A.2.6:4 - Forces · fpf.tools

Force	Tension to resolve
One mechanism vs two worlds	We must serve both knowledge about the world (claims) and doing work in the world (capabilities) without duplicating concepts.
Exact local interpretation vs interoperability	Scope membership must stay checkable under its effective reference scheme. Cross-scheme translation needs an obtaining F.9 Bridge for the direct semantic relation, a separate C.2.1 claim for the proposed translation, and current A.10 or B.3 reliance, without redefining membership truth.
Expressivity vs minimal vocabulary	Teams need to capture rich conditions (time windows, environment, versions) but not explode the lexicon into variants such as “envelope”, “applicability”, or “generality”.
Static content vs operational change	Claims may hold broadly while current operations are narrow (or vice versa). The mechanism must keep “what is true” and “what can be done” aligned yet distinct.
Open‑world exploration vs closed‑world gating	Exploration benefits from permissive drafts; gates require crisp, observable checks. The same scope object must support both.