#Table of Contents
Preface node
heading:table-of-contents:17
#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 |
|---|---|---|
| Start here | full text | Directs project users, framework developers, reviewers and coordinators to USING-FPF.md before selecting framework guidance. |
| 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. |
| Perform several levels of work through one action | full text | Connects constituent performance, encompassing work, capability and resources; shows when a changed whole requires a different action. |
| 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. |
| License and reuse | full text | Explains CC BY 4.0 reuse and authors' choice of license for their own DPFs and LPFs. |
| Citation | full text | Gives the public citation and return information. |
Preface (non-normative)
| ID & Title | Status | Concise content reminder |
|---|---|---|
| FPF.Preface:1 - What This Specification Is And How To Use It | full text | Explains Core, Kernel, framework editions, and direct use of adequate methods; distinguishes the Preface, lookup maps and supplying pattern bodies. |
| FPF.Preface:2 - FPF As A Project, Not Only A Pattern List | full text | Explains how domain and local frameworks, optional DPF Suite References, companions and shared carriers relate to Core while preserving their content and edition boundaries. |
| FPF.Preface:3 - Why FPF Exists | full text | Explains why difficult multi-participant work needs explicit distinctions, options, evidence, decisions, and return paths. |
| FPF.Preface:4 - Creativity And Assurance Mature Together | full text | Connects plural option generation, evidence, assurance, currentness, and bounded decisions without making them one lifecycle. |
| FPF.Preface:5 - 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.Preface:6 - FPF As An Evolutionary Architecture For Thought | full text | Treats the framework as evolving reasoning architecture whose components, relations, and evaluations change together. |
| FPF.Preface:7 - Architectural Characteristics Of Thought | full text | Names the characteristics that make reasoning inspectable, composable, evolvable, falsifiable, and usable. |
| FPF.Preface:8 - Beyond Bias Hunting | full text | Replaces negative error catalogues with constructive reasoning objects and direct solution moves. |
| FPF.Preface:9 - Thinking Through Writing | full text | Explains when cards, records, tables, characteristic spaces, term sheets, patterns, and DRRs become useful thinking instruments rather than paperwork. |
| FPF.Preface:10 - Thinking-Oriented Architecture, Not A Descriptive Upper Ontology | full text | Distinguishes FPF's work of improving reasoning from cataloguing every entity that may exist. |
| FPF.Preface:11 - When A Scale Claim Calls For Comparison | full text | Explains when a scale or generalization claim activates the Bitter-Lesson Preference, what nondominance means, and how ordinary procedures, autonomy and adaptation retain their own grounds. |
| FPF.Preface:12 - From Flat Documents To Multi-View Truth | full text | Separates EntityOfConcern, descriptions, views, publication carriers, and reader uses while preserving return to source structure. |
| FPF.Preface:13 - 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. |
| FPF.Preface:14 - Boundary Statements | full text | Shows where language carries commitments, admissibility, evidence, gates, and other boundary claims. |
| FPF.Preface:15 - Raising Semantic Precision | full text | Explains ontology-first restoration from overloaded wording to explicit kinds, relations, slots, and admissible uses. |
| FPF.Preface:16 - Big FPF Storylines | full text | Follows a report-review inquiry and the construction of a usable method from received material; explains Architectural Rationale, qualified evidence, direct entry, profiles, shared sources, alternatives, costs and selective return after changed conditions. |
| FPF.Preface:17 - Transdisciplinarity As A Meta-Theory Of Thinking | full text | Shows how shared distinctions can connect disciplines without flattening their bounded meanings. |
| FPF.Preface:18 - 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. |
| FPF.Preface:19 - 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. |
| FPF.Preface:20 - Purpose, Scope, And Non-Goals | full text | States FPF's intended use, tool independence, and boundaries against domain encyclopedia or one prescribed methodology. |
| FPF.Preface:21 - 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. |
Use Part and cluster headings to locate content. E.4 explains how Kernel, broader Core content and framework editions relate; those distinctions apply across the Parts.
Part A - Kernel Architecture Cluster
| § | ID & Title | Status | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A.0 | Generative Search 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 | Recognize a Whole with Parts (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.RI | Reidentifying an Object across Observations | Stable | Determines which observations can concern the same continuing object under subject and observation rules. Constructs jointly compatible associations, separates supported identity from remaining alternatives, and permits a use that gives the same result under those alternatives. Queries: same object, tracking, reused identifier, process restart, ambiguous association. | Builds on: A.1, C.2.1. Coordinates with: A.3.3.TR, A.3.3.PI, C.16.MR, C.16.IR, B.5.TU, B.5.TC, B.5.RR, C.11.DUA. |
| A.1.1 | Bounded Model-Use Structure: Applicability, Use and Expression Coherence (DDD Bounded Context) | 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 serves the decision with a qualified claim, constraint, alternative, material unknown, or stop. Further discovery is selected for its obtainable contribution and whole programme burden. Queries: "Which other Systems may undergo a relevant change?", "Which path actually obtains and which remains modal?", "What does the current account support, and which further discovery is worth obtaining?" | 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.DUA, A.15.9, C.11.CRC, C.11, and D.1 only when its later value-frame question is current. |
| A.1.STM | Find the First Unsupported Project Dependency (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 | System Capability: Conditions, Measures and Fit | Stable | Keywords: holder ability, work conditions, attained bounds, support, qualification, currentness, capability fit, Method-relative capability, usable Method structure. Queries: "Can this System do the required work?", "Which parts of this Method can the holder use with the available help?", "Did ability, its support or the receiving demand change?" | Builds on: A.1, C.2.1, A.2.6. Informs: A.15, A.2.3, E.23.CDI. |
| A.2.3 | U.PromiseContent — Promised Outcomes and Acceptance Criteria | 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: first-use classification, evidence-use relation, status-use relation, source-use wording, episteme, claim, provenance, role-shaped source phrase. Queries: "How is an episteme used as evidence?", "Is first-use classification enough, or does this use need A.10 provenance and bounded reliance?", "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 for 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): Test Scope Membership and Combine 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 — Individual Duties to Act or Refrain | 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 and Its Intended Use | 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 Quartet: Distinguish Work, Performer, Method and Method Description | 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.7, A.13, A.15.1, C.2.1, F.6. Coordinates with: A.4 only for a System design/operation comparison; 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, real rivals and relevant gaps—or an honest record-only result. A useful distinguishing question is retained when it can change recovery or receiving use; completion requires no irrelevant follow-up study. | 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 construction, configuration, constraints, initial data, transition law, permitted alternatives, probability law, observation relation, predictive memory, prediction, simulation, calibration. Queries: "How do I construct the state and a reusable law of change?", "Which distinctions must a prediction retain?", "Do possible execution orders have probabilities?", "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, C.16, A.10, B.3, A.20, A.21. |
| A.3.3.CC | Construct a Configuration Description under Constraints | Stable | Use when separately valid values can form an incompatible arrangement. Select the participant differences, express constraints and choose a representation that supports the required configuration result. Queries: "Which combinations are possible under these conditions?", "Should I keep constraint equations or eliminate coordinates?", "What changes when length, stock or job order matters?", "Does a motion restriction exclude a position?" | Coordinates with: A.3.3, A.17, A.18, A.19, B.5.FM, C.29.1, C.29.2, A.6.3.RT and B.5.MPC. |
| A.3.3.TR | Construct a Rule for State Change | Stable | Use when a state description still lacks the transition rule needed to obtain its continuations. Combine operation effects and physical interactions, distinguish jointly active relations from alternative actions, and derive a change or identify a missing contribution. Queries: "How do local rules combine?", "Which values stay fixed in this step?", "Does preserving a property ensure completion?", "Which additional assumptions determine likelihood?" | Coordinates with: A.3.3, A.3.3.CC, B.5.FM, B.5.MPC, B.5.MPC.R, A.22.CGUS, C.29.1, C.29.2 and C.11.DUA. |
| A.3.3.PI | Retain the Information Needed for Prediction | Stable | Use when a present description leaves a needed future result unresolved, or a simpler predictive account may suffice. Compare merged situations under the same law and inputs; retain additional state, history, a probability distribution or a sufficient bound. Queries: "Which hidden difference changes the forecast?", "How much history is needed?", "Can a bound settle the question?", "Does reading error invalidate the answer?" | Coordinates with: A.3.3, A.3.3.CC, A.3.3.TR, C.16, C.29.1, B.5.FM, B.5.MPC.R and C.11.DUA. |
| A.3.4 | U.Transformation: Actual 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 Wording Repair: Recover Objects and Claims | Stable | Keywords: transformation ontic precision restoration. 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 | Compare a System's Intended Design with Its Operating Conditions | Stable | Keywords: design account, operating facts, comparison criterion, conformance, discrepancy, missing basis. Queries: "Does this System meet the selected design requirement?", "Did the System change or only its design account?" | Builds on: A.1, C.2.1. Coordinates with: A.1.1, A.3.4, C.27, B.4. |
| Cluster A.IV - Kernel Modularity | ||||
| A.5 | Open-Ended FPF Kernel and Extension Layering | Stable | Keywords: FPF architecture, kernel boundaries, domain extensions, dependency versus specialization, declarative modularity, extensibility. Queries: "How is domain knowledge kept outside the FPF kernel?", "How do declaration dependencies differ from specialization?" | Builds on: P-4, P-5. |
Cluster A.IV.A - Signature Stack & Boundary Discipline (A.6.*) | ||||
| A.6 | Signature Stack: Classify and Place Boundary Claims | 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: Find the Defining Episteme for a Description | 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 Individuation: Distinguish Occurrences When Needed | 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: Laws for Mathematical Relations Between Epistemes | 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: Shorten an Account for a Bounded Use | 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: EntityOfConcern-Preserving Textual Re-Expression | Stable | Textual re-expression, summary, report rewrite, translation, or filtering that preserves the same resolved EntityOfConcern, 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: Change Representation of the Same EntityOfConcern | 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.RT.OE | Construct an Operative Expression | Stable | Use when content must be arranged so a calculation, inference, construction or coordination can be performed, or an exploratory comparison can reveal a still-unknown distinction. Keep shared parts, grouping, scope and references usable; try the subject operation and repair the expression. Queries: "What distinction does comparing these records reveal?", "How can the same part connect two relations?", "Which grouping preserves the intended prerequisite?", "How do I coordinate a phrase with its temporal reference?" | Coordinates with: A.6.3.RT, E.5.2, B.5.RC, B.5.RA, B.5.RR, B.5.WN, C.37, C.2.8 and the subject Method. |
| 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: Judge a Bounded Use Across Different Entities | Stable | Use when exact source and receiving epistemes concern different exact entities. Identify their exact arrow r; state a separate C.2.1 bounded-use assertion q whose ClaimGraph contains the invariant, visible loss, named receiving use, conditions, and affirmative or negative polarity; then compare exact facts with q in a separate current-case judgement returning satisfies, fails, or cannot decide. For cannot decide, name the missing fact and reopen condition. Neighboring claims stay with the owners listed at right. Queries: "Do the endpoint epistemes concern different exact entities?", "What identifies r?", "What invariant, loss, use, conditions, and polarity does q state?", "Which exact facts determine the judgement?" | 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.RI | Recover Agent-Relative References for Action | Stable | Use when passing an account to another participant leaves a reference unclear—for example, whose left side or project is meant. Recover the source reference, what the receiving use must preserve and who will act; derive an interpretation or instruction, or name the missing condition. | Builds on: A.6.P. Coordinates with: C.2.1, A.6.3.RT, A.6.4, B.5.EA. |
| 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 | Affordance and Action-Invitation Precision Restoration (ACT-INV) | Stable | Keywords: affordance, action-first language, wording recovery, physical opportunity, detection, inquiry question. Queries: "What does this affordance claim mean?", "Does the statement concern an opportunity, its detection, or an inquiry?", "Which subject rule justifies the recovered claim?" | 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 and Interface Claim 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: Say Exactly What Something Depends On | 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 — Shared Conditions for Joint Use 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 - Restoring the concrete claim behind "same / equivalent / align" (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, turnkey, end-to-end, coverage, completion, order/time, publication-carrier and EntityOfConcern/Description distinction, system-role–Method–Work distinctions. Queries: “How to unpack ‘whole/part/integrity’ in FPF?”, “What does ‘complete’, ‘turnkey’, or ‘end-to-end’ cover?”, “ComponentOf vs ConstituentOf vs PortionOf vs collection belonging vs PhaseOf”, “How to separate parthood from integrity measurement, assurance, and Work completion?” | 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: Repair Conflations of FPF Objects (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: Test a U-Kind Across Domains | 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 | Choose and Check an Aggregation Law for the Intended Result | Stable | Keywords: aggregation law, intended result, dependency model, ordered composition, singleton identity, bounds, cross-scale consistency. Queries: "Which operation answers this aggregation question?", "May I reorder or regroup these inputs?" | Coordinates with: B.1, B.2, C.29, A.19.CN, A.19.ULSAM. |
| A.10 | Evidence Graph Referring: Claim-Bound Evidence and Provenance Graph | 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. A compatible reference repair or sufficient direct result can finish without a second account; a no-impact claim still needs adequate coverage and support. 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 | Tests one proposed durable ontology addition against the best existing governed expression, bounded overlap, action-facing contribution, and nearest excluded case for the exact receiving use and facts. Relation-kind candidates keep the exact A.6.P / A.6.RCD outcome. Queries: "What existing governed expression already carries this claim or use?", "What exact loss and boundary justify the addition?" | Builds on: E.24.UK, A.6.P, A.6.RCD, A.8, C.3, F.8, F.18. Constrains: new core-concept, durable U-kind, and relation-kind proposals. |
| A.11.OP | Decision-Relevant Least Action and Operational Parsimony: Test a Proposed Requirement | Stable | Screen a proposed mandatory action or apparatus for a substantive decision, selected result, or relied-on assurance or recovery contribution within a named horizon. Contribution alone does not establish obtainability, worth or an obligation; complete the live demand or choice question through its direct owner. | Companion to: A.11. Coordinates with: C.11.DUA, C.11, E.11.PUA, E.11.PUR, C.19.2, E.13, E.23, and the direct Method, Work, reliance, assurance, and authority owners named in its Relations. |
| A.12 | Acting-Side Externalization and Reflexive Split: Identify Who Acts on What | Stable | Name the proposed acting participant and the subject claimed to change. Use A.12's precise frame when their identities or a particular System, change, Work or evidence claim matters. Keep the changed subject's identity rule; recognize the same acting entity as a System only under A.1; apply the direct rule for each participation, assignment, A.3.4 transformation, Method, Work, evidence, crossing or parthood claim. For an internal-parts reading, use Reflexive Split only when two distinct entity parts have independently obtaining part relations to 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, and A.10. |
| 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: Plan Content for Coordinating Future Work | 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: Plan a Value for an Existing Declaration Member | 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 | Recover What Project, Process, or Case Wording Refers To | Stable | Recover the subject of a project, process, or case claim, then use the pattern that defines it. An actual project is independently admitted composite U.Work; a process concern may select U.Method, an A.22 structure, or TransformationFlowStructure; a case follows its named subject or claim to closure. Reopen project focus through C.11 only when that choice remains current. Queries: "What does project, process, or case mean in this claim?", "Is this intended work or performed project Work?", "Which subject must this case closure decide?" | 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 | Use or Request 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 and return the supported answer with its material limit or exact blocker. A further request is selected only when its obtainable contribution warrants the whole acquisition burden. 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: C.11.DUA, 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.15.10 | Resume Interrupted Work | Stable | Use when an interruption or handoff has left the next item visible but the purpose, operative method or usable prior result uncertain. Recover only what a useful continuation needs; prepare a return cue when its benefit warrants the effort. Continue directly when the working basis is already available. | Builds on: A.15. Coordinates with: A.15.5, A.15.7, A.15.8, A.15.9, B.5.RA, B.5.RC, B.5.RR, C.11.DUA, E.23.CAE, B.1.5. |
| A.15.11 | Make Applicable Methods Noticeable in Work | Stable | Use when a useful method goes unconsidered during work, including successful work that could benefit from another way. Arrange an encounter that makes its contribution understandable and its next operation accessible; retain, change or remove the arrangement according to its value and cost. | Builds on: A.15. Coordinates with: A.15.7, B.1.5.EW, C.40, C.40.CD, C.11.CRC, C.11.DUA, E.11, E.23.CAE, E.23.CDI. |
| A.15.PROD | Production Work, Entity-Identity Inception, and Production Completion Recovery | Stable | Recovers three separate receiver-selected answers: whether exact dated Work is the whole production Work or its proper part; when governed effects of exact Work first made the applicable identity rule hold so one exact entity began to exist; and whether the exact completion subject satisfied its criterion at a historical boundary and a separate closure governor closed the exact production Work. Work, actual change, entity identity, state satisfaction, Work completion, delivery, acceptance, release, publication, and availability remain separate. | Builds on: A.13, A.15.1, conditional F.6, A.3.1, A.3.4, C.2.1, A.6.RCD. Coordinates with: A.1, A.6.1, C.2.P, A.15.2, A.15.6, A.10, B.3, E.24.PUB, G.11, A.6.P.WMR, E.18.1, F.18, and the direct identity, work-to-change, completion, delivery, acceptance, release, and availability patterns. |
| A.16 | Language-State Moves: Choose the Next Publication and Use of a Cue or Claim | Stable | Choose one language-state publication move and its guard; keep first cue preservation, form-only publication, and a content-changing successor distinct. The receiving pattern decides whether the stronger use is supported. Keywords: language-state, move, reopen, sketch-backoff, respecify, retire. Queries: "How can I preserve this cue without calling it a requirement?", "Does this revision need a new episteme?", "Which publication move and next-use test are justified?" | 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 | Keep an Episteme's Language-State and Publication History Recoverable | Stable | Keywords: LanguageStateMoveTrajectory, history account, source edition, branch, loss, publication form, next use. Queries: "Which language-state history does the next use need?", "Is this a new account, a new display or an actual fork?" | Builds on: C.2.1, C.2.2a, A.16, E.24.PUB. Coordinates with: A.16.1/.2, B.4.1, B.5.2.0, E.17.1. |
| A.16.1 | PreArticulationCuePack: Preserve an Early Cue Before Choosing Its Use | Stable | Keywords: cue pack, pre-articulation, early publication, cue nucleus, primary witness, candidate route cues. Queries: "How do I keep a meaningful early cue without turning it into a requirement or selected route?", "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, or Retire a Language-State Publication | 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 | Canonical “Characteristic” (A.CHR-NORM): Name What Is Measured | Stable | Keywords: characteristic, measurement, property, attribute, dimension, axis, scale order, preference, quantity calculation, scoring. Queries: "What is the correct term for a measurable property?", "What is measured, and which bearer or ordered tuple does it concern?", "Does a higher measured value mean better?", "Is a calculated quantity an evaluative score?" | 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, scale order, use-dependent preference, 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?", "When do I need a conversion, a measurement model or an evaluative ScoringMethod?" | 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: Coordinates, State Predicates and Dynamics Hook (A.CHR‑SPACE) | Stable | Keywords: CharacteristicSpace, U.Dynamics.stateSpace, state trajectories, CharacteristicSpacePredicate, reusable state conditions, 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?", "How do I define a reusable condition on one state?" | 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: Define What Counts as Better | Stable | Guides construction or repair of an evaluation for one object kind and use: characteristics, scale meanings, evidence, missing observations, calibration and boundaries. When the evaluation changes, compare missed defects, difficult admissible cases, harmful repairs and full cost; distinguish known-case development from independent adoption. | 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 | Repair State and Status Wording | Stable | Repair state, status, posture, readiness, stance and currentness wording by recovering the bearer, actual claim and governing rule. Stop with a clear ordinary sentence when that is enough; recover a formal state frame, value set, bounded use and reopen condition only when the claim requires them. | 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 | Interpretive Views of Declared Source Sets and Search/Outcome Spaces | 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: Specify and Maintain Comparability and 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: Shared Rules for Characterization and Selection | 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 | Normalize Coordinate Values under Declared Invariants (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 | Indicatorization (UINDM): Select Indicators Under a Declared Policy | 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 | Compare Admitted Profiles under a Declared Comparator (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, SelectorMechanism, selected candidate set, explicit criteria, finite basis of binary CPM applications, required comparison coverage, ComparisonResultSlot, SelectEligibility, pass/degrade/abstain. Queries: "How do I select a candidate set from already established comparisons?", "Which comparisons must be available for this selection?", "When may missing evidence permit a reduced set, and when must selection abstain?" | Builds on: A.6.1, A.6.5, A.19.CHR, A.19.CN, G.0, G.5, C.22. Used by: A.19.CHR, G.5, E.18. Coordinates with: A.19.USCM, A.19.ULSAM, CPM (comparison stage). |
| 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 | Which Continuations Are Available? — Constraint-Governed Unfolding Structure (CGUS) | Stable | Identify the available, blocked or unknown alternatives in an explanation from their conditions and current facts. Stop with that ordinary answer when it is enough. Formal CGUS qualification requires one A.22 structure with local loci and at least two potential continuations across allowed cases; each present-case result remains separate from structure identity, a displayed path and any Work or permission claim. Queries: "Which continuations are available now?", "What fact or rule blocks each alternative?", "When does this explanation need formal structure identity or replay?" | 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 | Recover what the aggregation claim is about before choosing a notation. For a part–whole claim, name the whole, parts, obtaining part relations and construction basis. Route collection belonging, Method composition, performed-Work parts and mathematical representations to their direct patterns; use C.13 for the construction account and B.2 only for whole reidentification. Queries: "Is this a part–whole claim or another kind of aggregation?", "What makes these objects parts of this whole?", "Which pattern supplies the construction or calculation?" | 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 | Resolve what each claimed dependency means and which facts make the relation obtain before using its diagram in an aggregation or whole-level claim. Apply graph checks only through a declared representation and the relation's own rule. Queries: "Does this dependency mean parthood, order, supply or representation?", "What makes the relation obtain?", "Which conclusions can this graph check support?" | Builds on: B.1, A.14, C.13. Coordinates with: C.29, A.10, B.3.5. |
| B.1.2 | Coordinate Decisions About System Aggregation and 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 | Knowledge Aggregation (Γ_epist): Synthesis and Target-Scheme Compilation | Stable | Synthesize exact epistemes for a named question, or compile an existing synthesis into one target reference scheme. Preserve source contributions, dependencies, conflicts and mapping limits. Return a justified aggregate calculation or a bounded reasoned synthesis without a common score. Queries: "How do I synthesize claims from heterogeneous sources?", "Which support can be combined, and which must stay separate?", "How do I compile the result for another reference scheme?" | Builds on: B.1, A.1, C.2. |
| B.1.4 | Specify Order-Sensitive or Temporal Aggregation (Γ_ctx, Γ_time) | 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.1.5.EW | Recover How Constituent Actions Enact Encompassing Work | Stable | Start with one action and explain what encompassing work is being performed through it. Vary a whole-work condition to locate a needed change in the action, its coordination or the requested result; recover missing constituent know-how or capability only as far as this use needs. Queries: "What larger work am I doing through this action?", "Why does an adequate isolated action fail in this combination?" | Builds on: B.1.5, A.15.1. Coordinates with: B.1.5.RS, A.22.CGUS, C.30.LCA, C.32.MWA. |
| B.1.5.RS | Evaluate a Constituent Method Replacement in Its Encompassing Uses | Candidate | Compare a replacement with the results, interactions and resource conditions required by each encompassing use; accept, restrict, adapt or reject the substitution. | Builds on: A.3.1, B.1.5. Coordinates with: B.1.5.EW, C.11.DUA, C.29. |
| 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 | Clarify Emergence and Meta-Holon Transition (MHT) Claims | 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: Test the Proposed New Whole as a System | 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 | Test whether B.2's proposed new knowledge whole satisfies A.1 and the C.2.1 ClaimGraph–EntityOfConcern–ReferenceScheme constitution. Reassess support for its claims; keep source synthesis, ordinary episteme changes and publication under their direct patterns when no whole-reidentification question remains. Queries: "Does this body of results constitute a new theory or knowledge whole?", "Which source evidence still supports the resulting claims?" | 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 | Do Capability or Functioning Changes Require 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 | Is This Claim Supported for This Use? — 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: use-qualified assurance, conceptual correspondence, verification, empirical validation, constructive support, assurance profile. Queries: "Does this evidence support the claim and use we actually rely on?", "What does this assurance level establish, and under which profile?" Distinguish support contributions without a universal maturity ladder or an irrelevant proof requirement. | Builds on: B.3. Coordinates with: A.10, C.28, B.3.4, B.3.5. |
| B.3.4 | Can Earlier Evidence Still Support This Use? — Evidence Decay and Epistemic Debt | Stable | Keywords: evidence currentness, age, changed premise, qualification window, refresh, epistemic debt. Queries: "Can older evidence still support this unchanged use?", "Which changed condition requires reconsideration, narrower use or a worthwhile refresh?" Keep real rights, calibration and promised-use limits; interpret debt only under an adopted planning model, without automatic truth decay or risk acceptance. | Builds on: B.3. Coordinates with: A.10, C.11, C.19.2, C.27.TA, G.11. |
| B.3.5 | Assurance Grounding for Working-Model Relation Claims (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 | Coordinate Repeated Adaptation (Canonical Evolution Loop) | Stable | Connect an exact subject's use, observed basis, proposed or actual change and renewed use. Apply its own identity rule to distinguish continuation, successor and separate Work occurrences; record only the phases that occurred. Queries: "How do observations lead to a change that is actually used?", "Did the subject change, or only its description?", "What remains open after deployment?" | Builds on: A.4, A.12. Refined by: B.4.1. Carries embedded slices for: knowledge instantiation and method instantiation. |
| B.4.1 | Publish Candidate Routes for a Stabilized Cue (RoutedCueSet) | Stable | Make possible continuations from a stabilized cue explicit, with their grounds and the missing facts that would distinguish them. Keep several routes live or state a justified selection; enter a downstream pattern only when its conditions hold. Queries: "Should this signal lead to intervention, inquiry or a requirement question?", "What would justify choosing one route?" | 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 | Choose the Next Reasoning Contribution (Canonical Reasoning Cycle) | Candidate | Use when an engineer or researcher has a question, surprising result or promising construction, but the next useful contribution is unclear. State what you want to understand or make possible; reuse an adequate result or choose the missing reasoning contribution. | Coordinates with: B.5.1 for development states, B.5.2 for explanation-led abduction, B.5.4 for situational recognition, B.5.EA for an experiential distinction not yet expressible, C.29 for mathematical-lens use, and A.10 for evidence reliance. |
| B.5.EA | Articulate a Working Distinction from Experience | Stable | Use when a participant recognizes something consequential in their experience but cannot yet express the distinction needed to continue. Return to an accessible episode, develop a correctable expression and use the resulting question or relation. | Coordinates with: B.5 and B.5.FM for reasoning and model construction; B.5.4 for situational recognition; B.5.RR for changed premises; C.11.DUA for worthwhile further work. |
| B.5.WN | Develop Lines of Thought with Working Notes | Stable | Use when retained observations, reading or tentative thoughts do not yet help develop a question or argument. Formulate one thought with its grounds, make a consequential connection, follow what changes and leave a usable return. Keep a sufficient project record for ordinary continuation. Queries: "How can these notes develop an argument?", "What question emerges from this connection?", "What should remain for a later occasion?" | Coordinates with: B.5.EA, B.5.QD and B.5.RR for articulation, question development and revision; A.6.3.RT.OE for an operative expression; A.15.10/.11 for resumption and encounters; C.2.8 and C.11.DUA for usable recovery and worthwhile effort. |
| B.5.MPC | Connect Physical, Mathematical and Computational Reasoning | Stable | Use when a physical question remains unanswered because the needed physical, mathematical or computational contributions do not yet connect. Start with an available contribution, recover its conditions, obtain a sufficient consequence and interpret it for the physical use. Queries: "Which missing contribution prevents the next move?", "What changes when a quantity, command or physical premise changes?", "How can people and AI agents divide this work?" | Coordinates with: B.5, A.3.3, C.16, A.6.3.RT, C.29, C.29.1, C.29.2, C.29.3, C.39 and C.40. |
| B.5.MPC.R | Repair a Physical-Mathematical-Computational Connection | Stable | Use when a changed question or observed discrepancy breaks the joint physical answer. Locate the incompatible relation, interpretation, computation or execution; repair its contribution and carry the result back to the physical use. Queries: "Why is a correct calculation unusable here?", "What continues during a controller pause?", "Can these observations distinguish the physical cases?" | Specializes: the revision work in B.5 and B.5.MPC. Uses: B.5.RR, C.29.1, C.29.2, C.29.3, A.3.3, C.16, A.6.3.RT and A.15.9. |
| B.5.RC | Recover a Construction from Its Description | Stable | Use when a description points to a result you need but leaves you unable to obtain it from available inputs. Recover producing operations and their prerequisites, work a small case forward, and establish the property needed for the next use or locate the missing contribution. Queries: "What must be available before this operation?", "How do these parts produce the required object?", "Which gap prevents the construction?" | Coordinates with: B.5 and B.5.RA for reasoning, A.6.3.RT for expression, C.29.1/C.29.2 for mathematical transfer and computational formulation, and C.39 for a missing method. |
| B.5.RA | Recover an Argument for Its Next Use | Stable | Use when you need to recover or challenge the reasoning behind a result for application, explanation or revision. Reconstruct unclear claims and dependencies; for an already clear defeasible argument, begin with a consequential critical question. Keep supported results and trace changes through affected grounds. Queries: "Why does this step follow?", "What does this lemma contribute to the whole argument?", "How can I turn this text into an argument map?", "Which critical question could change this conclusion?", "Does this reasoning support the use I need?" | Coordinates with: B.5 and B.5.RC for inquiry and construction, B.5.RR for revision, B.5.MPC for joint reasoning, and C.2.8/C.37 for recipient understanding and representation choice. |
| B.5.RR | Revise Reasoning After a Premise or Question Changes | Stable | Use when a changed premise, question or application condition calls earlier reasoning into question. Follow the affected dependencies, retain sufficient alternatives, derive what now follows and apply the revised result. Queries: "Which part needs to be worked again?", "Does another argument still support the conclusion?", "What does the changed result let us do?" | Coordinates with: B.5, B.5.RA and B.5.RC for reasoning, B.5.MPC.R for joint physical reasoning, and C.11.DUA for further effort. |
| B.5.FM | Construct a First Model for the Working Question | Stable | Use when relevant facts or rules are available but no model yet supports the needed inference. Choose what the model must distinguish and how its parts are related, then derive a consequence for the task. Queries: "Which participants or interactions must the model include?", "How can I build a model before commissioning a calculation?", "What grouping makes the next operation possible?" | Coordinates with: B.5, B.5.4, C.29, A.3.3, C.16 and A.6.3.RT for model construction; B.5.RR and B.5.MPC.R for revision. |
| B.5.TU | Construct a Working Use of an Unfamiliar Theory | Stable | Use when a theory seems useful but its objects and reasoning have not yet been connected to a usable answer. Recover the needed operations, work one application and interpret its consequence for the question. Queries: "What can this theory help me do?", "Which input or operation is missing?", "Why does a correct calculation fail to answer the working question?", "What must I understand to use or change this result?" | Coordinates with: B.5, B.5.RC, B.5.RA and B.5.RR for reasoning; C.29 and A.6.3.RT for mathematical correspondence and expression; A.15.9 for bounded help. |
| B.5.TC | Compare Theoretical Accounts for a Working Question | Stable | Use when accounts appear to disagree or compete for a use. Construct their applications to the same case, locate the consequential difference and choose a sufficient account, complementary use or worthwhile inquiry. Queries: "Do these theories answer the same question?", "Does the disagreement come from a premise, a model or its computation?", "When is the simpler account enough?", "What observation or construction would resolve the difference that matters?" | Coordinates with: B.5.TU, B.5.RA and B.5.RR for applications and reasoning; C.29.1, C.29.2 and C.29.3 for transfer and computation; C.28 for causal use; F.0.2 for synthesis; C.11.DUA for worthwhile inquiry. |
| B.5.QD | Develop a New Question from a Result or Construction | Stable | Use when a counterexample, result or newly available operation changes what could be investigated but the next question is unclear. Recover the changed dependency, construct the answer form and work a revealing case before choosing the inquiry. Queries: "What useful question follows from this failure?", "What can we now ask using this construction?", "Can a bound answer the need?", "Which next problem opens further work?" | Coordinates with: B.5.RA and B.5.RR for reasoning; B.5.MPC for joint contributions; C.39 and C.40 for methods and coupled development; E.10.INT and C.11.DUA for worthwhile inquiry. |
| B.5.QD.CF | Reformulate a Problem by Examining Its Conflicting Assumptions | Stable | Use when needed outcomes appear incompatible and examining their premises could reveal another way. Recover the need, expose an assumed necessity or shared condition, construct a new question or candidate way, and return to the retained requirements. Queries: "Which assumption makes these requirements conflict?", "Is this means necessary?", "What remains impossible under the retained conditions?" | Specializes: B.5.QD. Uses: B.5.FM, B.5.RA and B.5.TC. Coordinates with: C.40.CD, C.11.DUA and B.1.5.EW. |
| B.5.1 | Coordinate Development States: Explore → Shape → Evidence → Operate | Stable | Use when a project needs a shared account of whether a system or episteme is being explored, shaped, evaluated or operated. Name the development subject and the prerequisites for its intended transition; assess a claim's support for its use separately. Queries: "What development state is this subject in?", "What must hold before its next transition?", "Can a useful result be used before development reaches Operation?" | Builds on: B.5. |
| B.5.2 | Generate and Compare Candidate Explanations (Abductive Loop) | Stable | Use when an anomaly, opportunity or probe question needs rival explanations. Frame the question, generate candidates, compare explicit plausibility grounds and return a qualified conjecture or an abort, defer or split result. Queries: "What might explain this observation?", "Which rival explanations remain plausible?", "Can I retain a useful conjecture when a discriminating check is unavailable?" | 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 | Question Form for Entering Abduction (U.AbductivePrompt) | Stable | Defines the explanatory-question publication that B.5.2 accepts as input to hypothesis work. Recover the prompt species, explanatory question, scope and provenance; keep the question distinguishable from an asserted answer. Queries: "What makes this question an admissible abductive prompt?", "Is this an open question or a disguised answer?", "Which prompt species applies?" | 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 | Instrument Abductive Hypothesis Generation with Novelty–Quality–Diversity (NQD) | Stable | Use when candidate explanations need an explicit novelty, quality and diversity search basis. Declare the coordinate and policy basis, generate within a stated budget, and return the declared front with any required exploration archive. Apply B.5.2's plausibility comparison to the hypotheses. Queries: "How do I explore varied explanatory hypotheses under a budget?", "Which coordinates define this front?", "Which off-front hypotheses remain worth retaining?" | 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 | Interpret Domain Vocabulary for an FPF Claim (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. |
| B.5.4 | Recognize a Reusable Concept in a Concrete Situation | Candidate | Use when you understand a concept's explanation but cannot yet connect it to an unfamiliar situation. Identify the participants and relations, construct their correspondence, and obtain an interpretation with a consequence that guides the next action. | Coordinates with: B.5, C.3, C.29 and A.7.1. |
| B.5.PI | Initiate Inquiry from Ongoing Work | Stable | Use an ordinary handover, demonstration or explanation to examine what a result enables and what obtaining it required, before a problem or help request is recognized. Develop a question, retain an early cue or continue without change. Queries: "Why does nobody ask for help?", "Is this recurring adjustment worth examining?", "Why does this answer leave the original concern untouched?" | Coordinates with: A.15.11 for method encounters, B.5.EA for articulation, A.16.1 for cue preservation, B.5.QD and B.5 for inquiry, C.11.DUA/.CRC for worthwhile continuation. |
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 | Epistemic holon composition (KD-CAL) | Stable | Keywords: knowledge, epistemic holon composition, KD-CAL, evidence, trust, assurance, F-G-R, Formality, ClaimScope, Reliability, Congruence Level, provenance. Queries: "How do formality, claim scope, and warrant remain distinct when composing epistemes?", "How do mappings and epistemic changes affect their use?", "What is F-G-R?". | 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 | Clarify Episteme, Publication, and Source Wording (Epistemic Precision Restoration) | Stable | Clarifies wording that leaves an episteme, publication, source-to-use, carrier, or use-disposition distinction unresolved. Recover the sentence's function and the missing distinction, then repair it or use the exact subject pattern; stop when that pattern and its current field are already clear. | 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), support dependencies, non-aggregate synthesis, direct relation, Congruence Level (CL / CL^k / CL^plane), weakest-link limits, pathwise justification (PathId), TA/VA/LA lanes. Queries: "How strongly is this exact claim warranted for this use?", "Can its support be combined numerically, or should it remain a reasoned synthesis?", "What loss does the actual reuse relation justify?", "What is R in F–G–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, formality, articulation, closure, anchoring, representation, local thresholds, episteme publication. Queries: "Which separate facet readings lie behind 'early', 'ready', or 'settled'?", "What position and local threshold does the next action use?", "What is the language-state space in FPF?" | 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 — How Explicit Is an Episteme's Meaning for Its Use? | Stable | Keywords: articulation explicitness, AE0–AE5, semantic branch, stable cue, branch-appropriate expression, receiving use. Queries: "Is the meaning explicit enough for the receiving pattern?", "What is still missing between a stable cue and a complete branch-appropriate expression?", "How does articulation differ from formality and reader-specific structural recovery?" | Builds on: C.2.2a. Coordinates with: C.2.LS, A.16. |
| C.2.5 | U.LanguageStateClosureDegree — How Fixed Is the Current Candidate Space? | Stable | Keywords: closure degree, CD0–CD5, candidate-space closure, route space, frame space, reopen, settledness. Queries: "How fixed are the current candidates, routes, or frames?", "What remains open, and what would justify reopening?", "How does closure differ from articulation and warrant?" | Builds on: C.2.2a. Coordinates with: C.2.LS, A.16. |
| C.2.6 | U.LanguageStateAnchoringMode — How Is the Episteme Anchored? | Stable | Keywords: anchoring mode, embodiment, trace, model state, document, operator loop, source anchoring, publication-face anchoring, mixed modes. Queries: "Does this episteme depend on bodily cues, traces, model state, documents, or an operator loop?", "Did publication change the anchoring visible to the receiving use?", "Which modes matter in a mixed regime?" | Builds on: C.2.2a. Coordinates with: C.2.LS, F.9.1. |
| C.2.7 | U.LanguageStateRepresentationFactorBundle — How Is the Representation Organized? | 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.2.8 | U.ExtractableStructuralInformation — Structure This Reader Can Recover | Stable | Keywords: extractable structure, reader preparation, bounded observer, structural information, epiplexity, description comparison, reading budget. Queries: "How much selected structure can this reader recover?", "How does structural amount differ from explicit articulation or reading effort?" | Builds on: A.17, A.18, C.2.1, C.16. Coordinates with: C.2.4, C.29, C.33, A.6.3.NAR, E.17.EFP; A.2.2 and E.23.CDI when recovered Method structure must be used or acquired. |
| C.2.P.DR | Repair Claims Based on Declarative Form Alone (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 | Kind Identity and Subkind Relations (U.Kind and U.SubkindOf) | 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 — 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 — Tailor the Use of an Existing Kind | 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.DUA, C.11.CRC, planned C.9, C.26, C.38, C.39, C.40, 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. |
| C.11.DBR | Reconsider a Decision When Its Relied-on Basis Changes | Stable | Use when a known earlier choice or recommendation meets a later outcome or changed condition. Recover actual reliance, compare at the same use and horizon, preserve unaffected results, and either stop with the retained use or prepare a bounded current-choice input. Queries: "Does this outcome change our earlier decision?", "What should be preserved when one premise fails?" | Uses: A.10, C.16, C.27. Coordinates with: A.10.1, E.18.1, C.11, C.11.DUA and direct subject decisions. Causal use: C.28. |
| C.11.DUA | Make Advice and Evidence Demands Worth Their Burden | Stable | Use when advice turns uncertainty or a requirement into costly, infeasible or questionable work for its recipient. Recover the receiving question and demand; distinguish present support, feasible continuation and worthwhile inquiry; appraise disputed requirements and their force; complete the useful answer with only the explanation its use needs. Queries: "Will more evidence change this decision?", "What can we reasonably do now?", "Is the requirement itself worth its burden?" | Uses: A.10, C.11, C.11.CRC, C.19.2. Coordinates with: C.18, C.28, D.4 and domain methods. Used by: F.19, E.19, E.11.PUA. |
| 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, Scale order, measurement-model construction, indication-producing procedure, 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 construct a measurement relation and find what an indication can resolve?", "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.MR | Construct a Measurement Relation | Stable | Use when an indication or proposed procedure lacks a suitable relation to the property being sought. Follow how the indication is produced, combine the subject and instrument relations, retain consequential influences and obtain a conditional result or a missing contribution. Queries: "Does the instrument change the value I want?", "How do calibration and interaction combine?", "Which effect needs a correction?", "What can this count or response mean?" | Coordinates with: C.16, A.3.3, B.5.RC, B.5.FM, B.5.MPC.R, C.29.2 and C.11.DUA. |
| C.16.IR | Determine What a Measurement Indication Can Resolve | Stable | Use when an available measurement relation leaves the interpretation of an indication unresolved. Construct joint compatible cases, preserve branches and distinguish feasible values from outer bounds; return the value, comparison or ambiguity that matters to the question. Queries: "Can different values give this reading?", "Does this bound settle my threshold?", "What do two readings determine together?", "What changes when reading error is restored?" | Coordinates with: C.16, C.16.MR, C.29.1, C.29.2, A.3.3.PI, B.5.MPC.R and C.11.DUA. |
| C.16.RM | Repair a Measurement Model or Arrangement | Stable | Use when an existing measurement disagrees with an expectation or cannot settle the needed distinction. Compare changes to models, apparatus and calculation; retain the wanted quantity, reinterpret usable observations and test the repaired contribution. Queries: "Should I change the model or the setup?", "Can I remove an influence instead of estimating it?", "Can the earlier readings still be used?", "Does a computation test support this physical claim?" | Coordinates with: C.16, C.16.MR, C.16.IR, B.5.MPC.R, B.5.RR, C.29.2, C.28 and C.11.DUA. |
| C.16.P | Restore Precision to Characteristic and Scale Wording | 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), ScaleWindow, compute‑elasticity, data‑elasticity, resolution‑elasticity, elasticity class, knee, diminishing returns, probe uncertainty. Queries: "What scaling behavior do the probes support over this resource window?", "Where is a knee supported, and when should the behavior class remain unresolved?", "What scale and parity conditions must travel with this claim?" | 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 | Use when a comparison relies on scale advantage or a declared generality preference. Start with the cheap scale-claim probe; retain task family, cost, risk, parity and uncertainty. Return a bounded comparison, no scale-based preference, a declared local policy or analogy, or a bounded use with no scale claim. Select a fuller audit or waiver only when its conditions apply, including in E.23 method-family choice. | 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.39 for a missing obtaining explanation; C.40 for feasible variation and examination; C.18 for generation accounts and archive/front stewardship; 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 | Field Health & Structure (Discipline-CHR) | Stable | Keywords: discipline, field health, reproducibility, standardisation, formal recognition, practice adoption, alignment, disruption, evidence resolution, diversity. Queries: "What does the available material support about this discipline's health or structure?", "When is one qualitative health claim enough?", "Which scales, populations and time windows make these readings comparable?" | 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 | Use when a task-family adaptation claim must expose the threshold target, time and budget to threshold, prior exposure, and any claimed transfer, retention, downside or corridor entry. State explicitly when the threshold was not reached; a threshold crossing alone does not establish durable specialization. | 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 | MethodFamily Evidence & Maturity (Method‑SoS‑LOG) | Stable | Keywords: MethodFamily, evidence, maturity, SoS-LOG, admission rules, admit, degrade, abstain, selector. Queries: "May this method family be admitted for this task and use?", "When should evidence or eligibility yield a narrower use or abstention?", "How is evidence-backed maturity stated without becoming an acceptance threshold?" | Builds on: G.5, G.4, C.22, B.3. |
| C.24 | Plan Tool or Service Calls for a Fixed Action (C.Agent-Tools-CAL) | Stable | Use after an action or option is fixed to order admitted Methods, budget tool or service calls, and state stop or replan conditions. Return a CallPlan or a bounded CheckpointReturn; reopen the domain prescription, A.15.7 or C.11 when that action basis changes. Keywords: agentic tool-use, call planning, service calls, route probe. | 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: Express a Quality Claim as One Characteristic or a Structured Bundle | 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.28.CM | Construct and Challenge a Causal Model | Stable | Turn a causal account into explicit variables and mechanisms, compare material alternatives, inspect selection and all relevant paths, and return a conditional consequence or missing premise. Use a sufficient existing model directly. Queries: "How do I build a causal model from this working situation?", "Which rival mechanism changes the proposed action?", "Could recording or selection explain the apparent relation?" | Coordinates with: B.5.FM, B.5.2, C.16, C.27, C.28, C.28.MR, C.29, C.11.DUA and A.15.9. |
| C.28.MR | Derive an Intervention Consequence by Mechanism Replacement | Stable | Use when a causal model is available and a changed mechanism must be followed to its consequence. Replace the targeted equation, retain the other mechanisms and input law, and derive a value, distribution, contrast or useful bound. Queries: "What follows if this rule is replaced?", "Which equations stay in place while their output values change?", "Is the intervention outcome determined when the baseline is not?", "What later feedback must be represented?" | Coordinates with: C.28, A.3.3.TR, B.5.MPC, B.5.RR and C.29.1. |
| C.29 | Mathematical Lens Use | Stable | Use when a mathematical representation could expose a needed relation, invariant, obstruction, approximation or resource limit, or when a result is being carried beyond the representation's supported use. Construct the correspondence, derive a consequence and return its meaning and limits to the working question. Queries: "Which mathematical construction answers this question?", "What does it preserve or lose?", "What changes in the project if this consequence holds?" | 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 and F.9. Related Methods: C.29.1, C.29.2, C.29.3 and C.29.BB. Coordinates with: B.5.MPC, C.26, C.28 and C.39. |
| C.29.1 | Mathematical Result Transfer | Stable | Use when an operation or result must be carried from one mathematical account to another. Compare performing then mapping with mapping then performing, test representative choice and recover a transferable consequence, a bound or a repair. Queries: "Does this summary preserve the operation and its permissions?", "Can two represented cases give different answers?", "Does the receiving answer correspond to a feasible source action?" | Coordinates with: C.29 for the representation question, B.5 for construction and argument recovery, A.3.3 for retained state, and A.6.3.RT for expression under a scheme. |
| C.29.2 | Computational Formulation | Stable | Use when the required answer or available computing means are known, but the state, operations and obtaining procedure are not yet connected. Construct a computation, establish the claimed result and estimate the resources its use consumes. Queries: "How can these relations yield the newly requested unknown?", "Which representation makes the computation feasible?", "What accuracy or probability guarantee does this procedure provide?" | Coordinates with: C.29.1 for result transfer, C.29.3 for realization, A.3.3 for state, A.6.3.RT for notation, and C.39/C.40 for a missing construction. |
| C.29.3 | Computational Realization | Stable | Use when a computation and a candidate executing system are available but their connection is unsettled. Relate preparation, system operation and readout; compare the interpreted result with the required equality, bound or behavior. Queries: "What does this command make the system do?", "Do range, timing or shared state invalidate the result?", "Do correct individual outputs compose into the required joint result?" | Coordinates with: C.29.2 for computation, A.6.1 for realization, A.3.3 for state, C.16 for observation, and B.5.MPC for the joint physical question. |
| C.29.BB | Construct a Balance across a Boundary | Stable | Use when a changing total must be related to transfers, production and removal. Choose an additive quantity and included parts, combine compatible accounts and revise them when the boundary changes. Queries: "Which transfers cross this boundary?", "What changes when the connector is included?", "Can a bound settle the question without measuring every term?" | Coordinates with: A.3.3.TR for state change, C.29.1 for aggregation, C.29.2 for computational preservation, E.18.2 for flow descriptions, and C.11.DUA for further inquiry. |
| C.30 | Grounded Architecture and Selected-Structure Adequacy | Stable | Keywords: grounded architecture, ArchitectureRelation, ArchitectureClaim, ArchitectureOf@Context, selected structure, actual and candidate architecture, architecture question, next architecture move. Queries: "Which holon and actual or candidate structure are we reasoning about?", "What is the next architecture move?", "When does the question need description work or candidate synthesis?" | 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, multi-view description, viewpoint conformance, cross-view correspondence, source return, freshness, specification use. Queries: "Which structures and sources does this architecture description cover?", "Can these views be combined or reused for this architecture move?", "When must work return to a source or refresh the description?" | 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 | Clarify Architecture and Structure Wording (Precision Restoration) | Stable | Keywords: architecture wording, structure wording, precision restoration, diagram, model, structural view, architecture description. Queries: "Does this wording name architecture, a selected structure, a description, or another claim?", "Which pattern applies once the meaning is clear?" | 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 | Clarify Stratification and Architecture Source Labels | Stable | Keywords: stratification, precision restoration, source labels, layer, level, tier, stack, ladder, rung, block, expert, cache, router, gate. Queries: "What technical claim does this source label support?", "Is this a subject level or a grouping in the description?", "When can the clear local wording simply remain?" | 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. |
| C.30.ASV | Architecture Structural View Adequacy (ASV) | Stable | Keywords: architecture structural view, ASV, structure kind, viewpoint conformance, hidden and lost structure, correspondence, source return. Queries: "Which architecture structure does this view show, and what does it leave out?", "Does the description conform to the named viewpoint?", "When must the next use return to the 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, controller, plant, observer, supervisor, feedback closure, rate band. Queries: "What controls what through observation, commands, and feedback?", "Which control relations does this diagram actually represent?", "Which rate, stability, or safety claim needs a separate test?" | 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 | Use Transformation-Flow Structures and Networks in Architecture | Stable | Keywords: transformation-flow structure, TFS, transformation-flow structure network, architecture use, functional view, ArchitectureTransformationFlowStructureRelation, path, crossing, flow valuation. Queries: "How does this architecture question use a selected flow structure or network?", "Which named holon or holons supply the architecture side of this network use?", "Is this a required effect, a flow description, or an actual transformation?" | 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 characteristics change the next architecture repair?", "What improves and what gets worse when we change this structure?", "When does this modularity claim need measurement or comparison?" | 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 | Which Architecture Is Preferable Under Scale? (Scale Amenability) | Stable | Keywords: architecture scale preference, scale amenability, scale variable, scale window, architecture alternatives, exception growth, waiver, scale probe, coarse-graining. Queries: "Which architecture structure remains stable or improves over the declared scale window?", "What evidence or no-probe reason supports the preference?", "When does a local constraint justify an exception?" | 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, Method, Work, System, starter characteristics, domain transfer. Queries: "Which qualities matter for this Method, performed Work or System?", "How do bearer kind, domain and concrete use change the starter questions?", "When do these heads pass 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 | Stable | Keywords: architecture criteria, required result, structural alternatives, attainable observation, Q-Bundle, proxy risk, protected qualities. Queries: "Which quality is relevant to this architecture decision?", "Which few indicators guide improvement while all necessary guardrails remain?", "How do criteria feed evaluation and 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, architecture fitness-function source wording, current-architecture evaluation, monitoring, eval result, measurement boundary, parity frame, missing-data policy, proxy risk, comparison input. Queries: "How do I evaluate current architecture or candidates and monitor change against declared criteria?", "How do I use architecture fitness-function practice while keeping criterion, evaluation, and result distinct?", "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 | Architecture Candidates to Reduce Cross-Scope Residuals | 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 | Synthesize an Architecture Account of Methods and Their Use | Stable | Connects Methods with performed or planned Work, support and development through structures that do not line up one-for-one. Queries: Which structures of these methods and their use change the decision?, 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 | Assess Structural Information for Architecture Use | Stable | Keywords: structural information adequacy, captured structure, missing structure, partial description, diagram, ADR, relation graph, observer boundary, source return. Queries: "What selected structure can I recover from this carrier for architecture work?", "What does the view, record, graph, or observation leave out?", "Where must we recover missing structure before the next use?" | 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 | Assess Structural Correspondence for Architecture Use (Equivalence and Morphisms) | 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 | Assess Generated or Discovered Results for Architecture Use | Stable | Keywords: structural synthesis, structural discovery, generated result, discovered result, modal architecture proposal, candidate input, DSM, NAS, LLM. Queries: "Can this generated or discovered result be used for architecture work?", "What already obtains and what is only proposed?", "Which condition must be met before the next architecture use?" | 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—or when a project needs to influence those relations without mistaking a label, platform, archive, or popularity score for the changing practice. A qualified current account or supported continuation can finish without a new intervention or study. 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 | Select and Use Representations for One Action | Stable | Keywords: representation selection, co-use, diagram, model, plan, record, exposure, loss, receiving action. Queries: "Which representations can this receiver use for one action or decision?", "What does each candidate expose or leave out?", "When can several results be used together for this 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.39 | Find and Develop a Way to Obtain a Result | Stable | Use when a needed result lacks an explained obtaining way, connection to another use, or adaptation after change. Reuse an adequate Method and stop. Otherwise construct the missing join, distinguish composition and result use, explain the way for its next practitioner, and change only affected connections while retaining qualified uses. No framework-author role or pattern format is required. | Uses: professional Methods, F.0.1, F.1 and C.39.RO. Coordinates with: C.38, C.40, C.30.ASV, C.32.MWA and C.11. B.1.5/EW/RS, A.22.CGUS and A.3.1/A.3.2 govern stronger relation or Method claims. E.4.CM applies the general construction to framework authoring. |
| C.39.RO | Turn a Construction into a Reusable Operation | Stable | Use when a working case must become an operation that later work can vary or combine. Recover the construction, separate variable inputs from retained conditions, parameterize or connect operations, justify the supported result and examine a changed use. Queries: "How can this successful case become a reusable operation?", "Which premises survive generalization?", "What changes when the objective or physical condition changes?" | Uses: B.5.RC, B.5.TU and subject Methods. Coordinates with: C.39, B.5.RR and B.5.QD; A.3.1/A.3.2 for formal Method claims, and C.40 for further material development. |
| C.40 | Develop Branching Search from Reusable Material | Stable | Use when you have usable material and need to learn what a feasible variation makes possible. Its eventual contribution may already be selected or remain open. Perform the change, examine the difference and retain material needed for the next use. Return the variation with a justified continuation or stop. Use C.40.CD when problems and ways need development together, and C.40.CU to develop an unfamiliar response into a useful and reproducible application. | Uses: professional variation and examination Methods. Coordinates with: C.39 for a missing obtaining explanation, C.38 for finite comparison, C.18 for archive and front claims, C.19 for live-pool policy, and C.11 for local choice. |
| C.40.CD | Develop Problems and Ways of Solving Them Together | Stable | Use when a changed problem affects the way worth trying, and its result can change the next useful question. Construct the problem change, develop the obtaining operation, examine target use and retain the connection to the original need. Queries: "What question does this failure or new construction open?", "Which part of the original need does the narrower result answer?", "How do problems and methods develop together?" | Uses: B.5.QD, B.5.RC, B.5.TU and C.39.RO. Coordinates with: C.40 for material variation; B.5.MPC/MPC.R for the physical, mathematical and computational connection; C.18/C.19 for archive and continuation-policy claims; C.11.DUA for worthwhile inquiry. |
| C.40.CU | Develop a Useful and Reproducible Use of a Construct | Stable | Use when an unfamiliar response or a possible use beyond the assigned function needs to become a useful repeatable application. Let the receiving use select the worthwhile probe, compare whole ways of obtaining that use, realize the arrangement and make its conditions and operations recoverable for another occasion or performer. A changed deadline or receiving condition can require a different arrangement without invalidating the original response. | Builds on: C.40. Uses: C.28.CM, C.16.MR/IR/RM, C.38, C.11 and direct domain realization Methods. Coordinates with: C.40.CD, C.39.RO, B.1.5.EW/RS and C.32. |
| C.36.P | Clarify Cultural-Evolution Wording for a Claim or Action | Stable | Use when culture, style, tradition, genre, scene, practice, technique, platform, regime, attractor or developmental-machinery wording hides an object, relation or claim needed for the next action. State what the expression means here, then use C.36 for a cultural-evolution case or the pattern governing the recovered claim. 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. |
| C.36.RP | Sustain and Renew Shared Ways of Working | Stable | Use when changing participants, tools or questions makes a shared method hard to obtain or apply, or a useful discovery needs to become available to others. Locate the missing contribution and arrange access, acquisition or redistribution. Continue through receiving use when implementation is assigned; otherwise return the proposed arrangement and what remains to be carried out. Queries: "Who can apply or adapt this method when the device or question changes?", "Which understanding must remain with its receiver?", "How can a discovery become usable by other agents?" | Specializes: C.36. Uses: E.23.CAE and E.23.CDI for capability questions, B.5.RC, B.5.RA and B.5.MPC for reasoning, and C.40 for further variations, C.18 for retaining possibilities and C.19 for exploration over a live search pool. |
Part D - Multi-scale Ethics and Conflict Optimization
| § | ID & Title | Status | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D.1 | Clarify an Ethical Claim's Value Basis (Value Plurality) | Stable | Makes the ethical claim or question, affected EntityOfConcern, value concern, and intended use explicit. Qualifies the basis of an ethical judgement and uses a frame or evidence return for the particular reasoning or reliance that needs it. | Builds on: E.2, A.1, A.7. Coordinates with: D.2, D.3, D.4, D.5, A.10, B.3, C.11, C.11.DUA. |
| D.2 | Recognize Ethical Concerns Across Levels and Scopes (Multilevel Ethics) | 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 | Describe an Ethical Conflict Across Levels or Scopes | Stable | Use when ethical claims at different levels or scopes cannot all be met as stated. Connect each side's claim, affected entity, value frame, consequence and horizon; state the tension and next use. Stop at a short note when it suffices; identify a reusable conflict-description episteme only when needed. Keywords: interlevel ethical conflict. | 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 | Use an already described ethical conflict to develop feasible alternatives and compare them under the stated value premises. Return a supported recommendation, conditional continuation, refusal or impasse, with any inquiry or neighboring-pattern return that the decision needs. | 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 | Start from the bias, fairness or impact question and intended use. A qualified metric comparison or bounded finding can suffice. Choose audit depth and further inquiry from the claim that will rely on the result; causal and assurance conclusions retain their own support requirements. | 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, first principles, shared grounds, reusable methods, 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 | FPF's Eleven Pillars and Bitter-Lesson Preference (BLP) | Stable | Keywords: principles, constitution, eleven pillars, invariants, P-1 to P-11, Bitter-Lesson Preference, BLP, scalable methods, scale audit. Queries: "What are the governing principles of FPF?", "What is the Bitter-Lesson Preference and when does it apply?", "What must a BLP scale audit establish?" | Builds on: E.1. Prerequisite for: E.3 and all normative patterns. |
| E.2.DA | Evaluate How FPF Realizes Its Pillars (Pillar-Adequacy CharacteristicSpace) | Stable | Evaluate one declared FPF edition, corpus slice, family or publication/access change against all eleven E.2 Pillars. Return justified ordinal values, affected-use findings, a local stop or first repair, and a reopen condition. E.2 defines the Pillars; E.21 evaluates one pattern, and E.9.DA one DRR. | 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 and Agent Autonomy Profiles (ABL) | Stable | Keywords: principle taxonomy, precedence, conflict resolution, Gov, Arch, Epist, Prag, Did, autonomy budget, oversight, ABL, profile change, BLP waiver. Queries: "Which rule takes precedence in this conflict?", "Which autonomy and oversight profile is declared for these agent calls?", "What must a profile change or policy exception retain?" | Builds on: E.2. Constrains: All patterns and DRRs. |
| E.4 | FPF Ecosystem Architecture: Framework Families, Products and DPF Suites | Stable | Choose the next pattern for an FPF ecosystem question, distinguish FPF Core content from an FPF edition, separate support units from independently used products, or constitute a DPF product series and Suite. When available methods cannot supply the needed result, use C.39. Use E.4.CM to explain methods and their connections for framework reuse. Publication, access, maintenance and Suite membership keep their separate meanings. | Builds on: E.1, E.2/P-5, E.5.3. Coordinates with: C.39, E.4.CM, 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.CM | Develop Connected Methods as Framework Contributions | Stable | Use as an FPF or DPF author when relevant patterns leave readers to invent connections within one composite Method or among independent Methods. Apply C.39's general construction, explanation and change; compare the available framework supply, choose a public owner, apply the pattern content functions and form, and preserve direct uses before deriving a short entry. | Builds on: E.4, E.8. Uses: C.39/C.39.RO, A.3.1, B.1.5, B.1.5.EW, B.1.5.RS and direct subject Methods. Coordinates with: C.32.MWA, E.11, E.11.PFP, E.19, E.21, F.0.2, F.19. |
| E.4.FPF | FPF Edition Assembly: Publication Forms, Carriers and Access Routes | Stable | Rebuild and expose one First Principles Framework edition from its selected Core sources. Keep publication units, forms, presentation carriers and access routes distinct; derive the index and bodies from one selection and stop on a source, boundary or preservation mismatch. E.11.PFP supplies the common reader-facing form; E.4.PFIP checks integration and predecessor preservation; E.2.DA owns whole-FPF adequacy. | 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. When audience, support or shared change affects the choice, compare attainable benefit and the whole cost of learning, recurring application and change for human, human–AI and AI use. 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 and Local Principle Frameworks: Whether and How to Author and Publish | Stable | Start from a recurring practitioner problem and compare exact existing contributions before choosing a DPF or LPF, a contribution, another product, a thin route or stop. When framework authoring is selected, carry sources, the accepted architecture answer, usable patterns and their relations into an edition and its publication or access forms; evaluate the package and retain local refresh returns. E.4.PFAD records a later-used architecture boundary; E.4.DPF.DA evaluates the resulting exact package. | 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 | Evaluate a DPF or LPF Package for Its Declared Use (Package-Adequacy CharacteristicSpace) | Stable | Evaluate one exact domain or local framework edition for a declared package use with all D1–D12 ordinal claims, applicable publication-form checks, a bounded package status and the smallest repair. Test field coverage and first-use completeness separately from individual pattern scores or form conformance. E.21 evaluates one pattern; E.2.DA evaluates FPF's realization of its Pillars. | 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 | State a pattern or framework relation directly, including edition dependency and pairwise compatibility as separate claims. Add a generic relation row or dependency record only for a named maintenance consumer. Formal-premise use, criterion selection and optional candidate-basis analysis keep their own conditions; a row neither establishes a relation nor grants reliance or permission. | 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 | Stable | 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 | Umbrella for four FPF architectural constraints: the DevOps Lexical Firewall, Notational Independence, Unidirectional Dependency and Cross-Disciplinary Bias Audit. Use it to identify which guard-rail governs a Core, Tooling or Pedagogy change, then use E.5.1–E.5.4 for the applicable rule. These constraints do not select a lint tool or supply a domain safety decision. | 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 | Keep incidental implementation paths, commands and runnable teaching code outside normative Core, citing executable illustrations by conceptual name. Retain the exact syntax needed by a governed publication form, protocol or grammar, and operative mathematics under E.5.2. Use this lexical rule with E.5.2 for notation and E.5.3 for semantic dependency; an optional linter is not the rule. | Refines: E.5. Constrains: All Core patterns. |
| E.5.2 | Notational Independence | Stable | Keep FPF meaning recoverable while choosing a useful expression. Explain interpretation and any reasoning or construction operation; state correspondences and losses when translating, comparing or substituting expressions. A semantic mapping preserves only its named claims and conditions, not equal reader preparation, capability or effort. Use A.6.3.RT for a representation transition and A.6.3.RT.OE for an operative expression. | Refines: E.5. Constrains: All Core patterns. |
| E.5.3 | Unidirectional Dependency between FPF Families | Stable | Constrain an already identified framework-family dependency: imports must form an acyclic graph and point toward greater semantic stability. Pedagogy may use Tooling and Core; Tooling may use Core; Core imports neither. Keep specialization separate. E.4.PFR determines whether a framework-edition dependency actually obtains. | Refines: E.5. Constrains: E.4. |
| E.5.4 | Cross-Disciplinary Bias Audit | Stable | Inspect a normative pattern through Gov, Arch, Epist, Prag and Did lenses for a source-discipline bias or an unjustified imbalance. Repair the explanation or state the intended scope, and retain the useful Bias-Annotation. Use D.5 for bias, fairness or human-impact audit; use A.8 only for universal-core placement of an admitted durable U-kind candidate. | Refines: E.5. Constrains: All Core patterns. Links to: Part D. |
| Cluster E.II — The Author’s Handbook | ||||
| E.6 | Didactic Architecture of the FPF Specification | 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: Explain Rules of FPF Architectural Patterns through Cases | Stable | Make an architectural rule and its applicability concrete through System and Episteme cases. Use both where the rule spans both; state and justify a genuine single-substrate boundary. The cases show application and expose limits; universality needs its own warranted basis. E.8 supplies the section form, E.5.4 the bias lenses, and A.8 the distinct universal-core U-kind test. | Builds on: E.6. Constrains: All architectural patterns. |
| E.8 | FPF Authoring Conventions & Style Guide | Stable | Governs practitioner-first pattern authoring, discriminating titles that retain useful technical terms, 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. Develop missing instructions by tracing the required result back to its supplier and attempting the connection forward; explain the operation and test a changed use before shortening its publication. Divide a competent-reader method account from pedagogical companions; test whether instruction can be constructed without inventing an omitted part of the Method. Reuse the twelve content functions and Architectural Rationale for whole-framework and substantive-profile accounts through E.11.PFP. | E.6, E.7, E.8.ECSPF, E.9, E.10, E.19, E.21, F.18, F.19 |
| E.8.ECSPF | Author an FPF Pattern from an Accepted Evaluation CharacteristicSpace Specification | 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) for FPF Content Decisions | 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 | Evaluate a DRR for Its Declared Authoring Use (Decision-Adequacy 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.INT | Recovering What Interest or Curiosity Means Here | Stable | Use when calling something interesting or saying that it serves an interest leaves the proposed work unclear. Recover the participant, contribution and next action; distinguish information gain, learning progress, engagement and promising continuations when their substitution would change the choice. Queries: "Interesting to whom, and for what work?", "What would this observation tell the agent?", "Can this construction open further possibilities?" | Builds on: E.10 and E.10.ARCH. Uses: E.10.LRN, C.16, C.17, C.11, C.18, C.19 and C.40 for the recovered question. |
| 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, Readiness and Trajectory 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. |
| 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: conceptual prefixes, U., Γ_, ut:, tv:, namespace, registry, minting, collisions. Queries: "What do the prefixes like 'U.' mean in FPF?", "When may I introduce a new conceptual prefix, and how do I avoid collisions?". | Builds on: E.10:8.3, E.24.UK:4.1, B.1.3:4.2, B.1.4:3. Coordinates with: B.1.2:4 for system aggregation and delimitation decisions. 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, checkable claims, harness, viewpoint, publication, representation, DescriptionContext (legacy cue). Queries: "Which entity does this description concern?", "When can I rely on it as a specification?", "Which additional viewpoint, evidence or publication relation does this use actually need?". | 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 and compares titles, complete ToC rows and retrieved fragments under the information actually shown. Worked comparisons clarify a first choice when compact cues still leave a genuine ambiguity. Query: "Which fact changes my first pattern choice?" A reader starts from a recognizable situation, practical question, first useful result or 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, ordering, or reuse of an earlier result 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 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. When an earlier result is available, checks whether it can be reused for the current question and use. 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 for Markdown | Stable | Common Markdown form and faithful print or other projections for public FPF, DPF, and LPF editions: compact title, product-owned cues, logical index, Readme entry, source projection, and deterministic checks. Uses all twelve E.8 content functions to explain the whole language and its substantive profiles, with Architectural Rationale, shared sources, inherited answers, and direct pattern entry. Questions: How do the Methods work together? Where can readers find the reasons for this architecture? What changes in a narrower profile? | 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. Suite-belonging decisions use E.4:4.2 and E.4.PFAD; co-listing alone does not establish dependency, compatibility, or currentness. 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: "What cognitive benefit must formal assurance explain?", "When should we review the cognitive load imposed by FPF?", "What is the 'So What?' test in FPF?". | Builds on: E.2 (P-2). Complements: E.13. |
| E.13 | Pragmatic Utility and Proxy-to-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: Readable Claims and Recoverable Assurance | Stable | Keep the readable Working-Model claim first and its necessary support recoverable underneath. Stop with the direct claim when no current assurance requirement applies; otherwise expose only the Mapping, Logical, Constructive, or Empirical support the use requires. Questions: "How can practitioners use a claim without reading all its assurance machinery first?", "When is a separate assurance account needed?" Direct claim validity, Work, gate passage and permission remain with their governing patterns. | 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 | Reuse one already admitted catalogue edition L, retrieve its local declaration through the family designator, and resolve only the needed exact U.ViewpointRef subset to admitted viewpoint editions P. Open <G_L, K_L, R_L> constitution only for authoring, admission, disputed identity, or a named use that needs those premises. Labels and compact locators do not identify L or grant viewpoint 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 — explanation-use discipline over existing MVPK faces | 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 | Compare Sources Within a Shared Review Frame (ComparativeReviewUnit) | 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 | Check whether one bounded publication unit keeps its primary subject, carried publication move, and outside boundary clear for the present use. Return stable for current use and stop when they already suffice; otherwise choose local head restoration, whole-unit stabilization, bounded comparison, or the applicable 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 its kind and local reading, any active primary entity or relation, the carried action or question, and the 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: Introduce or Revise FPF Mechanisms (MIP) | Stable | Keywords: mechanism introduction, authoring protocol, governing-definition assignment, trigger triage, MIP-run manifest, resolvable MechanismDefinitionRef, suite boundary, declaration-local operation members, alias docking, planned baseline, wiring. Queries: "How to introduce or revise a mechanism in FPF?", "Does this edit need a MIP-run?", "Where is each mechanism or suite change defined?", "How to preserve references when a mechanism changes?" | 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 all required coordinates, ordinal values and rationales, protected trade-offs and a precision-restoration profile. Distinguishes established insufficiency from an unperformed check; returns a supported status or an explicit incomplete basis. | 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. |
| E.22 | Improvement-Oriented Quality Evaluation Question Framing | Stable | Frames one requested quality evaluation over an object version: consuming use, governing criterion, purpose, floor or aim, protected trade-offs, evidence basis and expected result form. The selected evaluation supplies findings or proposals. When the question is already scoped, use that evaluation directly; E.23 governs repeated improvement. | 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 improves an object under a declared evaluation, protected qualities and attainable cost. Keeps comparison conditions stable, justifies a change of evaluation through A.19.ECS, preserves scoped earlier results and chooses continuation or stopping by practical gain. E.22 supplies the improvement question; A.22.CGUS governs a claimed unfolding structure. | 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. When Method acquisition is the issue, compares fixed learning, adaptive learning and provision, and revises the arrangement when feedback and receiving performance disagree. Queries: "How will this holder acquire or obtain the missing Method contribution?", "What should change when practice improves but the work still fails?" | 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 | Episteme Publication: Availability, Form and Carrier | Stable | Identify the episteme edition made available, its audience and bounded use, publication form and carrier. Locate a change in claims, expression, bearing or availability; stop at one sufficient sentence unless the receiving use needs the exact relation and occurrence identity. | 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 | Semantic Synthesis across Source Ontologies | Stable | 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. This conceptual work can concern actions and Methods; constructing their ways and connections is the distinct methodological question in C.39, applied to framework authorship by E.4.CM. 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, C.39, E.4.CM, and the receiving subject pattern. |
| Cluster F.I — Context of Meaning and Lexical Inputs | ||||
| F.1 | Find and Select Sources for a Current Question | Stable | Keywords: unfamiliar terminology, inspectable candidate material, search and access limits, exact source and edition, answer-changing role, source cut, SourceCutNote. Queries: "How do I find material when I do not know its words or source?", "What could this search have missed?", "Which sources can change this answer?", "When is one known 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, E.11.PUR. |
| F.2 | Source-Local 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 | Name U-kinds, Local System-Role Kinds and SystemRoleKindDescriptions | 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 | Display Source-Local Comparisons in a Concept-Set Table | 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 for a Name | 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 | Relate Local Meanings across Contexts (Alignment and Bridge) | 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 — Clarify a Bounded Use | 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 | Apply and Interpret Evidence, Standard and Requirement Statuses | Stable | Keywords: status families, EvidenceStatus, StandardStatus, RequirementStatus, governed target, direct result, status value, scope, window, interpretation rule. Queries: "What does this status assert about this target, under which rule and window?", "Can this evidence, standard or requirement status be used for the other question?", "Which domain result, evaluation or permission must be established separately?" | Builds on: F.9, B.3. |
| F.11 | Distinguish Method, MethodDescription, Work and Outputs | 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 | Evaluate Promise Fulfilment from Work Evidence (Service Acceptance) | 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 only for an actual named assurance claim, 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: lexical continuity, deprecation, renaming labels, local aliases, splitting and merging labels, retirement, historical reading. Queries: "How do I rename or retire a label while keeping older texts interpretable?", "Does only the wording change, or does the later meaning need a subject-governed revision?", "Which legacy alias helps readers recover the present name?" | 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 Naming and Semantic Unification | Stable | Keywords: finite naming slice, SCR, RSCR, static conformance, regression, exact versions, SchemeSenseCell, NameCard, UnifiedTermRow, Bridge, result reuse. Queries: "Do these already recovered names, cells, rows and relations conform for this receiving use?", "Which changed member and dependent results need rechecking?", "Which failed subject claim must be repaired before the use can proceed?" | Builds on: F.4, F.8, F.9, F.10, F.13, F.14, F.17, F.18, C.2.1. |
| 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 | Make a Settled Naming Decision Recoverable for Reuse (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. Query: "How can I simplify technical text without making the reader guess who does what or how things relate?" | 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. |
Part G - Discipline SoTA Patterns Kit
| § | ID & Title | Status | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G.Core | Discipline SoTA Kit Invariants, Defaults and Refresh Triggers (Part G) | Stable | Keywords: Part‑G invariants, delegation-first core, RSCR trigger kinds, Default Governing Definition Index, ID continuity, core linkage. Queries: "Where is a shared Part G rule or default defined?", "Which canonical refresh trigger describes this change?", "How do I retain existing public identifiers when consolidating definitions?" | 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 | Define Admissible Comparison and Aggregation for a Frame (CG-Spec) | Stable | Keywords: CG-Spec, CG-Frame, admissible comparison and aggregation, evidence requirements, ComparatorSet, ScaleComplianceProfile (SCP), MinimalEvidence, Γ-fold, Φ(CL), Φ_plane, CL-routing, ReferencePlane, edition pins, RSCRTriggerKindId. Queries: "Which comparisons and aggregations may this frame use, and what evidence do they require?", "How does CG-Spec constrain lawful comparison and aggregation?", "What must be pinned for CG-Spec reproducibility?" | Builds on: G.Core, A.19.CN (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 | Author a Reusable CG-Frame Generator and Selector Kit | 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 (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 | Harvest and Synthesize SoTA for a CG-Frame | Stable | Keywords: state of the art, 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 | Method-Family Registry, Dispatch and Selected-Set Result Declaration | Stable | Keywords: method-family registry, generator-family registry, dispatcher, SelectorOutcomeKind, selected-set result declaration, JointUseSet, 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 state a Shortlist or RankedShortlist honestly?", "How do I declare already selected framework editions for joint use without treating them as Methods?", "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 and Provenance Ledger: Citable Evidence-Provenance Paths | 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/E.24.PUB, 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 | Package Method-Family Admissibility Rules and Maturity Ladders (SoS-LOG) | 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 | Decide Whether and How to Refresh SoTA Packs and Related Results (Telemetry and Decay) | Stable | Keywords: telemetry, use-qualified currentness, refresh, RSCR, PathSlice, Bridge Sentinels, edition-aware, epistemic debt, deprecation, re-shipping. Queries: "Does this trigger change a relied-on use, or can the current result stand?", "Which affected dependencies need a worthwhile feasible refresh?", "What warning does a later receiver need?" Preserve applicable support without an obligatory refresh plan, deprecation or waiver; plan only selected Work and report what was actually performed. | 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 and Views) | Stable | Keywords: dashboard, DHC, discipline health, coordinate results, DHCReplayBasis, DHCSeries, time series, views, optional publication, selective refresh. Queries: "How can I arrange exact discipline-health results across windows without losing their comparison basis?", "When is a local dashboard view sufficient?", "How do I publish or refresh a view when a receiving use needs it?" | 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. |
Last Updated: 2026-10-12 — upstream FPF commit f2bc67dd (github.com/ailev/FPF)