fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 22542–22560

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 09:45:10 UTC

A.6.9:9 - Consequences

  • Pros

    • Turns ambiguous sameness into a visible relation question and a visible action question.
    • Lets one Bridge remain stable while use direction, tolerance, evidence, and polarity change.
    • Prevents scores, cards, assurance, and publications from becoming hidden permission or occurrence.
    • Gives authors exact local stops instead of a vague “not equivalent”.

  • Cons

    • A positive use normally needs two sentences instead of one adjective.
    • Reviewers must inspect the correspondence rule, tolerated loss, and evidence for the named action.
    • Many attractive “same” claims become only an explanatory comparison or a negative use claim.

Adoption test (PRAG). Take one sentence containing same, equivalent, align, or map. A practitioner passes when they can name the concrete action and state the truthful result of the selected branch. A non-semantic result uses its concrete predicate or constraint and exits before F.9.

For a semantic-correspondence question, resolve the local senses and decide whether the F.9 branch applies. If it does, recover the exact cells and profile and say whether the Bridge obtains. Distinguish a false predicate result or an inapplicable case from missing facts or a missing governor. Only a proposed use of an obtaining Bridge additionally needs the separate bounded-use claim and, when someone will rely on it, the applicable reliance result. Name any required authorization or claimed receiving occurrence that remains missing. If the wording prevents recovery, keep it explanatory and name the exact missing meaning; a complete false test is not missing information.