fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 22499–22522

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 07:42:37 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 07:43:27 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 07:50:10 UTC

A.6.9:7 - Conformance Checklist

A repaired sentence or boundary statement conforms iff:

  1. Concrete action. The reader can say what object, comparison, substitution, translation, publication, or other action is at issue.
  2. Use the specific patterns before testing a Bridge. First apply the pattern that defines, constrains, or tests each effective reference scheme, claim scope, grounding, qualification window, exact composite project Work, viewpoint, representation transition, selected structure, direct subject relation, lane, identifier, system-role kind, assignment, or Work claim.
  3. Exact endpoints. Every Bridge candidate uses two F.17 cell addresses resolving exact values.
  4. No context proxy. Semantic bounded context is the Plain local interpretation basis recovered from the endpoint projection; it is not a project situation, model-use structure, scope, grounding, time, viewpoint, identity, or direct relation participant.
  5. Direct Bridge truth. A positive occurrence appears only after the exact profile applies, its predicate is true, and dependencies are present.
  6. Profile boundary. Profile identity contains relation semantics only, with no use, tolerance, polarity, reliance, authorization, or receiving object.
  7. Separate use claim. Every proposed use of an obtaining Bridge names u, d, r, t, polarity, and effective scheme in a C.2.1 claim about the exact Bridge.
  8. Evidence honesty. Observed loss and mapping witnesses stay in evidence; permitted loss stays in the bounded-use claim; CL grants nothing.
  9. Reliance branch. Current reliance follows A.10 or B.3 for the same use and does not become authorization.
  10. Receiving-object boundary. Any claim that the use happened names the actual object and states the concrete claim using the rule that defines its predicate.
  11. Card boundary. Actual, candidate, and negative cards use the correct EntityOfConcern and never create a Bridge or receiving occurrence.
  12. Change honesty. Endpoint, profile, use claim, reliance, card, publication, and receiving-object changes remain distinct.
  13. No inferred inverse or composition. An asymmetric inverse, opposite use direction, or direct A-to-C Bridge gets its own exact judgement.
  14. Practical result. The final sentence tells the reader what to do and what condition would stop or reopen the result. It adds a non-inference only when a plausible intended reader could otherwise overread the sentence and the guard changes understanding or action.
  15. Same-locality route. Same projection uses ordinary designation and, when claim extent changes, A.2.6 widen, narrow, or refit; it does not mint a Bridge.
  16. RT boundary. An ordinary A.6.3.RT note states the same concern, preserved content, representation delta, loss, admissible use, and source-return trigger and destination. A triggered exact construction adds exact X, Y, and v; actual representation-transformation Work enters only when the six-participant occurrence is asserted. None is scope translation or a Bridge.
  17. Structure boundary. Each participating BoundedModelUseStructure is independently selected; every selected subject crossing satisfies the predicate and obtaining condition defined for that relation, with its participants and occurrence identity explicit; and the conditional A.22 cross-structure selection names exact substrate, relation organization, applied constraints and invariants, and receiving-use frame. When a load-bearing selection claim is current, also recover the separate selection-work and judgment basis under §4.8; identify a result episteme when persistence is needed and an exact governed decision when an accountable choice is claimed. Missing relation law returns the A.6.RCD missing-governor stop; shared participants, labels, references, Views, diagrams, Cards, and generic result refs establish none of these facts.
  18. Grounding and endpoint distinctions. Grounding holon and EntityOfConcern are not assumed identical; every SenseCell, description episteme, designator, and reference remains distinct.
  19. Published-model crossing stop. The NAICS replay independently identifies the exact episteme edition and application system, keeps E.24.PUB occurrence/form/carrier separate, recovers applicability and actual model use before structure selection, and treats Conformist as a proposal only. If the receiving use selects another edition, establish applicability, actual use, coherence, preservation, loss, and any governed crossing for that exact episteme before selecting the structure. A positive adoption, dependency, or update-authority crossing requires a current pattern that defines its predicate, obtaining condition, and identity rule; an F.9 Bridge or publication evidence may support but does not supply that governor.