FPF Reference

    WORDING - Repair wording without changing the kind by accident

    Preface node heading:wording-repair-wording-without-changing-the-kind-by-accident:607

    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

    • Situation and question. A sentence sounds fluent but leaves the reader unable to tell what it says about the project. Ask: what ordinary sentence should the reader understand, and is it a world fact, a reusable relation declaration, somebody's relation claim or report, a representation with correspondence, another governed object, or ordinary wording?
    • Optional obstacle. A trigger word has been replaced while ontology, admissible use, or scope drifted.
    • Template A. E.10 Solution -> changed sentence plus local KindRestorationCheck. Quote the sentence and say why it matters to the reader; write the intended ordinary sentence; record the before/after governed object or claim, direct owner, admissible use, and scope; then give the accepted wording, direct governing-pattern result, or exact blocker, the nearby case that must not be inferred, and the stop back to the domain task.
    • Relation-like continuation. Write the ordinary sentence first and choose one branch only: a world fact names the things and the direct relation that obtains under its predicate owner; a reusable relation declaration names its participant meanings and, when that declaration is current, one RelationSignature with A.6.5 SlotSpec values; a relation claim or report names one C.2.1 claim-bearing episteme and participant designations; a field, table, graph, or formula names the representation element, represented object, and explicit correspondence under C.29 or its direct owner. Use A.6.P only while the predicate or a participant is unclear, A.6.RCD only when the participants are exact but no current direct relation closes the use, and A.6.P.WMR only while a method/work-boundary relation remains hidden. Treat support the same way: select the direct subject relation or a concrete common alternative such as evidence use, bounded reader help, or structural bearing; do not mint SupportRelation. If no branch fits, keep ordinary or quoted wording, name the other governed object and owner, or state an explicit blocker.
    • Boundaries. Stop when the changed sentence and its selected result let the reader return to the domain task. Return when the sentence's EntityOfConcern, use, or scope changes. A fluent replacement does not pass if it swaps one umbrella word for another, makes a declaration or representation shape establish a world fact, or leaves the reader unable to choose the passing case, near miss, and next action. Stronger neighbours are F.19 for phrase-level prose repair, F.18 for durable naming, and the direct domain pattern when the defect is no longer lexical.
    • Result test. The potential result is the changed ordinary sentence together with its local KindRestorationCheck, identified under E.10 by the governed object or claim, direct owner, admissible use, scope, near miss, and return to the domain task. Name the exact claim evaluation, decision, representation use, method or work-boundary question, or other domain object it would answer and the relation, binding, or supported claim that makes it this wording use's result. Open F.19, F.18, or a direct subject pattern only when that continuation is current; otherwise stop with the missing kind, owner, governor, or information.
    • Public coarsening. "Wording repair" restores to KindRestorationCheck plus the changed sentence.

    Last Updated: 2026-07-29 — upstream FPF commit 2ada4136 (github.com/ailev/FPF)