#Table of Contents
Preface node
heading:table-of-contents: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
First Principles Framework (FPF) Readme (non-normative)
| ID & Title | Status | Concise content reminder |
|---|---|---|
| Practical entries | full text | Shows ordinary direct examples and selected cross-pattern cards as a non-exhaustive sample of how the pattern language helps; every example returns to its direct patterns. |
| Decide Whether FPF Fits | full text | Distinguishes suitable FPF use from cases better served by a narrower method, domain source, or ordinary conversation. |
| When Several Transformation Flows Form One Network | full text | Connects project, reasoning, evidence, and publication flows without collapsing their different results. |
| Recover a lost path from outside use to recursive builders | full text | Restores the route from a reader's question through direct patterns to deeper builders only when needed. |
| One-Minute Example | full text | Shows the ordinary question-to-pattern-to-result rhythm in a compact case. |
| What FPF Is | full text | Defines FPF as a transdisciplinary pattern language and reasoning architecture. |
| What FPF Is Not | full text | Sets boundaries against a universal ontology, linear method, or substitute for domain expertise. |
| How to Use This Repository | full text | Explains how the monolith, pattern hosts, Readme, and project work products relate. |
| Citation | full text | Gives the public citation and return information. |
Preface (non-normative)
| ID & Title | Status | Concise content reminder |
|---|---|---|
| What This Specification Is And How To Use It | full text | Distinguishes non-exhaustive direct examples, selected cross-pattern 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 | Shows how a decision gains local closure by naming the actual source, scope, model-use organization, situation, comparison basis, or other subject-defined boundary it uses, together with its reopen condition. |
| 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 its claim satisfies a compatible direct relation predicate. 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 and crossing relation, if any, are actually grounded?" | 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.CSD | Discovering Systems That May Bear Consequences | Stable | Use when proposed or observed Work, realization, operation, use, maintenance, failure, policy, or change may alter Systems omitted from a current decision or investigation. Name the exact focus and receiver, trace supported direct-relation occurrences separately from modal path claims, challenge the boundary, recover exact holons rather than a level ladder, and return the smallest ordinary C.2.1 affected-System consequence account that changes a probe, constraint, alternative, monitoring condition, or stop. Queries: "Which other Systems may undergo a relevant change?", "Which path actually obtains and which remains modal?", "What cheapest probe or blocker changes the receiver?" | Builds on: A.1, C.2.1, A.14, B.1, B.1.2, C.13. Coordinates with: A.1.SCR, B.2/B.2.2, A.6.RCD, A.10, C.27, C.28, C.29, C.30.ILC, C.11.CRC, C.11, and D.1 only when its later value-frame question is current. |
| 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 | System-Role Kinds and Assignments | Stable | Keywords: system-role kind, local System classification, U.SystemRoleAssignment, holder System, assignment, work-facing contribution, ambiguous role wording. Queries: "Which local system-role kind classifies this System?", "Does an assignment actually obtain, or is this only classification?", "Does role wording instead name participation, a slot, responsibility, capability, Work, or ordinary language?" | Builds on: A.1, C.3, C.3.1, C.3.2, A.6.REL. Leads to: A.2.1, A.2.5, A.2.7, A.15, F.4-F.6. Coordinates with: E.10.ROLE, A.6.RSIR. |
| A.2.1 | U.SystemRoleAssignment - Contextual System-Role Assignment | Stable | Keywords: direct assignment species, holder System, system-role kind, assignment predicate, identity, maximal interval, performedUnderAssignment. Queries: "Does this exact System hold this system-role assignment?", "Which direct assignment species and predicate make it obtain?", "Did the assignment persist, or did a participant or predicate change?" | Builds on: A.2, A.6.REL, A.6.5, C.2.1. Coordinates with: A.2.2, A.2.5, A.2.7, 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, promised outcome, access specification, acceptance specification, SLO, SLA, claim scope, Work evidence, provider and consumer system-role kinds. Queries: "What is promise content in FPF?", "How is promise content distinct from Work and MethodDescription?", "How do access and acceptance differ?", "Which provider or consumer kind, assignment, Work, and evidence claims remain separate?" | 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 relation, status-use relation, source-use wording, episteme, claim, provenance, role-shaped source phrase. Queries: "How is an episteme used as evidence?", "How do I keep evidence use from becoming a system-role kind or assignment?", "Which direct use relation does role-shaped source wording mean?" | Builds on: A.2. Informs: A.10, B.3. Coordinates with: E.10.ROLE, A.6.RSIR. |
| A.2.5 | SystemRoleAssignmentStateRelation - Assignment-State Recognition and Work Admission | Stable | Keywords: assignment-state predicate, assignment-state relation, state condition, time window, Work admission, evidence boundary. Queries: "Does this exact assignment satisfy this state condition throughout the relevant window?", "Is the displayed status evidence about the relation, or the relation itself?" | Builds on: A.2.1, A.2, C.3, A.6.REL, A.6.5. Coordinates with: A.2.2, A.2.7, A.15, A.15.1, A.21. |
| 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 | SystemRoleKindRelationStructure - Relations among System-Role Kinds | Stable | Keywords: relations among system-role kinds, U.SubkindOf, substitution, incompatibility, joint assignment requirement, selected structure. Queries: "May an assignment to one system-role kind satisfy a condition written for another?", "Are these kinds incompatible or required together for this Work and interval?", "Is the narrowing a subkind relation or another direct relation?" | Builds on: A.2, C.3, C.3.1, A.2.1, A.22. Coordinates with: A.2.5, A.6.REL, E.10.ROLE. |
| A.2.8 | U.Commitment (Deontic Commitment Relation) | Stable | Keywords: individual duty, actual bearer, obligation, recommendation-as-duty, prohibition, constitutive rule, instituting basis, validity interval. Queries: "Does this actual bearer have this duty now?", "Which rule and actual basis institute the individual commitment?", "Is this only generic policy content, permission, responsibility, or evidence?" | Builds on: A.2, C.3, A.2.9, A.6.RCD, A.7. Coordinates with: A.2.3, A.2.8.PER, F.6, A.6.B, A.6.C, A.10. |
| 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, is its exact performer first recovered through A.13 and its Work independently admitted through A.15.1?", "If this permission use also consumes precise assignment-bound attribution, does F.6 use the same obtaining A.13 assignment without discovering the performer?", "What exact rule or authorized decision settles this conflict, if any?" | Coordinates with: A.2.8, A.2.9, A.13, F.6, A.6, A.6.B, A.6.C, A.15.1, A.15.5, A.10. Does not replace policy, system-role kind or assignment, capability, plan, gate, Work, evidence, or commitment patterns. |
| A.2.9 | U.SpeechAct (Communicative Work Kind, Occurrences, and Records) | Stable | Keywords: named receiving use, response versus achievement, smallest repair or stop, independently admitted speech-act Work, A.13-qualified actual performer, enacted Method, time, containment, same obtaining assignment, separate later performedUnderAssignment, optional SpeechActRecord, utterance description, institutional target and effect, publication relation, evidence carrier. Queries: "Who should understand or do what with this communication, what evidence is enough, and what smallest repair or stop follows?", "Does A.15.1 admit the actual communicative Work without an F.6 premise?", "If precise assignment-bound attribution is current, does F.6 then use the same obtaining 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.13, A.15.1, F.6. 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; each exact performer first has the A.13 core, and A.15.1 independently admits the Work while separately stating enactsMethod. F.6 enters only when a receiving use also consumes precise assignment-bound attribution through the same obtaining A.13 assignment; it compares the already recovered performer with the assignment holder and does not discover the performer. Missing or failed F.6 leaves the Work intact. 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, A.13, A.15.1, F.6. 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 must identify one reusable way of doing or untangle a claim described as Method specialization. It distinguishes a Method meeting several kind criteria, a Method kind having several broader kinds, one Method contributing to several whole Methods, and refinement or replacement comparisons. Other questions—for example parameter variation, family grouping, fallback, dispatch, descriptions, performed Work, capability, provider contribution, or cultural change—return to the pattern that defines or tests them. Queries: "Is this one Method or two?", "Does this Method meet these kind criteria?", "Does this Method contribute to more than one whole Method?", "What is preserved and changed in this refinement or replacement claim?" | Builds on: A.1, A.1.1, A.3. Coordinates with: A.3.2, A.6.RCD, 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, C.3.1, C.3.2, E.20, F.9, G.5. |
| A.3.1.MR | Candidate-Method Recovery from Work Evidence | Stable | Use when several observed Work occurrences or named sources may show a reusable way but Method identity remains a candidate. Returns one source-traceable account per candidate, the main rival and gaps, and a distinguishing question—or an honest record-only result. | Builds on: C.2.1, A.3.1, A.15.1, A.10. Coordinates with: A.3.2, A.15.6, C.32.MWA, specialist ME.18. |
| 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 | Effect-free episteme morphing | Stable | A local mathematical discipline for law-constrained arrows between exact epistemes. It compares their claims, EntityOfConcern, and interpreting schemes, declares the allowed ClaimGraph difference and preserve/retarget mode, and keeps the declaration, arrow, use claim, operation application, Work, and publication distinct. EFEM and EpMorphism are local C.29 classes, not admitted durable U-kinds. | Builds on: A.6.0, A.6.1, A.6.5, C.2.1, C.29, E.10.D2, C.3, F.9. Used by: A.6.3, A.6.4, E.17.0, E.17, E.18, and KD-CAL/LOG-CAL rules. |
| A.6.3 | Episteme viewing - EntityOfConcern-preserving episteme construction | Stable | Derives a smaller, reorganized, translated, or combined episteme from named source epistemes about the same exact EntityOfConcern. It states what is kept or omitted and adds no unsupported claim; view membership, production Work, and publication remain separate. Queries: "How was Y constructed from X about the same thing?", "What was kept or omitted?", "Does Y add any unsupported claim?". | Builds on: A.6.0, A.6.2, C.2.1, A.6.3.CR, A.6.3.RT, A.6.4, C.29. Coordinates with: E.17.0, A.15.1, A.15.PROD, E.24.PUB. Used by: E.17, E.17.0, E.18, and domain viewing patterns. |
| A.6.3.CSC | Controlled Semantic Coarsening | Stable | Shorten a source account for a named present use: write a candidate, compare it with the source, preserve the distinctions needed now, expose loss or unsupported addition, block stronger downstream use, and state when to return. Open exact C.2.1 source and receiving epistemes and the A.6.3 construction only when independent reuse or consequential reliance makes them material; publication occurrence, form, and carrier remain separate under E.24.PUB. | Builds on: C.2.1, A.6.3. Coordinates with: A.6.3.CR, A.6.3.RT, A.6.3.NAR, E.17.EFP, E.24.PUB, E.17.ID.CR, F.9, F.9.1, A.15, A.6.4, A.20, A.21. |
| 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 | Move practical content into a target representation without hiding what changed: name the content to survive and the target/use, produce the smallest useful target, compare it with the source, and state preservation, representation/reasoning-medium delta, loss or unsupported additions, bounded use, and return. Open exact X, Y, and v : X -> Y only when a named reliance-facing receiver makes claim identity material; open RepresentationSchemeTransitionRelation@Context only when the historical transition Work and all six exact participants are material. Queries: "How do I turn prose, a table, or a diagram into another representation without losing what matters?", "What became easier to inspect, what was lost or added, and when must I return to the source?", "When do I need exact endpoints, and when is the historical transition occurrence itself material?" | Builds on: A.6.3, A.6.2, C.2.1; later occurrence uses A.1.1 and A.15.1. Coordinates with: A.6.3.CR, A.6.3.NAR, A.6.3.CSC, E.17.EFP, E.17.ID.CR, A.6.4, A.7, F.9, A.15, E.17.0, E.24.PUB, A.10, B.3, C.26, C.29, E.18, A.20, A.21. |
| A.6.3.NAR | Structure-to-Narrative Rendering | Stable | Turn selected source structure into a reader-useful sequence: choose the reader and use, select and order source structure, draft the shortest useful narrative, compare it with the source, and state preservation, loss, unsupported additions, bounded use, and return. Open exact X, Y, and n : X -> Y only when a named receiving use makes claim identity material; publicness alone does not. Queries: "How do I explain tangled structure as a sequence without replacing the source?", "What did this narrative preserve, omit, or add, and when must a reader return?", "When does a narrative need exact source and receiving episteme identity?" | Specializes: A.6.3. Coordinates with: A.6.3.CR, A.6.3.RT, A.6.3.CSC, A.6.4, E.17.EFP, C.33, C.34, C.35, G.2, E.24.PUB, E.17.0, G.11. |
| A.6.4 | EntityOfConcern retargeting | Stable | Relates exact epistemes with different exact EntitiesOfConcern for one bounded receiving use. It states the invariant, visible loss, receiving use, conditions, support, and polarity; changed notation does not prove retargeting, and a KindBridge, mandatory CL, operation application, Work, assurance, or publication is not constitutive. Queries: "Do the endpoint epistemes concern different exact entities?", "What remains supported and what is lost?", "For which receiving use is that loss acceptable?". | Builds on: A.6.0, A.6.2, A.6.3, C.2.1, C.29, A.6.3.RT, A.6.5, A.7, E.10.D2. Coordinates with: C.2, C.3, the direct domain pattern for the invariant, and F.9 only for a separately claimed local-sense Bridge; A.6.1, A.15, A.10, B.3, A.20, E.17, and E.24.PUB keep their neighboring claims. |
| 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, bare role wording, system-role kind or 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?", "Which E.10.ROLE branch does bare role wording select?", "Did service wording name Work, a Method, promise content, a bearer, an arrangement, status, or another direct claim?", "Does the repaired bearer claim really require A.1 evaluation?" | Builds on: A.6.REL, A.6.RCD, A.6.0, A.6.5, C.2.1, E.10, E.10.ARCH. Coordinates with: E.10.ROLE, 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, ambiguous role wording, direct relation participant, participant meaning, RelationSignature, SlotSpec, operation declaration and binding, representation position, system-role kind, system-role assignment, interface, port, API, reduced-use source label. Queries: "What does E.10.ROLE recover from this role wording?", "Does this slot, field, parameter, argument, or endpoint name an actual participant, a declaration place, an operation binding, or a representation position?", "When does interface wording mean a module relation, functional port, signature, API publication, service-access claim, or representation?" | Builds on: E.10, E.10.ARCH, E.10.ROLE, 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 - Direct relation first; reusable declaration only when needed | Stable | Recovers the actual dependent, base, and direct relation hidden by basedness, anchor, support, ground, or similar umbrella wording. State and test the direct relation first; add scope, time, evidence, a reusable RelationSignature, or a reviewable assertion episteme only when its predicate or one named use needs it. SWBD and U.ScopedWitnessedBaseDeclaration are retired. Queries: "What depends on what, through which direct relation?", "Does that predicate obtain here?", "Does a named receiver need a reusable declaration or record?". | Builds on: A.6.REL and A.6.0; A.6.5 only when reusable declaration content is current. Coordinates with: A.2.4, A.10, A.14, C.2.1, A.6.3, A.6.4, F.9, and applicable ReferencePlane rules; feeds E.10 and F.18 wording governance. |
| 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 | TargetSignature and optional ConstructorSignature - demand-driven signature engineering | Stable | Starts with the actual signature assertion, revision, relation, operation application, or Work. Add a separate ConstructorSignature only when a named receiving use needs reusable constructor vocabulary, laws, and applicability; no pair object or U.SignatureEngineeringPair is admitted. Queries: "What signature actually changes?", "Does a receiver need a reusable ConstructorSignature?", "How are the arrow, application, Work, edition, carrier, and publication kept distinct?". | Builds on: A.3.1, A.3.2, A.15, A.15.1, A.15.2, A.7, A.6, A.6.0, A.6.2-A.6.6, C.2.1, A.2, A.2.1, F.6, A.6.B, E.17, and E.17.0. Coordinates with: E.18 only when a TransformationFlowStructure is current, and E.10 for wording discipline. |
| 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, system-role–Method–Work distinctions. Queries: “How to unpack ‘whole/part/integrity’ in FPF?”, “RPR-WHOLE trigger words”, “ComponentOf vs ConstituentOf vs PortionOf vs collection belonging 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, system-role kind and assignment ≠ Work, MethodDescription ≠ Method ≠ Capability ≠ Work. Queries: "Which nearby FPF objects have been collapsed?", "What is the smallest direct claim the receiving use needs?" | 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 and A.7.2 when one exact compact claim is load-bearing in dated reasoning Work. |
| 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.10.1 | Revalidate Affected Uses When a Relied-on Source Changes | Stable | Use when a relied-on source claim changes and its receivers are not fully known: state the material claim change and search frame, search from source and receiver sides, confirm actual dependence, and apply the relevant direct subject guidance only across action-changing reach while keeping coverage gaps visible. Use A.10 for one known bounded reliance use; use G.11 for currentness or refresh. | Builds on: C.2.1, A.10, A.11. Coordinates with: G.6, G.11, E.15, B.3, and direct evidence, truth, causal, choice, authority, permission, gate, release, planning, and Work patterns. |
| 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.11.OP | Decision-Relevant Least Action and Operational Parsimony | Stable | Admit a proposed mandatory action or apparatus only when, for a named use and nearest substantive horizon, a materially plausible result can change a substantive decision, the action realizes an already selected result, or removal changes relied-on assurance or recoverability. Passing is not authority, sufficiency, safety, or an optimum. | Companion to: A.11. Coordinates with: E.11.PUA, E.11.PUR, C.19.2, E.13, E.23, A.3.1, A.3.2, A.15.7, B.3, and direct duty, evidence, choice, and authority patterns. |
| 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, system-role assignment, A.3.4 transformation, Method, Work, evidence, boundary crossing, and parthood under their direct patterns. 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?" | 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: exact System, local agential system-role kind and criterion, classification, obtaining assignment, scope, working situation, window, evidence-backed core, conditional characteristic profile, autonomy grading. Queries: "Which local agential kind and criterion are relevant to this precise agency claim?", "Does that exact System satisfy and classify under it while the assignment obtains for this scope, situation, and window?", "Does a Grade, autonomy, criterion-dependent characteristic, profile, or assurance use actually require the characteristic profile?" | Builds on: A.2, A.2.1, A.12. Informs: E.16. Coordinates with: A.15, A.15.1, F.6, 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: part, member, belongs to, component, constituent, portion, aspect, phase, ComponentOf, ConstituentOf, PortionOf, AspectOf, PhaseOf. Queries: "Does this entity belong to this subject-defined collection, or does member mean mathematical inclusion, classification, participation, or constructive parthood?", "Is this a component or constituent, a measured portion, a bearer-dependent structural aspect, or the same carrier during a proper phase?" | Refines: A.1. Coordinates with: C.3, A.6.5, C.13, C.16, E.17, C.29, C.27.TA. Prerequisite for: B.1.1. |
| A.15 | System-Role–Method–Work Alignment | Stable | Keywords: A.13 core, system-role kind, independent A.15.1 Work admission, separate later F.6 attribution, same obtaining assignment, Method, MethodDescription, WorkPlan, readiness, dated Work, performedUnderAssignment, result boundary, conditional agency profile. Queries: "Does this precise performer first have the A.13 core?", "Is the dated occurrence admitted before any F.6 check?", "Which System performed this Work under which same assignment and Method?", "Is this a plan, readiness claim, actual Work, or a separate result?" | Builds on: A.2, C.3, A.2.1, A.3, A.13, A.15.1, A.15.2, F.6. Coordinates with: A.2.5, A.2.7, E.10.ROLE, A.10, B.3. |
| A.15.1 | U.Work: Dated Performed Work Occurrence | Stable | Keywords: independent U.Work admission, world-side dated occurrence, exact performance history, A.13-qualified actual performer U.System, enacted Method, temporal extent, containing System, F.6 only after admission for precise assignment-bound attribution, optional direct bindings and resource use, separate result or consequence, conditional agency profile. Queries: "What independently identifies and admits this Work?", "Which precise assignment attribution, if any, must F.6 test afterward through the same assignment?", "Which result, change, production, delivery, evidence, or acceptance claim needs its own direct pattern?" | Builds on: A.1, A.2.1, A.3.1, A.13, 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 | Select or reopen project focus only as a lawful C.11 ChoiceResult over an already-current OptionSet; when persisted, its C.2.1 episteme concerns the exact DecisionSubject under a named project-decision scheme, and a changed focus ClaimGraph does not decide Work continuity. Recover an actual project as composite U.Work through A.13-qualified performer facts and independent A.15.1 admission; add F.6 only afterward for precise assignment-bound attribution, then apply project qualifications. Recover a process concern or case through its direct owner. Queries: "Which bounded problem option did this chooser select under which comparison and ChoiceRule?", "What is this focus episteme's exact concern and scheme?", "Is actual project Work independently admitted?", "Which separate attribution or qualification is current?" | Builds on: C.2.1, C.11, A.15.1, A.3.1, A.22, A.3.4. Coordinates with: C.18, A.1, A.1.STM, A.2, A.2.1, A.12, A.13, F.6, 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.15.7 | Situation-Responsive Work Steering and Next-Action Selection | Stable | Use when a deciding System in ongoing Work must choose the next action from current facts while a domain Method still bounds what may be done. Returns the bounded decision, intended performer, and stop or feedback condition, or a blocker due to missing or outdated action-guiding information, authority, capability, safety, applicability, or no current Work. | Builds on: A.3.1, A.15.1, A.10. Coordinates with: A.15.2, A.15.5, C.11, A.19, C.18, C.24, G.11. |
| A.15.8 | Work-Performance Configuration and Recovery Testing | Stable | Use when interruption, handoff, delay, degradation, or reconfiguration may change continuation or recovery for either one exact actual Work occurrence with actual performers and relied-on obtaining support relations, or one exact present WorkPlan whose declaration-local content names intended performers and a proposed configuration. Returns the exact focus, supported or proposed configuration, representative probe observation, direct relation result or exact blocker, and next repair or stop without creating an extended-performer, attention, memory, or Work-state kind. | Builds on: A.1, A.15.1, A.15.2, A.6.RCD, F.6, C.2.1. Coordinates with: A.15.5, A.15.7, A.2.2, A.22, C.30, A.10, and direct domain Methods. |
| A.15.9 | Request and Use a Bounded Result from Another Practice | Stable | Use when one decision or piece of Work needs a legal, safety, tax, privacy, engineering, scientific, or other result governed by another practice. Inspect an already-available result first; then return a bounded reuse disposition, the smallest missing-result request, or an honest blocker. The supplier keeps its Method and professional authority, while the receiver keeps the receiving decision. | Builds on: A.15, A.10, A.13, A.15.1, C.2.1. Coordinates with: A.2.2, A.2.1, F.6, A.2.9, E.18.1, RESULT-TO-NEXT-MOVE, C.38, and applicable domain Methods. |
| 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; system-role–Method–Work assertions 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 to a consumer pattern?" | Builds on: E.24, A.6.5, A.17, A.18, A.2.6, C.16. Coordinates with: A.19.CPM, A.19.SelectorMechanism, A.19.CHR, G.4, F.9, A.10, G.11, C.2.1, A.15. Prerequisite for: CHR mechanisms and dynamics models that quantify over trajectories. |
| A.19.ECS | Evaluation CharacteristicSpace Construction | Stable | Guides an author in constructing or repairing an evaluation CharacteristicSpace specification for one evaluated object kind and use, including working reader, qualification window, discriminating cases, coordinate and scale meanings, evidence and missingness, result form and calibration, protected trade-offs and comparison, statuses, neighbouring exits, and stop, reopen, E.22, and E.23 conditions. | 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 | Constraint Validity for Transformation Steps | Stable | Tests one transformation, operation application, or A.6.4 bounded-use proposition against one applicable internal constraint for one case and window, returning an exact ConstraintValidityResult. Applicability, notRun, satisfied, violated, unknown, and error remain distinct; a gate, path, publication, refresh, assurance, or Work is a separate result. Queries: "Which constraint applies to this subject and case?", "What did the test return?", "Which later gate or assurance use may consume that result?". | Builds on: E.18 for placement, A.6.1 and E.20 for operation or mechanism content, A.6.4 for a retargeting-use proposition, and C.2.1 for result-episteme identity. Coordinates with: A.21, E.17, G.11, C.27, A.10, B.3, A.15, and F.9 only for a separately claimed semantic correspondence. |
| A.21 | Gate Decisions from Independent Check Results | Stable | Applies one named gate profile rule to every required independently defined check result for one bounded action or transition. It preserves each source result, maps each under that rule, and lets the worst mapped value determine abstain, pass, degrade, or block; a gate decision is not readiness, a path, Work, or publication. Queries: "Which action is being decided?", "Which profile rule and required check results apply?", "How does each result map and what does the worst value require?". | Builds on: independently defined check results and the direct pattern that defines each check; A.20 supplies internal-constraint results. Coordinates with: E.18, A.15.5, A.10, B.3, A.2, C.3.2, A.2.1, F.6, A.2.6, F.9, F.17, E.17, G.6, G.11, and F.19. |
| 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, collection belonging under the collection's own rule, collection-as-whole, relations among local system-role kinds, classification or assignment, direct participation, method relation structure, work-occurrence holarchy, selected architecture structure, or mathematical-description claims before using aggregation notation. Unresolved role wording first uses E.10.ROLE. | Builds on: A.1, A.14, C.13. Coordinates with: E.10.ROLE, A.2.7, A.15, A.15.1, A.22, C.29, C.30, 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 already recovered relations over an exact set of ordered positions, phases, or a time window without treating order, phase, time, or process wording as parthood, work, or a generic interaction relation. | 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?", "What supports the aggregation claim when only a planning or display artifact is presented?" | 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 pattern that defines the current comparison, assurance, transformation, reidentification, or decision claim. |
| 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, system-role kind or assignment, Method, Work, transformation, functioning, architecture, evidence, assurance, and time claims under their direct patterns, 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 | States a two-sided feedback relation between one supervising acting System and one or more supervised holons without turning a supervisor label, policy, method, diagram, or loop lens into the supervising actor or the relation. | 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 and Assurance Calculus | Stable | States whether one exact target claim is adequately supported for one named assurance use through the smallest inspectable argument and direct results, with limits and reopen conditions. It defines no universal F-G-R/congruence score and does not turn a badge, record, evidence item, gate, permission, or publication into assurance. Queries: "What exact claim and use need assurance?", "Which argument and results support it?", "What remains unsupported and what reopens the conclusion?". | Builds on: C.2.1, A.2.4, A.10, G.6, A.2.6, C.16, C.16.Q, and the direct domain patterns for each input. Coordinates with: A.15.1, A.6.1, G.11, F.10, A.21, C.28, A.22, E.17, E.24.PUB, C.29, and the direct permission, release, safety, responsibility, and controlled-action patterns. |
| 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 | Use when a direct readable relation is already selected and you must decide whether an elected assurance profile needs a current support account. Keep collection-specific belonging and structural parthood separate; use the branch's current construction trace or other permitted support and declare its validation posture. If no profile is elected, keep the direct relation and stop. Query: "Do I need an additional assurance account for this already selected direct relation, and what current support does its branch require?" | 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, source-local meaning, F.17 cell, basis relation, direct relation, bounded use and loss. Queries: "Which exact source expression and local claim are current?", "Which FPF value or relation does this use require?", "What obtaining relation, direction, loss boundary, and receiving use may be claimed?" | Builds on: A.2, A.6.5, C.3, E.24.UK, F.0.1, F.1, F.2, F.3, F.5, F.8, F.17. Coordinates with: E.10.ROLE, F.9. |
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), direct relation, 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?", "Which actual scope translation, kind relation, plane relation, source-local relation, notation relation, or evidence-reuse relation changes this path?", "How does its stated loss affect R?" | 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 claim reuse whose actual changed scope, kind, plane, scheme, model use, source-local meaning, notation, or evidence basis changes 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: admitted U.Kind individual, membership distinction, KindSignature, admissibility, true/false/unknown judgment, optional extension, SubkindOf preorder, distinct-kind KindBridge. Queries: "What makes this the same kind?", "Is this candidate applicable before I judge it?", "Did the kind definition change, or only its locality, declaration, scheme, or slice?" | Builds on: A.1, A.2.6, C.2.1, E.24.UK. Coordinates with: C.3.1, C.3.2, C.3.3, F.9. |
| C.3.1 | U.Kind and U.SubkindOf Core | Stable | Keywords: kind identity, membership criterion, continuity, U.SubkindOf direct relation, criterion entailment, closed finite domain, preorder, classification equivalence, participant-determined occurrence. Queries: "What makes this subkind relation obtain?", "Do mutually classifying kinds remain distinct?", "Does this declaration change preserve the same kind?" | Builds on: A.1, A.2.6, A.6.REL, C.2.1, E.24.UK. Prerequisite for: C.3.2, C.3.3. |
| C.3.2 | Kind Intent, Membership Judgment, and Extension | Stable | Governs one KindSignature, a pre-judgment `admissible | not-applicableresult, atrue |
| C.3.3 | KindBridge and CL^k — Cross-local Correspondence between Distinct Kinds | Stable | Compares kind identity first. Same-kind reuse needs no bridge and still gets a fresh receiving judgment. For independently identified distinct kinds, governs one obtaining directional KindBridge, its separate assertion, preservation/loss, and R-only CL^k consequence. Queries: "Are these actually two kinds?", "What exact correspondence obtains?", "Was receiving classification evaluated afresh?" | 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 | KindUseAdaptationDeclaration — Contextual Adaptation of Kinds without Cloning | Stable | Declares one constrained or differently named use of an existing kind, checks applicability before its three-valued result, and compares kind identity before any cross-local bridge. Queries: "How do I tailor this use without cloning a kind?", "Is the request not applicable or merely unknown?", "Does locality change require a bridge, or does the same kind continue?" | Builds on: C.3.1, C.3.2, C.2.1. Coordinates with: C.3.3, A.2.6, F.9, 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 does a missing finite configuration comparison go first to C.11.CRC?" | Builds on: A.6.P, A.6.5, A.13, A.18, A.19. Coordinates with: C.11.CRC, planned C.9, C.26, C.18, C.19, C.24, G.5. |
| C.11.CRC | Configuration-Relative Contribution Comparison | Stable | Keywords: finite change, current configuration S0, candidate configuration S1, result and resource vectors, interactions, constraints, uncertainty, transition, option effects, marginal contribution. Queries: "What does this realizable finite change contribute relative to what we have now?", "Which coordinates, interactions, constraints, uncertainty, transition, and future options matter?", "When can the comparison claim return to C.11?" | Builds on: C.2.1, A.10, A.19, C.16, C.27, C.28, C.29. Supplies: one finite comparison claim to C.11. Coordinates with: C.18, C.19, B.3, A.15, and direct field calculations. |
| 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 using the evaluative form already defined for the chosen endpoint or a bounded transitional quality-term repair form with a named bearer, evaluation frame, sense family, admissible normal form, and the rule that defines the endpoint. | 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 | Characterising Generative Novelty and Value | Stable | Keywords: qualitative-first evaluation, named comparison basis, Novelty, Use-Value, ConstraintFit, bounded quantitative result, evidence, uncertainty, incomparability. Queries: "What is this bearer new relative to, and useful for which objective or must-criterion?", "When is a qualitative answer enough, and when does a quantified result need a declared corpus, Method, Scale, evidence, and uncertainty?", "When does learning wording go first to E.10.LRN, possibility-space change to C.18, or finite configuration comparison to C.11.CRC?" | Builds on: A.17, A.18, A.19, A.19.ECS, C.16, C.2.1, A.1.1, A.10, B.3. Coordinates with: E.10.LRN, C.18, C.19, G.5, C.11.CRC, C.11, F.9, F.18, B.4, G.11, A.15.1, F.6, A.3.1, A.3.2. |
| 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, selector-facing declaration, publication face, publication occurrence, audience availability. Queries: "How should one govern a still-live candidate pool?", "When does fresh generation or possibility-space change return to C.18?", "When do a finite configuration comparison, local choice, or selector-facing declaration leave C.19 for C.11.CRC, C.11, or G.5?" | Builds on: C.18, C.16, A.19.CPM, A.19.SelectorMechanism, B.3. Coordinates with: E.10.LRN, A.10, C.11.CRC, C.11, C.24, G.5, E.17, E.24.PUB, C.17, 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 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, 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 support components, CausalUseSupportResult, 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 | When words such as layer, level, tier, stack, block, router, or gate are ambiguous, keep a clear local meaning or recover what the word names before relying on it. State the inference the wording supports; use the direct pattern when the distinction changes the work, and stop when ordinary wording already suffices. Add an explanatory guard only under F.19:4's plausible-reader test. Recover a diagram or layout's representation use separately from any independently grounded world-side relation. | 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 | Start with one exact selected architecture-relevant structure, the smallest useful structure-kind set, the receiving use, and the next admissible architecture move. Call the description a U.View only when exact E.17.0 conformance to exact viewpoint P obtains; project-local family templates or materialized exact references never create view membership. Queries: "Which selected structure and structure kind matter to this use?", "Does exact E/P conformance obtain?", "What is hidden or lost, and when must work return to source?" | Builds on: C.30.P, C.30, A.1, A.22, C.2.1, E.24.PUB, A.6.3, E.17.0, E.17.1, E.17.2. Coordinates with: A.6.F, A.6.M, C.30.TFS-REL, C.30.LCA, C.30.ILC, E.18, C.29, C.33, C.34, C.35. |
| 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, selected-structure contribution rows, 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 should several practice structures go to C.32.MWA instead?" | 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.MWA, 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 action selected for the current question. 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 pattern directly 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, role-shaped source labels, cultures, AI workflows, or evidence practices without admitting those labels as holon kinds?", "When does starter work hand off to ACS?" | Builds on: C.32, C.25, C.16, E.13. Coordinates with: E.10.ROLE, 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-system 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 acting System, system-role assignment, Work, and direct influence facts current or only provisional pressure?", "Which current C.32.ACS characteristic rows or C.25 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.MWA | Practice Architecture Synthesis from Several Structures | Candidate | Reconciles Method, Work, subject, description, capability/provider, and cultural structures that do not line up one-for-one. Queries: Which structures of this practice actually matter?, Which relation is missing or falsely inferred from the source layout? | Builds on: C.32, A.3.1, B.1.5, A.15.1, A.22, C.30.AD, C.36. Used by: E.4.DPF, E.4.PFAD, E.23.CDI. |
| 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 pattern directly defines or tests the needed 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 the pattern that defines the missing selected structure?" | 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 | Use when a culture, style, tradition, or other shared practice changes—for example, as variants are taught, copied, recognized, selected, retained, mediated, or lost—and when a project needs to influence those relations without mistaking a label, platform, archive, or popularity score for the changing practice. Unresolved generic development or evolution wording enters through E.10.DEV first; return here only for the recovered cultural-population or discipline-facing case. | 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: E.10.DEV, E.10.MOVE, E.10.ROLE, C.36.P, E.10, E.10.ARCH, C.30, C.16, C.11, A.10, B.3. |
| C.37 | Use-Bounded Representation Selection and Co-Use | Stable | Use when one person, team, organization, or other consuming System must take one exact action or make one exact decision and several differently governed diagrams, tables, models, records, plans, descriptions, views, notations, or other results may each support only part of that use. Recover every candidate under its direct pattern, separate optional first evidence-use classification, bounded reliance, and the receiving result, state exposure and loss, and select, decline, or leave unresolved. Co-use means only use by the same receiver for that one action. | Builds on: C.2.1. Coordinates with: A.2.4, A.10, C.11, E.17.0, C.29, E.24.PUB, A.6.3.RT, A.22, C.13, C.2.P.DR, and the direct subject and receiving-result patterns. |
| C.38 | Construct Comparable Ways to Obtain One Result | Stable | Use when labels such as build, buy, reuse, provider, internal, outsource, or AI do not yet describe comparable complete ways to obtain the same result. Fix one result, use, situation, horizon, and acceptance basis; construct at least two materially different complete-enough ways on one parity basis; keep supported, proposed, and unknown premises visible; then hand the finite set to C.11 without claiming actual Work, provision, acceptance, or availability. | Builds on: the direct pattern for the sought result, A.10, and C.2.1 when a standalone comparison is needed. Coordinates with: A.15.9, A.19.CPM, A.19.SelectorMechanism, C.18, C.19, C.11, C.32, and direct domain realization and assurance Methods. |
| 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 a recovered cultural case to C.36 or the direct governing pattern. Generic development, evolution, or lineage ambiguity uses E.10.DEV first. | Builds on: E.10, E.10.ARCH, E.10.DEV, C.36, F.17, F.18, F.9. Coordinates with: E.10.MOVE, 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, Methods, Work, transformations, evidence, uncertainty, value theories, and consequence horizons. Role wording first uses E.10.ROLE; local system-role kinds, assignments, agency thresholds, responsibility, commitment, permission, authority, and participation remain separate. | Builds on: D.1, D.2, A.1, A.14, C.13. Coordinates with: E.10.ROLE, D.4, C.2.1, E.17, C.30.ILC, C.16, A.10, B.3. |
| D.4 | Ethical Mediation and Decision Use | Stable | Uses an interlevel ethical conflict structure for 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 | Separates the FPF edition and Core from domain and local principle frameworks, source packs, relation and decision records, publication/access carriers, and quality and refresh records. A principle-framework publication gives readers one rendering of selected recurring problems, known failures, and solution moves; it is not the architecture itself. | 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 | Reconstructs one FPF edition from exact selected Core pattern sources, publication units and forms, carriers and access routes, edition relations, projections, quality/currentness results, and refresh routes. E.2.DA owns whole-FPF adequacy. blockedOverreadRefs is an optional extension used only when F.19 admits the grounded boundary. | 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, F.19. |
| E.4.PFAD | Principle-Framework Architecture Decision | Stable | Practitioner-facing profile for choosing among a new or revised framework, a contribution to an existing framework, a non-framework product, a thinner route, and no new maintained product now when later work uses the boundary. The compact answer states first use and stop or return. For professional Method coverage, the same compact answer projects five connected groups with claim-scoped obtaining or possible-future status, explicit question bindings, and bounded gaps, using a representation suited to the case. One ordinary E.9 DRR records the answer, while the accepting decision remains separate. | Builds on: E.4, E.9. Coordinates with: E.4.DPF, E.4.PFR, C.32.MWA, C.32.PAD, C.32.ADR, E.17, E.24.PUB, F.18, G.2, G.11, E.21, E.19, F.19. |
| E.4.DPF | Domain Principle Framework Authoring and Publication-or-Access Carrier Assembly | Stable | Evolutionary authoring spine for domain and local FPF-grounded frameworks. Begin with the intended reader, working situation, first useful action, and stop or wrong-turn return. It consumes one exact accepted PFAD answer; for professional Method coverage, every selected question points to the bounded obtaining or possible-future practice claim it uses, missing producer values return as PFAD gaps, and D1–D12 evaluates the exact edition once with D12 alone integrating its several truth-bounded public promises. The route then carries accepted sources, patterns, direct material relations, publication or access, quality, 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.34, C.35, F.19. |
| E.4.DPF.DA | Domain Principle Framework Package-Adequacy Evaluation CharacteristicSpace | Stable | Evaluates one exact DPF or local-framework edition for a declared reader and use. Its D1–D12 result preserves domain scope, source and Core boundaries, package form, pattern-family coverage, relations, publication/access, refresh, adoption utility, next action, stop or return, and reopen; a non-use boundary appears only for a grounded competing use. | 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, F.19. |
| 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.4.PFIP | Principle-Framework Publication Integration and Preservation | Draft | Compares accepted source contributions and predecessor publication content with one candidate publication, keeping one-to-one expression and split-or-merge allocation cases distinct. | Builds on: C.2.1, E.24.PUB. Coordinates with: E.17, E.11, C.33, C.34, E.8. Used by: E.4.FPF, E.4.DPF, E.4.DPF.DA. |
| 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 | Governs practitioner-first pattern authoring and one bounded material-revision loop over actual predecessor and proposed prose. Materiality follows an actual change in subject, recognition, action or judgement, first result, boundary, cited contribution, enumeration, or affordability—not its label or physical size. Recover useful predecessor ideas, draft the positive path before guards, compare at comparable effort, remove non-discriminating apparatus, keep assurance after the first result, and close determinate discovery and true-consumer projections; a clean comparison creates no per-idea ledger. | E.6, E.7, E.8.ECSPF, E.9, E.10, E.19, E.21, F.18, F.19 |
| E.8.ECSPF | FPF Pattern Publication Form for Evaluation Guidance | Stable | Guides an author in carrying an accepted evaluation characteristic-space specification into practitioner-facing FPF pattern content: recognition and qualification, every required and triggered value, worked evaluation use and result form, non-scalar trade-off protection, and the concrete contributions used from neighbouring patterns. It keeps the specification, its CharacteristicSpace, the authored pattern, a later evaluation, and its result distinct. | 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 | Records one bounded FPF content decision as a readable working problem, positive selected answer, practical change, selected loci and obligations, first drafting action, rationale and consequences, and boundary or reopen condition. Exact method, work, ClaimGraph, assessment, or authority identities are conditional on the decision or named reliance. A broad authoring rule is piloted on an actual predecessor/proposed host pair before fanout; only material alternatives and Pillar or lens effects remain in the current record. | E.2, E.8, E.9.DA, E.10, E.19, E.22, F.19 |
| E.9.DA | DRR Decision-Adequacy Evaluation CharacteristicSpace | Stable | Checks one exact DRR for one declared FPF authoring use. An ordinary bounded check reads the decision and any triggered actual-host effect, then returns a precise finding, repaired text, or the unchanged checked DRR when clean, plus the first drafting action or repair, stop or return, and reopen condition. A non-use boundary is added only for a grounded competing reading; a complete reusable coordinate result and exact assessment identities appear only when explicitly requested or consumed by a named later reliance. | 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 cue and router for word, head, and use precision. Use F.19 for the whole passage. For unresolved FPF meaning, distinguish an obtaining world-side relation, a reusable relation declaration, a claim/report episteme, and a representation with explicit correspondence. Supplies register, morphology, naming, and trigger-registry rules; routes claim-bearing learning wording through E.10.LRN, work/method-boundary wording through A.6.P.WMR, authority wording through A.2.8/A.2.8.PER/A.2.9, development or evolution ambiguity through E.10.DEV, and independent move or trajectory ambiguity through E.10.MOVE. Return readable wording or an exact blocker; retain the direct result when a governed claim is current. Trigger words are cues, not verdicts. | Builds on: A.7, E.5, F.5, F.18. Coordinates with: E.10.ARCH, E.10.LRN, E.10.DEV, 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.LRN | Recovering What “Learning” Means in the Current Claim | Stable | Keywords: learn, learning, learned, taught, trained, teaching Work, capability, model fitting, inference, information acquisition, learned representation, cultural change, learning product. Queries: "What exactly changed in this learning claim?", "Which participant, Work, Method, result, evidence, and use are hidden?", "Which direct pattern should receive each split claim?" | Builds on: E.10 and E.10.ARCH. Returns to: the direct capability, Work, Method, statistical-model-fitting, inference, experiment or data-acquisition, representation, product or publication, cultural, evidence, or decision owner. Coordinates with: F.17 and F.18; creates no generic Learning result or UTS row. |
| E.10.DEV | Recovering What Development or Evolution Means in the Current Claim | Stable | After F.19 and compact E.10 routing, use when development or evolution wording still hides the changed or represented subject, continuity or membership, posture, direction or value basis, or direct owner. Returns one repaired direct claim, ordinary or quoted non-use, missing information, exact architecture gap, blocker, or stop; an explanatory guard is optional under F.19:4's plausible-reader test. | Builds on: F.19, E.10, E.10.ARCH, A.3.4.P, A.2.2, E.23.CAE, A.3.3, B.4, C.17–C.19, C.27.TA, C.29, C.36. Coordinates with: E.10.MOVE only for a remaining independent trajectory or path ambiguity, E.10.LRN for learning wording, C.36.P for a recovered cultural case, A.15, and direct holder or domain owners. |
| E.10.MOVE | Move and Readiness Wording Precision Restoration | Stable | After F.19 and compact E.10 routing, restores the governed value hidden by move, movement, step, action, readiness, route, path, or trajectory wording. Separates practice-continuation description, coordination and ordering, recommendation, transformation, readiness, gate, publication, representation, and Work claims; returns each to its direct owner without creating a generic Move or Trajectory head. Its mantra branch distinguishes an E.11.PUA practice-continuation description shown in a post-qualification A.22.CGUS slice, a Plain local mantra, and a Plain long-mantra map. Evaluation-movement wording returns to E.23 for a separate prediction about a later evaluation result. | Builds on: F.19, E.10, E.10.ARCH, A.3.4.P, A.22.CGUS, E.11.PUA, E.11.PUR, E.23, A.15.5. Coordinates with: E.10.DEV for an independent development or evolution ambiguity, 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 the ontology question that remains after F.19 and compact E.10 routing. Bound the exact use, recover the exact subject and claim, bypass to the direct owner when clear, and add declaration/designation/reference/publication/representation apparatus only for a named receiver. 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. Select E.10.DEV or another realization only while stable recovery fields remain hidden; return the shortest usable sentence, ordinary non-use, exact gap, or blocker. Subject patterns keep thin pointers. | Builds on: E.10, E.10.DEV, 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: E.10.MOVE, 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.ROLE | Recovering What “Role” Means in the Current Claim | Stable | Keywords: ambiguous role wording, system-role kind, assignment, relation participant, declaration slot, interface place, representation position, responsibility, ordinary wording. Queries: "What does role mean in this exact claim?", "Is this a system classification, assignment, participation, slot or position, another direct relation, or ordinary language?", "Which direct pattern should receive the recovered claim?" | Builds on: E.10, E.10.ARCH. Routes to: A.2, A.2.1, A.6.RSIR, A.6.5, and the direct pattern for the recovered object or relation. Coordinates with: F.18, F.19. |
| 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 | Recovering What “Context” Means in Use | Stable | Keywords: context wording, source-local meaning, claim scope, model use, working situation, architecture, viewpoint, environment, positive wording repair. Queries: "What does context mean in this sentence?", "Which exact value or relation changes the claim or next action?", "Can the sentence stay ordinary wording, or does it need a subject-pattern value?" | Builds on: E.10, E.10.ARCH. Coordinates with: A.1.1, A.2.6, C.30, E.17.0, F.0.1, F.17, F.9, F.19. |
| 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 | First-Practical Entry and Pattern-Use Discoverability Discipline | Stable | Gives each public entry unit one job. A reader starts from a recognizable situation, practical question, first useful result or honest blocker, opens one direct pattern or small plausible set, and may stop without filling a card. Continue with E.11.PUA after selecting one pattern and with E.11.PUR when applicability, recommendation, coordination, or ordering is current. Use E.11.PFP when one public FPF, DPF, or LPF edition needs the common publication form; form conformance and pattern count do not establish framework adequacy. | Builds on: E.8, E.17.AUD, F.17, F.18. Leads to: E.11.PUA, E.11.PUR, and E.11.PFP. Coordinates with: A.22.CGUS, E.18, G.11. |
| E.11.PUA | Pattern Use in a Working Situation and First Useful Result | Stable | Uses one inspected direct pattern for one current subject and practical question. Begin with the subject, question, selected Solution, first useful result or honest blocker, and stop or return; a person or assisting system uses the pattern's action- or judgement-guiding content. Recover a MethodDescription, admitted Method, performer, assignment, dated Work, exact predicate, ClaimGraph, or receiving use only when that distinction changes truth, action, stop, or named reliance. Ordinary bounded use may remain conversational; reliance-bearing support stays proportional. | 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 | After candidate pattern uses have been inspected, decides their applicability, which useful first result to recommend, and how several uses relate. An ordinary reversible judgement may remain conversational; separate fit findings and recommendation support appear only under named reliance. Pairwise order exists only for prerequisite result, method precondition, or shared-constraint resolution; presentation order is not a workflow, WorkPlan, or performed Work. | 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.11.PFP | Framework Publication Form Profile | Stable | Common reader-facing title, product-owned metadata projection, logical index, Readme entry, source projection, and deterministic-check form for public FPF, DPF, and LPF editions. | Builds on: E.11, E.17, E.24.PUB. Used by: E.4.FPF, E.4.DPF and bounded LPF/DPF publication-form applications. |
| E.11.DSG | DPF Suite Reference | Candidate | Starts when several DPFs may contribute or the applicable DPF is unclear, gives a short useful answer or honest product-gap blocker, and returns the reader to the Suite collection, Reference edition, contributing product series and results, and direct sources. It neither decides belonging, performs lookup Work, nor infers dependency, compatibility, or currentness from co-listing; a known sufficient DPF remains a direct route. | Specializes: E.11. Uses: E.4:4.2 and E.4.PFAD for Suite architecture, C.2.1 for Reference and DPF editions, and G.5 only for an actual JointUseSet. Coordinates with: E.4.PFR, C.2.P, F.9, E.17, E.24.PUB, G.11, E.11.PUA, and E.11.PUR. |
| 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 | Pattern Change, Edition Continuity, and Impact Analysis | Stable | Changes one existing FPF pattern edition by comparing an exact predecessor and candidate, classifying the actual practitioner and semantic effect, repairing actual dependent uses, preserving predecessor functions independently, and verifying proportionately. The ordinary path is one bounded repair; alternative generation opens only for a real unresolved design choice. Queries: "What actually changed between these pattern editions?", "Which uses must be reopened?", "Is a wider alternative search worth its cost?". | Builds on: E.8, E.9, E.10, F.0.1, F.1. Coordinates with: E.19, E.21, E.22, E.23, C.18, C.19, F.15, F.9, E.24.PUB, and landing preservation. |
| 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 | Viewpoint and View Recognition for Multi-View Describing | Stable | Decide whether exact candidate episteme E conforms to one already defined exact viewpoint edition P. Apply P's fixed five-part predicate; if it obtains, the same E is a U.View; otherwise state the failed rule or exact unresolved condition and stop. Author a new P, selected convention structure, evaluation, evidence, correspondence, or publication only when a named receiving use needs it. Queries: "Does E conform to P?", "Which fixed rule fails or remains unresolved?", "Does this use need more than the direct E/P judgment?" | Builds on: C.2.1, C.13, A.22, A.6.5, A.6.3, E.10.D2, E.24.PUB, C.29. Used by: E.17, E.17.1, E.17.2, E.18, and domain patterns that compare views. |
| E.17.1 | Viewpoint Bundle Library — Reusable Viewpoint Reference Bundles | Stable | Constitute one exact catalogue episteme L as <G_L, K_L, R_L>, retrieve a local declaration claim block through its ordinary family designator, and resolve only the needed exact U.ViewpointRef subset to admitted viewpoint editions P. The pattern and declaration are not U. kinds or separate bundle entities; labels and compact locators do not identify L or grant membership. Queries: "Which exact catalogue edition and declaration are reused?", "Which references are needed now?", "Does cross-project reuse resolve the same L and members?" | Builds on: C.2.1, E.17.0, C.13, A.22, A.6.2-A.6.4, A.7, E.7, E.10, E.24.PUB, C.29. Used by: E.17.2, E.18:5.12, and materialized domain-local viewpoint families. |
| E.17.2 | TEVB — Project-local Typical Engineering Viewpoint Bundle Template for Holons | Stable | Author one project-local four-position family for functional, procedural, allocation-responsibility, and module-interface descriptions of holons. This pattern ships only a template: no catalogue, family designator, reference, or viewpoint edition exists until a project constitutes exact L, binds four exact local U.ViewpointRef values to admitted P editions, and preserves their resolution. One later use may select one member and stop. Queries: "Have the local catalogue and four bindings been materialized?", "Which one reference is needed now?", "Is another concern better kept in a separate local family?" | Builds on: E.17.0, E.17.1, C.2.1, C.13, A.22, A.6.6, A.6.3, E.24.PUB. Used only after local materialization by: E.18, E.17, architecture-description patterns, and domain patterns needing that exact family. |
| E.17 | Multi‑View Publication Kit | Stable | Publish the smallest source-backed face or face set for named readers without changing the accepted engineering account. An MVPK face defaults to the exact publication form; source or receiving episteme, bounded-use declaration, publication occurrence, and carrier remain separate. Add exact viewpoint, publication, evidence, gate, or assurance relations only when a named receiving use needs them. Queries: "Which reader needs which minimum face?", "What is preserved or omitted, and how does the reader return to source?", "Which stronger relation is actually required for reliance?" | Builds on: E.17.0, C.2.1, E.24.PUB, A.7, E.10, C.2.P. Coordinates with: E.17.1, E.17.2, E.17.EFP, E.17.ID.CR, E.17.AUD, A.6.3, A.10, B.3, A.20, A.21. |
| E.17.EFP | ExplanationFaithfulnessProfile — bounded explanation-use discipline | Stable | First decide whether the text expresses the source ClaimGraph or a separately identified target episteme; a changed target requires its already obtaining rewrite, coarsening, representation, or hypothesis relation before EFP classifies explanation use. For an ordinary human-authored note, a source locator plus one bounded/blocked-use sentence may be enough. EFP creates neither episteme identity, source relation, evidence, assurance, gate, work, nor release authority. Queries: "Same source claims or a different target?", "Which explanation class changes the next use?", "What stronger use remains blocked?" | Builds on: E.17.0, E.17, A.7, E.10.D2, A.6.B, F.9, F.18. Coordinates with: A.6.3.CR, A.6.3.RT, A.6.3.CSC, E.17.ID.CR, A.6.4, A.10, A.15, A.15.4, B.3, A.20, A.21. |
| 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 Primary-Subject Discipline | Stable | Keep one bounded note, memo, table, screen, or short section explicit about what it is mainly about, the claim or communicative move it carries, and the wider work, use, decision, or reliance claim that remains outside. The local publicationUnitPrimarySubject is not a U. kind or C.2.1 participant by default; equate it with EntityOfConcern(E) only for one identified episteme E whose claims concern that exact entity. One natural-language sentence or two may be the complete result; the six prompts are optional diagnostics. | Builds on: 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, A.6.3, A.10, A.15, B.3, A.20, A.21. |
| 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 stating the current relation-specific question and participants, applying the pattern whose Solution answers it, and accepting only its returned value or honest stop; splits independent 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 | Use when a route-like transformation card has a branch, join, guard, dependency, or neighboring connection that changes what may follow. First name the concrete thing being transformed, two recognizable places or states, the proposed connection or guard, and the current continuation question; return a useful provisional explanation or an honest stop naming the missing fact or rule. If none of those features changes the continuation question, keep an ordinary route description. Only when qualification, comparison, publication, or stronger reliance is current, recover one A.22-selected CGUS; its independently identified one-TFS, internal-SubflowRef, or E.18.NET substrate and exact position bindings; the actual condition branch; exact supporting relation occurrences and neighboring contributions; preserved or omitted structure; the applicable locator family; and distinct E.18 refresh and G.11 currentness. This row is only a search locator; admit or rely on a stronger claim only through its direct governing pattern. | 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, E.11.PUA, E.17, C.29. |
| E.19 | Pattern Quality Gates: Review and Refresh Profiles | Stable | Reviews one exact new, materially revised, or aging FPF pattern or bounded subset for practical use and return-for-repair decisions. For a material edition, run one stable-candidate replay beginning with the bounded E.8 loop, then inspect only materially affected predecessor or candidate-only uses and the changed normative wording groups inside them. Complete the selected scope in either form: inspect-repair-verify repairs and rechecks every in-scope defect; the independent-findings form leaves the candidate unchanged and returns one complete actionable findings set. Create neither a per-probe progress store nor a clean-use recital; E.21 separately owns ordinal pattern-quality values and status. | 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.23.CDI | Developing Capability for a Named Work Family | Candidate | Develops the capability of one admitted holder System for a named Work family and checks transfer in representative Work; distributions across members and cultural-population change remain separate questions. | Builds on: E.23, A.2.2, A.3.1, A.15.1, E.22. Coordinates with: E.23.CAE, C.32.MWA, C.36. |
| E.23.CAE | Capability Access and Expression Differential Probe | Stable | Tests an apparent capability loss or failed transfer before redevelopment: envelope, configuration, applicability selection, access or activation, context-dependent expression, adaptation, enactment, actual change, or unresolved. Returns observations, qualified dispositions, surviving rivals, and candidate routes—not a choice or selected Work. Queries: "It worked before—what changed?", "Is this loss, access, expression, adaptation, or enactment?", "Which safe contrast changes the next question?" | Builds on: A.2.2, A.15.8. Coordinates with: E.23, E.23.CDI, A.15.7, C.11, E.10.LRN, C.36, and holder-specific practices. |
| 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. Recover the exact subject, needed claim, and receiving use, then take the first truthful next use: a direct pattern, C.2.1 episteme constitution, C.3 local typed classification, description, publication, 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. Bare role wording uses E.10.ROLE. Ontic and public-kind claims use the separate E.24 and E.24.UK tests; add an explanatory guard only when F.19 admits it. | 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, E.10.ROLE, 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, C.28, A.6.0, C.22.PFR, C.22.2, E.18.1, E.23, A.19, A.19.ECS, F.19. |
| 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, and System-Role Kinds and Assignments
| § | ID & Title | Status | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F.0.1 | Source-Local Meaning Recovery | Stable | Keywords: troubling word use, exact source and edition, source-local meaning, local expression, optional durable address, actual cross-local relation. Queries: "What does this exact source mean here?", "Does one source-local statement already answer the question?", "When does later reuse need an F.17 cell or an actual F.9 relation?" | Builds on: E.10, E.10.D1, F.17. Coordinates with: F.1, F.0.2, F.9, F.18 and the direct pattern for the recovered subject. |
| F.0.2 | Conceptual Synthesis across Source Ontologies | Draft | Turns differences among source-local concepts, relations, and boundaries into one provisional synthesis claim, contrast claim, or unresolved-inquiry claim for a named receiving decision. A domain ontology may be a needed DPF contribution without being a DPF by itself. Queries: What changes in the receiving decision when sources use different ontologies?, Should this comparison return a synthesis, a contrast, or an unresolved inquiry?, Which domain-ontology contribution belongs in the DPF? | Builds on: F.0.1 and F.1. Coordinates with: F.9, G.2, E.10.ARCH, E.4.DPF, and the receiving subject pattern. |
| Cluster F.I — Context of Meaning and Lexical Inputs | ||||
| F.1 | Question-Relative Source Selection | Stable | Keywords: receiving question, intended use, exact source and edition, answer-changing source role, finite source cut, SourceCutNote, reopen condition. Queries: "Which sources can change this answer or its limits?", "What role does each selected source play?", "When is one already identified source enough?" | Builds on: F.0.1, C.2.1, A.7. Coordinates with: F.0.2, F.17, F.9, A.10, B.3. |
| F.2 | Term Harvesting & Normalisation | Stable | Keywords: exact source and edition, effective ReferenceScheme, LocalExpression, LocalSenseClaim, LNF, optional SchemeSenseCell. Queries: "Which exact source use carries this expression?", "What does it mean under this scheme?", "What must remain unclaimed before comparison?" | Builds on: F.1, F.0.1, E.10.D1. Prerequisite for: F.3. |
| F.3 | Source-Local Sense Clustering | Stable | Keywords: source expression, LocalSenseClaim, effective ReferenceScheme, alias consolidation, counterexample, optional SchemeSenseCell. Queries: "Which expressions support the same local claim under this exact basis?", "Which source-grounded difference requires a split?", "When is a durable F.17 address worth creating?" | Builds on: F.2, F.17. Prerequisite for: F.4, F.7, F.9. |
| Cluster F.II — Concept Sets, System-Role Kinds, Assignments, and Descriptions (definition, naming, decision) | ||||
| F.4 | SystemRoleKindDescription — Describing an Exact System-Role Kind | Stable | Keywords: system-role-kind description, local kind, classification criterion, effective scheme, description episteme, non-inference boundary. Queries: "What exactly does this local system-role kind classify?", "Which criterion and scheme edition does the description state?", "Does the text wrongly infer assignment, capability, authority, or Work from the kind?" | Builds on: A.2, C.3, C.3.2, C.2.1, E.10.ROLE. Coordinates with: A.2.1, F.5, F.14, F.15. |
| F.5 | Naming Discipline for U-kind Names and SystemRoleKindDescription Labels | Stable | Keywords: U-kind name, system-role-kind name, SystemRoleKindDescription label, Plain and Tech designations, local meaning, naming after ontology recovery. Queries: "How should this admitted U-kind, local system-role kind, or description be named?", "Does the familiar word suggest a stronger kind or relation than the claim supports?", "When is the plain name enough?" | Builds on: A.2, C.3, F.4, F.18, E.10, E.10.ROLE. Coordinates with: E.24.UK, F.8, F.14, F.17. |
| F.6 | SystemRoleAssignment and Performed-Work Attribution Check | Stable | Keywords: already admitted U.Work, complete post-admission A.13/A.15.1/F.6 basis, exact Work-assignment relation, same obtaining A.13 assignment, direct case fact, holder equality, temporal coverage, performedUnderAssignment, deprecated performedBy compatibility only, separate evidence, conditional profile. Queries: "Has A.15.1 already admitted this Work without F.6?", "Did this dated Work occur under that same assignment?", "What case fact links the exact pair?", "If attribution fails, is the admitted Work retained?", "Is the current claim instead about classification, capability, responsibility, evidence, or another relation?" | Builds on: A.6.REL, A.2, A.2.1, A.13, A.15.1. Coordinates with: A.2.5, A.10, E.10.ROLE, F.4. |
| F.7 | Concept-Set Table Construction | Stable | Keywords: exact local claim, optional SchemeSenseCell, comparison surface, obtaining relation, direction, loss, evidence, receiving use. Queries: "Which exact local claims does this table compare?", "Which relations already obtain and what do they preserve?", "What separate conclusion is justified for this named use?" | Builds on: F.3, F.9, F.17. Coordinates with: A.6.9. |
| F.8 | Mint-or-Reuse Decision | Stable | Keywords: subject before name, governed value or relation, proposed naming use, local phrase, designation, alias, row use, durable naming, admission before naming. Queries: "What does this expression designate for this use?", "What is the lightest naming treatment that serves it?", "When must naming stop for subject recovery or U-kind admission, and when is stronger naming work justified?" | Builds on: F.14, F.17, F.18, E.24.UK, A.11. Coordinates with: F.4 when a separate SystemRoleKindDescription is needed; F.5 after F.8 selects a name family. |
| 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 Note | Stable | Keywords: bridge stance note, bounded-use claim, interpretive gloss, local rename, operationalization, partial analogy, projection, non-equivalence. Queries: "How do I add a short reading note to one warranted Bridge use?", "When does a stance word need a separate claim?", "Can a stance note establish a Bridge, permission, loss tolerance, or reliance?" | Builds on: F.9, C.2.1. Coordinates with: A.10, B.3, A.6.3.CSC, E.17.ID.CR, C.16.Q, E.24.PUB, F.17, F.18. |
| 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, dated Work, control or transformation output, enactment, description use, performed-Work attribution. Queries: "Which way, description, Work occurrence, or output does this sentence concern?", "Which direct relation actually connects them?", "What evidence supports the Work or outcome claim?" | Builds on: A.3, A.15, B.1.5, E.10.D1. Coordinates with: F.4, F.6, F.9. |
| F.12 | Service Acceptance–Work Evidence Link | Stable | Keywords: PromiseContent, delivery Work, observation, measured value, evaluation Work, operation result binding, declared result scale, EvidenceStatus, RequirementStatus, indicator recovery. Queries: "Which exact promise and delivery Work are judged?", "Do the observations measure the promised characteristic directly, or is a separately defined indicator relation needed?", "Which evaluation Work and application returned the result on which declared scale?", "Which evidence use and status rule justify the report?" | Builds on: A.2.3, A.15.1, A.6.1, C.16, F.10, F.11. Coordinates with: A.10, B.3 when assurance or material reliance is current, C.16.P, A.6.RCD, E.13, F.9. |
| 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 for System-Role and Status Name Families | Stable | Keywords: vocabulary explosion, system-role names, status names, designation, assignment, permission, evidence use, NameCard, term row, reuse. Queries: "Does this proposed system-role or status name identify a distinct governed value?", "Is the apparent new name only a bundle, suffix variant, assignment, permission, status, or evidence-use shortcut?", "Should the candidate stop, reuse, or proceed to mint-or-reuse review?" | Builds on: A.2, A.2.1, A.2.5, A.2.7, F.6, A.15.1. Coordinates with: F.8, F.10, F.17, F.18. |
| 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: working situation, practical gain, actual values, direct relations, exact sources, evidence, optional cell, optional comparison table, boundary. Queries: "What one claim changes practice here?", "Which actual values and relations make it true or false?", "Can a cold reader replay the evidence and limits without treating layout as proof?" | Builds on: F.1, F.15, E.10.D1. Coordinates with: F.7, F.9, F.17 and direct subject patterns. |
| F.17 | Unified Term Sheet | Stable | Use when readers need a durable term row, not merely ordinary wording or a local name. The row returns to one already-governed value and exact kind, its direct pattern, F.18 NameCard, exact scheme-and-sense cell, admitted and blocked uses, and reopen condition. A needed cross-projection use keeps the actual F.9 Bridge, separate C.2.1 use claim, and A.10/B.3 reliance distinct. Ordinary demonstrative and mantra wording creates no row; constituting a row neither creates its subject nor makes the row available. | 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 bounded-model-use values. Coordinates with: A.10, B.3, A.22.CGUS, E.10.MOVE, E.11, and E.24.PUB for separate publication and availability. |
| 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 | Repairs unsupported relations and truthful but non-contributing semantic structure in technical prose. Recover predicates, required operands or participants, referents, kinds, and the governing message; test every guard, contrast, modifier, example, and coordinated member by what it changes for a plausible intended reader. A series must earn its form before its membership is checked. Return repaired text or an exact blocker, then reread the changed passage locally. Cues: phrase-level boilerplate, negative catalogues, pattern-application drift. | 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 | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I.2 | Expanded Entry Disambiguation Cases | Stable | Keywords: first entry, disambiguation, compact index, expanded comparison. Queries: "Which first pattern fits when the compact index is not enough?", "When may I stop at the compact index?" | Builds on: E.11. Coordinates with: E.10, F.17. |
Last Updated: 2026-09-03 — upstream FPF commit b999972c (github.com/ailev/FPF)