fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 14878–14894

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 08:25:59 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 08:26:43 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 09:20:09 UTC

A.6.2:3 - Forces

  • Epistemic purity vs operational power. Effect-free episteme arrows are useful because their laws can be reasoned about algebraically and composed. If a use needs I/O, solver calls, measurements, or another effect, identify the operation application and Work separately instead of giving that activity to the arrow.

  • Preserve vs retarget. A viewing arrow has endpoint epistemes with the same EntityOfConcern; a retargeting arrow has independently different ones. A separate A.6.4 bounded-use assertion states the invariant, visible loss, receiving use, conditions, and affirmative or negative polarity. A current-case judgement separately reports satisfies, fails, or cannot decide from exact facts.

  • Conservativity vs usefulness. EFEM should be conservative: no new commitments about the EntityOfConcern beyond what the identified source ClaimGraphs and exact admitted facts license under the named schemes. The receiving ClaimGraph may factor, aggregate, normalize, or re-express source content and may use a different representation when the loss and interpretation rule are explicit. Any operation or Work that produces that receiving episteme remains separate.

  • Locality vs reference planes and Bridges. Interpret each ClaimGraph through its episteme’s effective ReferenceScheme (C.2.1). When a use relates two exact source-local senses, test the direct F.9 predicate and cite a Bridge only when it obtains; state the bounded-use claim and any reliance separately. When a use crosses a ReferencePlane, cite its applicable plane relation. EFEM cannot hide either relation inside a “pure” content rewrite, and a local-sense or plane difference alone creates neither one.

  • EntityOfConcern and Description-episteme boundary and specification-use refinement. The EntityOfConcern is distinct from a Description episteme about it; the EntityOfConcern itself may be U.Episteme when an episteme is under concern. ...Description names a Description episteme, and ...Spec names one admitted for specification use only when its claims are checkable and the named harness or validation relation can test them. EFEM compares what the two epistemes say, what they concern, and their effective schemes; it states what remains the same and what differs. When grounding or a describing-use viewpoint matters, name the exact relation occurrence or use qualification on each side and compare its facts. Any change to that occurrence follows its direct relation pattern; viewpoint selection and conformance require their own claims (A.7, E.10.D2).