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 11:52:20 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 11:53:41 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 12:55:10 UTC

A.15.PROD:4.6 - Recover state satisfaction and historically indexed production completion

Completion wording often hides two claims. First ask whether the exact state-bearing subject satisfied the applicable criterion. Then ask whether the subject practice makes that satisfaction sufficient to close the exact production Work.

The state-satisfaction claim names:

  • exact completionSubject whose state is judged;
  • exact completionBoundary;
  • exact productionCompletionCriterion episteme applicable to that subject and boundary;
  • the named applicability predicate or filled local claim; and
  • the actual boundary-state facts and the criterion predicate they satisfy.

When persisted, this C.2.1 episteme has completionSubject as its exact EntityOfConcern. It says nothing yet about whether Work is complete.

The separate production-work-completion claim names exact productionWork, the exact state-satisfaction claim, the same boundary, and the declared closure predicate or filled local A.6.RCD claim that makes this criterion satisfaction sufficient to close that Work. Its exact EntityOfConcern is productionWork. If no closure governor is available, keep the positive state-satisfaction claim and return missing-governor[production-work-completion]; do not apply a subject-state predicate to Work by metonymy.

Index every historical state-satisfaction and Work-completion claim by its exact criterion episteme, applicability basis, boundary, and boundary-state facts. Later damage, loss, destruction, delivery, rejection, acceptance, release, publication, or unavailability receives a separate claim. Rework or later production Work that closes under an applicable criterion at a later boundary receives another local Work-completion claim.

Entity-identity inception, criterion satisfaction, and production-Work completion remain separate even when they share a boundary. A later evaluation-result episteme may support one of these claims under a direct evidence-use relation; the branch’s declared predicates and facts still establish its boundary, subject state, and Work closure.

Past Work and the two completion claims remain addressable after later destruction or evidence decay. A later assertion carries its own evidence currentness and reliance status. The produced entity, measurement or evaluation result, delivered entity, acceptance verdict, release, publication, availability, and downstream effect remain objects and claims defined and tested separately.

Practice-specific criteria stay local. NASA systems-engineering guidance, Scrum’s Definition of Done, and similar authoritative practice sources can supply a criterion for the exact subject and practice use they address. Exact A.15.1 Work identity and a subject-practice closure predicate or local claim separately establish whether criterion satisfaction closes that Work. Transition, delivery, review, and release retain their own claims.