Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 10:39:28 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 10:40:04 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 11:10:20 UTC

A.15.1:5.5 - Interruptions, retries, resumptions, and description changes

  • Established end and later entry: identify a later Work occurrence when the first occurrence has actually completed or terminated and another work-entry occurs. A larger composite Work may contain both only through explicit work-part relations.
  • Retry: identify the later Work occurrence independently. Add a retry relation only through a locally declared species whose exact predicate connects it to the ended attempt and whose participant meanings, identity, cardinality, and applicability are stated; bare retryOf remains only a route cue.
  • Ambiguous interruption or resumption: preserve the actual boundary events and facts. If a named use must decide same-parent versus separate-occurrence grouping, apply its exact workContinuityPolicyRef; without that criterion, return an unresolved segmentation rather than making the policy implicit.
  • Performer, assignment, method, referent, binding, retune, or mode change: state the actual change where it occurs. Split or retain the parent only when the direct facts already decide the boundary or a policy current to the named identity, episode, retry, resumption, or aggregation use supplies the criterion.
  • Method-description episteme change: record the newly selected description episteme separately. That selection neither splits nor preserves Work by itself; only an accompanying actual occurrence change enters the boundary judgment. Call the two descriptions editions only when their exact C.2.1 EpistemeEditionRelation obtains.
  • Rework: identify the later performance independently. Relate it as another occurrence, episode, or operational part only after the applicable direct predicate and any genuinely needed boundary policy are satisfied. Keep causal attribution with the governing causal-use pattern.

These rules answer Work-occurrence identity and segmentation. When the current question is instead whether exact performer, support, and continuation-state relations let the admitted occurrence continue or recover under interruption, handoff, or degraded support, use the actual-Work branch of A.15.8. It neither splits nor preserves the Work occurrence; return every identity, retry, or resumption claim here.

Plans, costs, quality statistics, telemetry evidence, and method-reliance claims may depend on whether the selected history is a temporal part, event-bounded episode, operational part, or later occurrence. Name a continuity-policy episteme, effective reference scheme, scope, and qualification window only when that distinction is actually current. Otherwise retain the direct occurrence facts and stop; do not add policy apparatus to a simple uninterrupted case.