fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 19836–19855

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 10:39:28 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 10:40:04 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 10:50:05 UTC

A.6.A:4.7 - Bridge discipline across traditions

Whenever two traditions are compared using action-first language, first ask whether the comparison asserts or relies on semantic correspondence between exact senses in different semantic contexts. If it does, resolve those senses and test F.9; cite an obtaining Bridge only when its direct predicate is true, and state a separate bounded-use claim only when a proposed use is live. That claim carries the use, direction, correspondence rule, tolerated loss, and polarity. If the comparison does not assert or rely on that correspondence, use E.17.ID.CR for bounded comparative review or the exact direct relation that supplies the contrast, then stop. Add an F.9.1 stance note only as optional reader help for an already constituted bounded-use claim.

Useful stance labels include, for example:

  • localRename
  • operationalizes
  • partialAnalogy
  • projection
  • nonEquivalent

Examples:

  • A named comparison between AIS.PhysicalAffordance and AIS.InterfaceAffordance may remain a direct bounded contrast under E.17.ID.CR or another exact direct relation. If it asserts cross-context semantic correspondence, any bounded partial analogy needs an obtaining F.9 Bridge and a matching use claim. An optional partialAnalogy note helps reject identity; the label alone establishes nothing.
  • AIS.EpistemicProbe and AIS.ClosureAdvance usually need the direct progression-by-closure relation that is actually claimed. If their senses cross semantic contexts, apply F.9 before adding any optional stance note.
  • A named use from AIS.LatentPolicyCue toward AIS.ControlOpportunity needs F.9 only when it relies on cross-context semantic correspondence; then any operationalization or projection reading follows the obtaining Bridge and the use claim’s direction, rule, and tolerated loss. Otherwise the exact direct relation must supply the proposed contrast or use.
  • A robotics comparison from AIS.PhysicalAffordance toward PolicyHook may remain a direct contrast. If it relies on cross-context semantic correspondence, a projection reading requires the obtaining F.9 Bridge and a matching bounded-use claim under the controller frame; an F.9.1 note only explains that existing claim.
  • Action invitation and quality ascription may co-occur, but co-occurrence is not identity.