fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 31812–31823

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 05:29:54 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 05:30:57 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 06:05:20 UTC

A.18:3 - Forces

  • F1 – Transdisciplinarity. The pattern must uniformly handle measurements in physical domains (e.g. length, time, temperature), system attributes (e.g. a module’s coupling or reliability), and human judgments (e.g. user satisfaction scores). It needs to be neither overly quantitative (alienating softer domains) nor overly qualitative (lacking precision for hard science).

  • F2 – Comparability vs. freedom. We want to compare readings under a common Characteristic and Scale with the compatible measurement conditions required by C.16. At the same time, the system should allow different Scales for the same Characteristic when necessary (for example, one project might measure Quality on a 0–5 star scale, another on a 0–100 percentage scale). The pattern must permit such flexibility without letting those differing scales be conflated.

  • F3 – Ordinal vs. cardinal integrity. The Standard should preserve the nature of the data: order-only vs order+distance. If something is ordinal (ranks, grades), the framework should prevent unwarranted numeric operations on it. If it’s cardinal (real-valued with units), the framework should enable arithmetic but still keep track of units and zero. In essence, it must protect ordinal data from “leaking” into interval arithmetic.

  • F4 – Named tiers vs. continuous magnitudes. In many domains, named Levels (tiers or grades) are useful – e.g. Technology Readiness Levels or bond credit ratings – whereas in others, a continuous scale is needed. The pattern should support optional Level labels (for tiered scales) without forcing every scale to have such labels. In other words, Levels are an add-on for discrete/tiered scales, not a requirement for truly continuous measures.

  • F5 – Method agnosticism. The kernel Standard should say what must be defined (Characteristic, Scale, etc.) but not prescribe how measurements are obtained. Whether a value comes from a sensor reading, a simulation, or an expert judgment is up to the respective patterns (e.g. Sys-CAL vs. KD-CAL). The pattern must not bake in any process or scoring methodology; it types the reported values, while C.16 and the receiving use supply the further measurement and comparability conditions. This avoids locking in any particular assessment method.