fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 7879–7914

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 11:52:20 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 11:53:41 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 14:20:15 UTC

A.2.9:0 - Use This When

Use this pattern when one actual act of communicating matters because either:

  • a named System or audience, including the producer returning later, should understand or do something because of it, and you need to judge the evidence, smallest repair, or stop; or
  • a project must identify, model, audit, or rely on it as performed Work, for example as an approval, authorization, revocation, notice, declaration, or publication.

What goes wrong if missed. A response, silence, later action, or later change is treated as the meaning, achievement, or caused effect of the communication; or a document, interface, ticket, message, or log is treated as if it performed the act. Approval, wording, evidence carrier, commitment, receiving use, and performed Work then collapse into one phrase.

What this buys. A practitioner can first judge what the communication should enable and what evidence or repair the use needs. Exact communicative Work occurrences remain available for modeling, audit, and reliance without collapsing them into a claim-bearing SpeechActRecord, an utterance description, or an evidence carrier.

Typical moments:

  • a report, model, message, or answer seems clear, but it is unclear who should understand or do what with it or what evidence would be enough;
  • a response, later action, or later change is being used as proof that the named receiving use was achieved or that the communication caused the change;
  • a release, gate, or work step depends on whether a named approval or authorization was performed;
  • a publication, notice, or revocation may have an institutional effect only under an exact current policy or procedure, while the communicative act and any resulting effect retain distinct intervals;
  • a commitment must cite the act that instituted it, rather than only pointing at a document;
  • a message, ticket, signed record, or API call log is being mistaken for the act itself.

Primary EntityOfConcern. The EntityOfConcern is one actual act of communicating, admitted as communicative Work under U.SpeechAct. For a receiving-use question, identify that Work only far enough to say who should understand or do what and to keep the act distinct from its wording, representation, medium, response, and later effect. When exact occurrence identity, institutional force, audit, or reliance is current, follow §4.1 and SA-C0/SA-C1: recover the A.13 performer core, independently admit the Work through A.15.1, and use F.6 afterward only for a needed precise assignment-bound claim through the same obtaining assignment. Also recover the recognition-taxonomy episteme, effective reference scheme, and any applicable policy or procedure. A SpeechActRecord, MethodDescription, utterance-description episteme, channel, and file, message, ticket, or log carrier remain separate objects.

First useful move. State who should understand or do what because of the communication, including later self-use by its producer, and what evidence would be enough for the present judgement. Keep response, achievement, later action or change, causal contribution, authority, consent, permission, and admissibility separate. Repair the smallest blocker in the wording, representation, prerequisites, medium, interaction, or a future receiving use—or stop. Only when the named modeling, audit, institutional, or reliance use needs exact occurrence detail, follow the admission and conditional attribution route in §4.1 and SA-C0/SA-C1. Recover taxonomy, scheme, policy, optional channel, and any separate effect only when the use needs them. Create a SpeechActRecord only when a receiving use needs a persistent claim about the already admitted occurrence. Apply SA-C1 when a guard, gate, or claim needs exact assignment-bound attribution; otherwise the record may omit that attribution.

Not this pattern when. If the question is only what a document says, use A.7/C.2/E.17. If the question is only evidentiary support for a later claim or whether the communication caused a later effect, use A.10 or C.28 after identifying that claim. For whether an actual system or party has a duty, use A.2.8. When the Work is not an act of communicating under §4.1, use A.15.1 directly.

Type: Definitional (D) Normativity: Normative (unless explicitly marked informative) Placement: Part A → A.2 System-role kinds, assignments, and agency kernel Refines: A.2 (System-role kinds and assignments) Builds on: A.2.1 (U.SystemRoleAssignment direct species), A.2.6 (Γ_time and windows), A.7 (EntityOfConcern, Description episteme, and carrier), A.10 (SCR/RSCR carrier discipline), A.13 (precise local agency basis), A.15.1 (U.Work), and F.6 (performedUnderAssignment attribution) Purpose (one line): Admit communicative enactments under U.SpeechAct, make a named receiving use and its smallest evidence-backed repair usable before heavier occurrence detail, and provide a minimal optional SpeechActRecord while keeping the act, record, utterance description, and evidence carrier separate.

FPF already treats communicative acts as observable events used in system-role-assignment-state checklists and grounding (“presence of act: AuthorizationSpeechAct exists…”); those checks cite actual occurrences admitted under U.SpeechAct, not the kind itself. The spec’s micro-examples and conformance gates distinguish communicative Work (“performed a SpeechAct”) from operational Work (“executed Work”) while keeping both inside U.Work (cf. CC‑A15‑10 GateSplit).