FPF Reference

    Worked dashboard and approval examples

    Preface node heading:worked-dashboard-and-approval-examples:21271

    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

    Worked dashboard and approval slice:

    A release dashboard shows a green approval-looking tile for Release-2026.05.08-prod. If the tile is a current view of the relevant GateDecisionRef plus evidence path and currentness path, it may carry bounded gate-passage reliance for that release scope and window. Execution or deployment still requires an A.15.1 work-occurrence source if the claim is that deployment happened. If the gate source is missing or stale, treat the tile as orientation and source-finding until the team can name the live release-work claim, live release-work position, pattern that governs the claim being made or effect and project-side FPF kind and reference named by value that carry that claim or effect, and project-side FPF kind and reference named by value that carries the gate decision, evidence path, and currentness path.

    StepRequired move
    Required project claim or effect kindRelease reliance, gate passage, compliance proof, assurance increase, evidence relation, or currentness relation.
    Gate decision sourceCite the current A.21 GateDecision or DecisionLogRef, gate profile, gate version, release scope or work item, scope, window, and replay or freshness pins. Without that source, the tile is not release permission or gate passage.
    Constraint or flow-validity sourceCite A.20 ConstraintValidity status or witness only when the claim is about constraint or flow validity, not about the gate decision itself.
    Evidence and currentness sourceUse A.10 for the dashboard query, carrier integrity, evidence refs, time, window, freshness field, revocation source or revocation record, verifier context, relying context, and rival explanation such as stale display or copied status.
    Assurance sourceUse B.3 only if the tile is being used to raise readiness, compliance, trust, safety, release confidence, R, F, G, or CL; otherwise no assurance tuple is live.
    Admissible repaired useWith the decision and evidence path recovered, rely on gate passage only for the named release scope or work item, environment, gate profile, gate version, time, and window; a claim that deployment happened still needs an A.15.1 work-occurrence source.
    Blocked overreadsThe dashboard color does not create approval, permission, compliance proof, rollback success, work occurrence, or assurance by display.

    Approval memo green path:

    An approval memo may carry an approval claim when it exposes the A.2.9 SpeechActRef, actor, role, affected release scope or work item, judgement context, time, window, carrier refs, evidence refs, and instituted effect being claimed. That carries the bounded approval claim or effect only. It does not prove that release, deployment, rollback, or other work occurred; that execution claim still needs the dated A.15.1 work-occurrence source plus any A.10 evidence path required for the relying context.

    Credential and status green path:

    A credential or status response may carry holder reliance, status reliance, or currentness reliance only inside the issuer or governing status register, holder binding or subject binding, verifier context, relying context, proof result or status result, revocation source or revocation record, freshness field, and validity window that it exposes. It does not by itself carry release, work occurrence, gate passage, engineering justification, evidence for underlying operational facts, or contextual permission; those uses require the project-side FPF kind and reference named by value that governs that claim or effect.

    Role prompts:

    Role in the situationPrompt
    Acting userWhat can I safely do next without turning the encountered episteme or episteme publication into unsupported work or reliance justification?
    Release engineerWhich A.21 gate decision, decision log, release scope, work item, and A.15.1 work occurrence are separate here?
    Issuer, gate, evidence, or role sourceWhat source, status, decision ref, or evidence path must be exposed or repaired?
    Auditor or reviewerWhich evidence path, decision ref, speech-act ref, commitment, work occurrence, or assurance claim must be recoverable?
    Boundary claimantWhich words need typed claim IDs before they can guide work or reliance?
    ManagerIs repeated ambiguity a source-system repair item rather than another manual check for the acting user?
    LLM user or tool userWhich project-side FPF kind and reference named by value does the explanation help find, and which operative claims still need an A.10 claim-bound source relation?
    Security or compliance sourceWhich revocation, currentness, proof, status, source order, or supersession source must be exposed?
    Model or data sourceWhich intended use, evaluation condition, version, window, limitation, and evidence path bound the model or data documentation?
    Assurance reviewerWhich named claim actually has a B.3 assurance claim, with what assurance tuple, evidence path, limitations, and reopen condition?
    Search aliases for A.15.4 include: approval, approval-looking display, authorization, authorization-looking display, permission, permission display, allowed wording, green dashboard, release tile, release readiness, model card, datasheet, data card, provenance, provenance mark, attestation, attestation label, credential, credential badge, generated explanation, copied review, copied approval, review summary, compliance-looking mark, delegation, delegation display, revocation, revocation status, gate passed, gate passage, rollback successful, rollback cue, and assurance label. These are search handles only; decide the carrying project-side FPF kind and reference named by value and pattern or source relation that governs the claim being made or effect from the live work question or reliance question, not from the displayed word or carrier name or source name.

    Work and reliance disposition table for authority-looking cases:

    Live questionStart inFirst useful output
    Can this encountered episteme publication, publication face, carrier, rendering, or cue guide work or reliance?A.15.4Candidate next U.WorkPlanning, U.Work, or reliance move, pattern that governs the claim being made or effect and project-side FPF kind and reference named by value that carry that claim or effect, minimum admissible next move, and project-side FPF kind and reference named by value needed.
    Is the problem boundary, policy, API, schema, or connector wording?A.6 or A.6.BTyped L-*, A-*, D-*, and E-* claims before the work claim or reliance claim is used.
    Is the problem evidence, currentness, provenance, credential status, generated-source relation, copied-source relation, or source-chain recovery?A.10Claim-bound evidence path, currentness path, and admissible or non-admissible use.
    Is the problem assurance, readiness, safety, compliance, trust, release confidence, or change in R, F, G, or CL?B.3Typed assurance claim, no-assurance-use disposition, or downgraded or rejected assurance use.

    Display guidance for bounded status: a visible status meant to guide work should expose source type, reference or link named by value, freshness, window, scope, unsupported work claim, unsupported reliance claim, and unsupported effect. For example, prefer Gate check passed; GateDecisionRef; release scope; environment; window; not compliance proof, rollback success, or assurance increase over a bare approval-looking label.

    Incident-learning fields for authority-looking overread: encountered episteme or episteme publication, live work claim, reliance claim, work-relevant P2W claim, or P2W chain position, pattern that governs the claim being made or effect and project-side FPF kind and reference named by value that carry that claim or effect, actor, role, affected work item or claim, context, window, missing or stale source U.Episteme, source U.EpistemePublication, register entry, or project-side FPF kind and reference named by value; governing FPF relation or role assignment accountable for exposing or repairing that missing source, plausible overread, safe disposition used now, and upstream repair item for the source, dashboard, explanation, credential view, boundary wording, publication face, or carrier.

    Contestability and redress path: when an authority-looking case affects person or team status, access, assignment, responsibility, release blockage, compliance claim, or safety-impacting work, name the review path or redress path before the work claim or reliance claim hardens. The path should name the disputed source or claim, the role assignment accountable for refreshing or correcting that source, the evidence path or status path to reopen, the safe interim disposition, and the time and window for review.

    Lintable overread cues:

    | Lint signal | Governing relation named by value |

    | --- | --- | | approved, authorized, allowed, recommended, or guaranteed in boundary, API, schema, or policy wording | Split through A.6 or A.6.B into L-*, A-*, D-*, and E-*; use A.6.C, A.2.8, and A.2.9 for agreement-like wording where live. | | Dashboard tile, status color, or release tile used as release evidence or gate passage | Require A.21 GateDecision or DecisionLogRef plus A.10 evidence path and currentness path. | | Credential screenshot or badge used as permission, authorization, role relation, or status relation | Require A.10 issuer, holder, verifier, status, currentness, and relying-context fields, then exact A.2.8, A.2.9, A.2.1, A.6.B, or A.21 source for the required permission, authorization, role, status, gate claim, or gate effect. | | Generated explanation uses authorized, approved, or similar wording | Use E.17.EFP for explanation relation and source-finding relation and A.10 claim-bound source relation; issue, approval, gate, and commitment claims still need A.2.9, A.21, or A.2.8. | | Model card, datasheet, label, or note cited as readiness, safety, compliance, or release confidence | Require a typed B.3 assurance claim, intended-use match, evaluation condition, limitations, and A.10 evidence path. | | Provenance or attestation label cited as truth, safety, release, or permission | Require A.10 bounded provenance claim or process claim plus separate evidence for truth, safety, release, permission, or assurance. | | Evidence, assurance, gate, or work-occurrence words without the project-side FPF kind and reference named by value that carries that claim or effect | Recover the A.10 evidence relation, B.3 assurance claim, A.21 gate decision, or A.15.1 work-occurrence record respectively before the work claim or reliance claim is used. |

    Stress cases for practice:

    CaseExpected A.15.4 disposition
    Green release dashboard tile with no GateDecisionRef.Source-finding only; recover A.21 decision or decision log plus A.10 evidence before gate-passage reliance.
    Copied approval from last month.Recover original A.2.9 SpeechActRef, currentness, freshness, and any live A.2.8 commitment or A.21 gate source.
    Credential badge screenshot after revocation.Treat as contested credential-currentness; use A.10 issuer, holder, verifier, status, and revocation path and do not infer permission.
    Generated explanation says authorized by policy.Use E.17.EFP for explanation and source-finding and A.10 claim-bound source relation; issuing, gate, and commitment claims still need their own sources.
    Boundary wording says guaranteed approved for production.Split through A.6 or A.6.B; if agreement-like or promise-bearing, unpack through A.6.C, A.2.8, and A.2.9.
    Dashboard says green while decision log says blocked.Treat as conflicting sources; name source order, governing decision source, freshness policy, and supersession rule before the work claim or reliance claim is used.

    Last Updated: 2026-06-08 — upstream FPF commit 093d30e8 (github.com/ailev/FPF)