fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 5169–5182

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 06:40:20 UTC

A.2.4:2 - Problem

Source text may use U.EvidenceRole or another evidence-like role label for a real need: an episteme can be used as evidence for a claim under an effective source scheme and exact ClaimScope, with polarity, time, assurance use, weight, and provenance constraints. Treat those spellings as source-word triggers. The FPF repair states an evidence-use relation; it does not classify the episteme under a system-role kind or place it in a U.SystemRoleAssignment.

Unresolved role-shaped wording can lead to the following failures:

  1. Episteme-as-holder drift. A paper, proof, dataset, standard, or dashboard cell is treated as if it were classified under a work-facing system-role kind or filled the holder position of an assignment.
  2. Evidence-word ontology drift. ModelFitEvidenceRole, MeasurementEvidenceRole, or AxiomaticProofRole is treated as a kind merely because the source label ends in Role, instead of being resolved to an evidence-use relation classification or local evidence-use label.
  3. Claim relation collapse. Target claim, grounding holon, claim scope, polarity, relevance window, assurance use, weight model, and provenance constraints are hidden behind one source label ending in Role.
  4. Evidence and status collapse. A status badge, standard reference, approval-looking display, publication face, or requirement source is treated as evidence, status assertion, gate passage, permission, and assurance at once.
  5. Work confusion. The work that produced an episteme and the later use of that episteme as evidence are folded into one relation.
  6. Causal-use laundering. Observational association, intervention, realized counterfactual sample, identified counterfactual estimate, and simulation-only output are relabelled by evidence-wording instead of being governed by C.28.
  7. Cross-local leakage. Evidence accepted under one source scheme, ClaimScope, and use is reused under another without recovering the changed meaning, source currentness, reliance, or assurance-use conditions and any actual F.9 relation.