition, selector-ready publication surface, AuditPins, MOOManifest, PortfolioRosterId, UTS publication, PathId/PathSliceId, CrossingBundle, edition pins, telemetry pins, RSCR wiring, parity pins, notation-independent pack, no semantic respecification. Queries: "How does FPF ship a SoTA pack without smuggling semantics?", "What is SoTA-Pack(Core) as a pack rather than a kit or suite?", "How do AuditPins, MOOManifest, path citations, and crossing bundles support replay and refresh?" | Builds on: G.Core, F.17-F.18, E.5.2, E.18, A.10, A.15.3. Consumes/cites: G.2-G.9, optional G.12-G.13. Used by: selector-facing consumers via G.5 and refresh orchestration via G.11. |
| G.11 | Telemetry-Driven Refresh & Decay Orchestrator | Stable | Keywords: telemetry, refresh, decay, RSCR, PathSlice, Bridge Sentinels, edition-aware, epistemic debt, deprecation, edition bumps, re-shipping. Queries: "How does FPF keep SoTA packs up-to-date?", "What triggers refresh / RSCR reruns?", "How are deprecations and edition bumps governed?". | Builds on: G.Core, G.6, G.7, G.5, G.8, G.9, G.10, B.3.4, E.18. Coordinates with: G.12, C.18 and C.19, C.23, F.15. |
| G.12 | DHC Dashboards — Discipline-Health Time-Series (admissible telemetry, generation-first) | Stable | Keywords: dashboard, DHC, discipline health, time-series, admissible telemetry, view-only slices, PathId/PathSliceId, edition pins, UTS twins, RSCR/refresh wiring. Queries: "How to build DHC dashboards in FPF?", "How to publish admissible DHC time-series with evidence and edition pins?", "How to wire dashboard telemetry into RSCR refresh?" | Builds on: G.Core, C.21, G.6, G.11, A.19, G.0, F.17/F.18, E.5.2, E.10. Coordinates with: G.5 (selector set-result outputs), G.7 (crossings/CL/Φ_plane pins), G.8 (maturity ladder panel), G.10 (shipping inclusion), C.18 and C.19 (QD/OEE telemetry), G.2 (SoTA palette hooks). |
| G.13 | External Interop Hooks for SoTA Discipline Packs (conceptual; normative when used) | Stable | Keywords: interop, external index, claim mapper, mapping policy, plane map, embedding spec, ExternalIndexCard@Context, ClaimMapperCard@Context, InteropSurface@Context, CHR-typed SoS features, edition pins, UTS twins, RSCRTriggerKindId, telemetry pin. Queries: "How does FPF integrate external scholarly indexes into Part G?", "What is an ExternalIndexCard / ClaimMapperCard / InteropSurface in FPF?", "How to make interop refreshable with RSCR trigger kinds and edition pins?" | Builds on: G.Core, G.2–G.7, G.9–G.12, A.19, A.18, G.0, F.17, E.5.2, E.18. |
Part I - Annexes & Extended Tutorials
| § | ID & Title | Status | Concise reminder |
|---|---|---|---|
| I.2 | Expanded Entry Disambiguation Cases | Stable | Expanded entry-disambiguation cases for high-risk or compact-insufficient first-entry pattern comparison; compact-index-only is a complete admissible posture when enough. |
Last Updated: 2026-08-03 — upstream FPF commit 9dd92159 (github.com/ailev/FPF)