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 02:22:15 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 03:38:22 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 04:10:10 UTC

A.2.2:6.1 - Manufacturing Cell

This constructed example states the robot’s ability separately from its assignment:

CapabilityStatement:
  holder: RobotArm_A
  canDo: Weld_MIG_v3 seam family
  envelope: steel grades S235-S355, ambient 18-30 C, argon mix 92-95 percent, torch T-MIG-07
  measures: bead width 6.0 mm plus or minus 0.2 mm, throughput up to 12 seams per minute, defect rate below 0.5 percent
  qualificationWindow: calibration valid through 2026-09-30
  qualificationPolicy: rely on the test and calibration support only within its declared validity
  actualCondition: the robot configuration and calibration state satisfy the claimed envelope
SupportAndUseBasis:
  evidenceOrSourceUse: latest welding test report and calibration source relation

WeldingShiftAssignment is a declared species under U.SystemRoleAssignment. Under A.2.1 its signature defines the holder and assigned-kind participant meanings and uses WelderSystemRoleKindDomain as the local assigned-kind domain; it adds another participant only if that participant changes the assignment predicate or occurrence identity. One occurrence has RobotArm_A as holder, WelderSystemRole as the assigned-kind value admitted by that domain, and an extent lasting while the predicate obtains without interruption for the same participants. The assertion has exact claim content, EntityOfConcern, and effective ReferenceScheme; a ClaimScope, selected slice, interval, or qualification window is stated separately when it changes interpretation or validity. None of those values is another assignment participant. A separate Work or system-locus relation may place intended or performed welding at AssemblyLine_2026 when that relation obtains.

If a Method step requires an obtaining WeldingShiftAssignment whose local kind is WelderSystemRole and bead-width tolerance below 0.2 mm, the assignment and capability are both checked. The declared ±0.2 mm bound does not establish the stricter tolerance, so this capability statement alone cannot support admission of the step.

Shared boundary case — Robot-7 possesses an inspection algorithm. InspectionReleaseAssignment is a declared species under U.SystemRoleAssignment; under A.2.1 its signature defines the holder and assigned-kind participant meanings and uses InspectorSystemRoleKindDomain as the local assigned-kind domain. Occurrence InspectionAssignment-17 has Robot-7 as holder and InspectorSystemRole as the assigned-kind value admitted by that domain. This simple species declares no taxonomy, reference-scheme, generic-context, or interval participant. An assertion about the occurrence may cite MaintenanceRoles-2026, Maintenance-Scheme-A, and the candidate inspection interval as interpretation and description content.

Robot7-TurbineInspectionStatement-2026 is an assertion about Robot-7: that System can perform turbine-inspection Work within the stated sensor, calibration, input and measure bounds. Qualification governs current reliance on its support. A statement that Robot-7 “possesses inspection algorithm A” does not by itself identify that capability claim, Method TurbineInspection@Maintenance-2026, a deployed-software relation, or a MethodDescription episteme.

Dispatch the phrase by claim: use A.2.2 only for the bounded ability; A.3.1 for the Method; a deployed-software or possession relation when that is the claim; and A.3.2 for candidate episteme TurbineInspectionProcedure-v3 only after its EntityOfConcern resolves to that Method and one substantive claim says how it is done.

Assignment and capability still do not prove execution. If InspectionWork-17 actually occurs, A.13 first recovers Robot-7 as the exact actual performer through obtaining InspectionAssignment-17, and A.15.1 independently admits the Work. Because this example expressly states assignment-bound attribution, F.6 afterward establishes performedUnderAssignment(InspectionWork-17, InspectionAssignment-17) through that same assignment; F.6 identifies neither assignment nor performer, and failed attribution leaves the Work intact. The Work occurrence separately stands in enactsMethod(InspectionWork-17, TurbineInspection@Maintenance-2026).