fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 36598–36610

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 14:36:52 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 14:38:14 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 14:50:08 UTC

A.19.CPM:5.2 - Show (U.System) — comparing two supplier options without faking a total order

A program manager compares Supplier‑A vs Supplier‑B for a safety‑critical component. The team tracks a profile of measures (cost, lead time, defect rate, assurance, sustainability), but not all measures are strictly comparable across regions (different reporting regimes, different units).

  • The project has a declared CN‑Spec (admission and comparability declarations) and a declared CG‑Spec that lists admissible comparators in ComparatorSet and evidence rules in MinimalEvidence.

  • The comparator is ParetoDominanceComparatorSpecRef@edition, declared in CG-Spec.ComparatorSet.

  • The actual application binds the two supplier profiles; the claim scope supplier options for the named component and procurement decision; its selected regulatory and reporting U.ContextSlice members under A.2.6; ComparisonPredicate = none because Pareto dominance is supplied by the comparator; the stated procurement reference plane; and the explicit comparison interval.

  • CPM runs Compare(...); a changed component, scope member, comparator, plane, or interval is another comparison rather than an update to the same output.

    • If Supplier‑A is better in cost but worse in defect rate and incomparable on assurance due to missing evidence, CPM does not invent “A wins” or “A loses”.
    • CompareEligibility returns degrade or abstain under the evidence policy. On abstain, no comparison tokens are fabricated. When an explicit degrade policy permits a bounded partial comparison, ComparisonResultSlot contains only the justified relation tokens and preserves incomparability.

  • The downstream SelectorMechanism can then return a selected set (e.g., keep both suppliers in the candidate set) rather than forcing a single winner by hidden tie‑break rules.