A.3.4:11 - SoTA-Echoing
A.3.4 uses four current source branches for four different questions.
| Source and practice answer | Use in A.3.4 | Adoption status and blocked overread |
|---|---|---|
Marletto, Deutsch, and Vedral, “Tests of constructor theory”, 2026, arXiv edition 2606.07352v1, reviews the current experimental-test branch of constructor theory in terms of possible and impossible tasks and constructors rather than ordinary program execution. | A.3.4:4.1 and 4.7 require an independently grounded actual bounded change even when a constructor-theory task or formal transformation is current; case 5.4 keeps the proof term or morphism expression as representation. | Adapt. Use the task/constructor distinction to discipline possibility and governing conditions. Reject the overread that a task, its description, a constructor label, or a formal expression establishes the actual occurrence, project-world realization, evidence, or permission; this source branch is not treated as consensus ontology for every change. |
Deutsch and Marletto, “Constructor theory of time”, 2025, current arXiv edition 2505.08692v3 revised in 2026, shows within that current branch why duration and dynamics need an account distinct from task possibility. | A.3.4:4.1 identifies the occurrence through its extent or formal ordering boundary and actual subject facts; 4.4-4.5 use C.27.TA for temporal aspects, C.27 for temporal-claim adequacy, and A.3.3 for dynamics; case 5.1 keeps the control-law episteme separate from the cooling-loop change. | Adapt. Preserve the separation among task, duration, dynamics, and actual occurrence without importing constructor theory as FPF temporal ontology. Reject duration, a dynamics model, or a task specification as sufficient transformation identity. |
| Guizzardi, Benevides, Fonseca, Porello, Almeida, and Sales, “UFO: Unified Foundational Ontology”, 2022, gives the current-state UFO account through distinct micro-theories that include events, situations, participation, causation, and change. | A.3.4:4.1 and 4.3-4.5 keep actual-change identity, subject facts, participation or work-to-change facts, causation, assertion, and representation as separate questions; case 5.6 applies that split to a system in a flow. | Adopt the separation pressure; reject wholesale import. FPF does not import UFO categories or infer event mereology from a model. Identify one U.Transformation at the resolution needed by the use; open participation, causation, work, or representation only through the pattern for that claim. |
| Borgo and Righetti, “Towards Applied Constructional Ontology”, 2025, argues that applied constructional ontology still requires explicit choices about mereology, dependence, identity, and application concerns. | A.3.4:4.2 and the PumpSkid case 5.7 independently identify the local changes, reject composition by timing or representation, and keep the positive architecture open. | Adopt the demand for explicit choices; do not preselect their answer. Temporal inclusion, graph adjacency, a shared referent, a construction label, or a selected structure supplies neither transformation composition nor part identity. This source does not decide whether FPF should later use a generic relation, subject-specific relations, bounded local claims, or continued non-admission. |