fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 12330–12360

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 09:25:05 UTC

A.6.B:0 — Conventions

Keywords. The key words MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, MAY, and SHALL are to be interpreted as in RFC 2119/8174. Lower-case must, may, and should in explanatory prose is descriptive, not normative.

Quadrant labels. This pattern uses the classification labels L / A / D / E as statement quadrants:

  • L — Laws & Definitions
  • A — Admissibility & Gates
  • D — Deontics & Commitments
  • E — Work‑Effects & Evidence

These labels are claim-classification labels for statements, not MVPK face designators and not pattern identifiers.

Statement identifiers (recommended). Classifiable statements SHOULD be given stable IDs with a quadrant prefix: L-*, A-*, D-*, E-*. Other sections and views SHOULD reference these IDs or the canonical claim locations rather than restating the same constraint in new words.

Non-collision note (informative). The A-* prefix here is “Admissibility”, not Part-A numbering and not MVPK’s AssuranceLane face designator. If this is a readability hazard in your program, prefer an explicit G-* (“Gate”) local convention while keeping the quadrant name “Admissibility”. Also avoid introducing single-letter mnemonics for MVPK face designators inside this cluster; spell face designators in full to reduce collisions.

Atomic claim. An atomic claim is a sentence (or bullet) that performs exactly one logical role and is classifiable under exactly one quadrant. If a sentence mixes roles, it is not atomic and MUST be split before it can be classified.

Adjudication substrate (for classification). For the purposes of this square, an atomic claim is classified by where its own truth condition or governance content is settled. This tells you how to classify the sentence; it does not make an individual commitment, grant, or finding exist.

  • In-description or in-theory: an L-* truth condition is settled by inspecting, proving, or type-validating the description; a generic D-* claim states exact normative content, while an individual D-* claim names the commitment or grant it concerns.
  • In-work or in-execution: deciding satisfaction requires observing executed work, inspecting carriers produced in work, or both.

Note (important). Writing a D-* claim records either generic normative content or a claim about an individual duty, commitment, or grant; it does not institute an individual relation or establish compliance. When the wording is about permission, use the permission-word branch in §8.4.1 to recover the exact object, what makes it obtain, and the evidence needed before reliance.

Modality family. A claim is either:

  • Truth‑conditional: definitions, invariants, typing rules (“is”, “iff”, “∀”).
  • Governance: prescriptions, individual obligations or commitments, grants, and exclusions (the RFC keywords MUST, SHOULD, and MAY, “is admissible”, “is blocked”, “commits to”).