fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 8486–8509

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 14:36:52 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 14:38:14 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 14:45:10 UTC

A.3.1:1 - Problem frame

When several observed Work occurrences or named sources may show a reusable way but Method identity is still only a candidate, use A.3.1.MR first. It returns one source-traceable account per candidate, a distinguishing question, a record-only result, or a named blocker. Return here only when one candidate reusable way is ready for the U.Method identity test.

Use this pattern when a project needs to say how something is done in principle.

Typical moments:

  • a team infers method identity solely from code, a BPMN diagram, or a solver model, or treats a workflow description as evidence of performed Work;
  • a practice, procedure, protocol, proof script, optimization model, control strategy, or recipe is intended for reuse across many runs;
  • two descriptions look different but may describe the same way of doing;
  • a graph, query, table, dashboard, checklist predicate, or mathematical representation is being interpreted as if it were an instruction sequence;
  • work planning, dated Work, MethodDescription, formal substrate, mechanism, system-role assignment, cultural-evolution, discipline, and evidence are starting to collapse into one vague “method” or “practice” word.

Primary EntityOfConcern. The EntityOfConcern is the U.Method: one reusable semantic way of doing under stated participant meanings, applicability, preconditions, intended effects or preserved conditions, and bounds. Cite an exact effective reference scheme and local senses only when their variation changes that method meaning. U.Method is a non-agentive holon kind: methods can have submethods, compose into whole methods, and participate as submethods of larger methods. A step label or step description is not a method part unless the recovered object is itself a U.Method.

First useful move. Name the reusable way of doing, its generic participant meanings, applicability, preconditions, intended effect or preserved condition, and the concern it addresses—for example changing, observing, comparing, classifying, evaluating, communicating, selecting, proving, or preserving. If local terminology changes that answer, cite the exact effective reference scheme and local senses.

What goes wrong if missed. Readers may mistake a diagram for work authorization, a query plan for performed work, a program for proof of operational success, or a graph path for a route actually followed.

What this buys. The project can reuse, compare, describe, plan, enact, and audit a way of doing without confusing the method with its descriptions, runs, mechanisms, mathematical substrates, evidence relations, gates, or authority claims.

Not this pattern when. If the sentence is about a document or representation that describes a method, schedules work, reports dated Work, declares a mechanism, presents a mathematical lens, cites evidence, decides a gate, asserts authority, or publishes a view, use the pattern that defines or tests that claim. For a claim-bearing episteme about one exact Method, apply A.3.2’s same-individual membership test; a carrier or representation is not thereby linked directly to the Method. State any planning, enactment, realization, evidence, gate, authority, publication, or representation relation only under its subject pattern when it actually obtains.