| How do weak and strong permission differ? | Moltmann (2024) distinguishes modal objects, strong permission, weak non-violation, and action satisfiers. | Separate frame-relative findings, instituted grants, and actual exercise; retain FPF subject patterns. | Adapt. Do not import modal objects, truthmakers, or possible worlds as U-kinds. |
| How should permission, duty, and prohibition remain distinct? | W3C ODRL 2.2 (2018) models permission, prohibition, duty, assignee, action, constraint, and policy separately. | Keep beneficiary, action specification, policy, scope/window, and duty/prohibition predicates and pattern locations explicit. | Adapt. FPF uses direct relations and epistemic findings rather than importing the ODRL information model wholesale. |
| What makes a policy decision usable? | NIST SP 800-207 (2020) and current policy-as-code practice separate subject, requested action, resource and operating facts, current policy, and decision evidence. | Exercise eligibility and conflict use are bounded by the exact beneficiary, action, normative-frame and policy editions, ClaimScope, window, and intended use. | Adapt. A policy response or gate display is not itself an enduring grant. |
| How should digital permit evidence be relied on? | W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model 2.0 (2025) separates issuer, holder, verifier, status, proof, and relying context. | Permit publications enter A.10 evidence/currentness paths and do not replace the grant relation. | Adapt. Credential form supplies neither permission nor exercise by itself. |