fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 17491–17507

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 15:25:20 UTC

A.6.4:4.4 - Boundary with representation, explanation, transformation-flow structure, and neighboring claims

A.6.4 is triggered only by an independently established change of exact EntityOfConcern. A changed kind, ontology frame, predicate set, mathematical domain, or notation is a recognition cue that reopens the C.2.1 identity test; none decides the branch by itself.

Boundary rules:

  • if the EntityOfConcern is preserved and the main change is representation scheme or reasoning medium, use A.6.3.RT;
  • if the EntityOfConcern is preserved and the main change is explanation mode, explanatory stance, or explanation-facing publication, use E.17.EFP;
  • if the same case also asserts a semantic relation between two exact local senses from different semantic contexts, test F.9 separately and cite a Bridge only when its predicate obtains; use F.9.1 only for an optional stance note about that already constituted use claim. A domain correspondence, mathematical rule, or direct case fact enters the current-case basis only through the exact claim established by its governor; that claim alone does not open F.9;
  • if a legacy consumer asks for KindBridge, CL, or a universal SquareLaw-retargeting witness without a current direct governor, stop at missing-governor rather than making that apparatus constitutive in A.6.4;
  • if the EntityOfConcern is preserved and the receiving item is useful only under narrower declared use with visible loss and source-bearing reopen, use A.6.3.CSC;
  • if a StructuralReinterpretation, PathSliceId, CrossingRef, or DecisionLogRef is present, use E.18, A.20, or A.21 for graph, path, constraint, and gate relations. Those references do not prove semantic continuity or retargeting admissibility by themselves;
  • for decoded or latent output, use C.2.6 and C.2.7 for the anchoring mode and representation factors; keep the output report-only or exploratory until its exact source or model-state relation, decode or probe relation, recoverability evidence, admissible use, and source-return action are stated under their current governors;
  • B.5.2 governs changes within its abductive loop, including its prompt, candidate and rival sets, selected prime hypothesis, plausibility filtering, and reopen. Apply A.6.4 additionally only for an independently established EntityOfConcern change and bounded receiving use;
  • keep any other independently current claim under the pattern that defines or tests it; the Relations section names the main neighboring owners.

A.6.4 defines arrow r, bounded-use assertion q, and the separate current-case judgement that E.18 may place at a StructuralReinterpretation locus. That placement identifies none of them and does not make the judgement satisfies.