fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 21162–21171

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 07:00:10 UTC

A.6.5:5.4 - Relation-dependent result wording

After machining, the machined component can remain the same physical entity in a changed state. It does not acquire a special result kind. Start with one question: did this same component continue through the change, or did a new entity begin?

  1. Same component continued. Name that component, the characteristic that changed, and the actual machining transformation. Use the pattern that defines that characteristic and A.3.4 for the bounded change. The component’s identity continues; calling it the work’s “result” adds no kind, participant meaning, or relation.
  2. A new entity began. Use this branch only when a current definition supplies an admitted identity-inception predicate and identity rule and the current Work and change facts satisfy them. If no such definition exists, return one missing identity-inception result naming the candidate entity, relevant work and change facts, required inception predicate, and receiving use. Do not infer a generic work-result relation.
  3. The sentence names another relation. Rewrite it with its one concrete verb and participants before declaring slots. For example, Component_C was delivered to AssemblyCell_2 selects one candidate delivery claim about that item and receiver, not a result kind. Recover that direct relation’s definition and any additional participant meanings it requires; if that definition cannot be recovered, return a missing-relation result. Handle an evaluation or acceptance sentence separately when that is the actual wording rather than listing possible pattern families.

Only the direct relation selected by one of those concrete sentences receives a compatible RelationSignature, and only when reusable typed use is current. Its assertion episteme records that relation; A.6.5 neither invents a broad result participant nor turns the domain choice into a catalogue.