fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 7911–7929

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 05:16:27 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 05:17:06 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 05:25:10 UTC

A.2.9:1 — Problem frame

FPF repeatedly needs to reference “someone said/did the approving/authorizing/declaring thing”:

  • System-role-assignment eligibility and enactability checklists often depend on the presence of an approval or authorization act within a freshness window.
  • Governance patterns and boundary writing (A.6 stack) need provenance: “this obligation or commitment, or this separately represented granted permission, was instituted by that act”.
  • Operational patterns need auditable notices (“depletion notice”, “override invoked”) whose existence and timing matter.

The same separation is needed before formal occurrence modeling. A reader may need to decide whether a report, answer, model, or message enabled one named use and what to repair. A visible response is not by itself achievement; a later action or change is not by itself evidence that the communication caused it; and the full occurrence-record apparatus should not be a prerequisite for this first bounded judgement.

Without a first-class kind for such communicative Work and a separate way to describe each occurrence, authors tend to:

  • attribute agency to descriptions (“the spec approves…”, “the interface guarantees…”),
  • collapse “utterance text” and “speech act event”,
  • leave provenance dangling as “if modeled”,
  • encode gates as prose obligations, or treat obligations as gates.

The definition below admits U.SpeechAct as an explicit Work kind and states the identity conditions for actual speech-act occurrences; their optional records remain separate from U.Commitment, utterance descriptions, and carriers.