fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 14976–14987

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 05:29:54 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 05:30:57 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 05:55:15 UTC

A.6.2:4.3.3 - P2 — Claim conservativity (no unlicensed commitments)

Let content_X = content(X) and content_Y = content(Y), with their effective ReferenceSchemes and exact EntitiesOfConcern. Interpret each ClaimGraph through its effective scheme. Name any additional exact source episteme, current fact, grounding relation, or scheme correspondence that the arrow rule actually admits; an entity or label by itself is not a claim premise. Then:

Every assertion in content_Y must be recoverable as a logical consequence, conservative re-expression, selection, or declared aggregation of the identified source ClaimGraphs and exact admitted facts under the named schemes. This includes assertions about an episteme’s edition, source, status, witness, provenance, or evidence. Calling an assertion metadata does not exempt it from P2.

An EFEM arrow may omit claims or conservatively reorganize and re-express them. It may not introduce an unsupported atomic commitment, silently widen claim scope, or cross a ReferencePlane without the exact relation required for that move.

A separately obtaining edition, provenance, evidence, or status relation remains outside episteme identity. If the arrow family compares such a relation across X and Y, name the exact predicate and participants on each side. The arrow records that comparison; it does not create or update the relation. If Y asserts the relation, that assertion is identity-bearing content_Y and must pass the same source-to-result trace as every other assertion.

Where entityOfConcernChangeMode(f) = retarget, the arrow declaration states its formal cross-entity correspondence; it does not itself establish conservativity for a receiving use. A separate A.6.4 bounded-use assertion q states the invariant, visible loss, receiving use, conditions, and polarity, and a current-case judgement separately tests the exact facts. An ordinary time-to-frequency representation of the same signal instead routes through A.6.3.RT; apply C.29 when the case also makes a mathematical-lens-use claim. A Fourier relation enters a retargeting case only after C.2.1 independently identifies a different receiving EntityOfConcern.