fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 13380–13408

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 11:52:20 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 11:53:41 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 14:25:10 UTC

A.6.C:7 — Conformance Checklist

A boundary description conforms to A.6.C iff it satisfies all items below:

  1. CC‑A.6.C‑1 (Four questions, atomic answers). When contract-like wording leaves a consequential ambiguity, the text SHALL answer only the applicable four-question branches with atomic claims. Speech act, description/publication, generic prescription, individual commitment, selected permission-side claim, dated Work, each consequence, and each evidence claim SHALL retain its own direct object, exact subject assertion, non-semantic pattern locator, and quadrant.

  2. CC‑A.6.C‑2 (No agency to epistemes). When a dated act or individual commitment is claimed, the text MUST identify its capable actual participant and MUST NOT substitute an API/interface label, description, publication carrier, kind, or assignment for that participant’s basis. Ordinary metonymy may remain when its participant and relation are locally recoverable. A generic prescription SHALL name its exact normative source and applicable content without inventing an individual bearer. An individual duty or commitment SHALL name its actual bearer and exact separately obtaining U.Commitment; an assignment may appear only as an instituting rule’s applicability ground.

  3. CC‑A.6.C‑3 (Classify contract-language statements via A.6.B). When contract-language leaves a consequential ambiguity, its unpacked statements SHALL be atomic L/A/D/E claims. In that unpacking, permission-looking wording SHALL select one A.6 A6-AW-* row; A.2.8.PER membership alone MUST NOT set the quadrant.

  4. CC‑A.6.C‑4 (Promise content ≠ Work discipline). A performed-work statement SHALL name the exact A.15.1 dated Work occurrence. A result, production, change, delivery/transfer, evidence, or acceptance statement SHALL use its own direct object and shall not be inferred from Work. Promise-content language remains about U.PromiseContent, not execution or consequence. When service or access-like wording occurs in a relied-on boundary claim, recommendation, decision, gate, assurance, publication, or reuse and hides the concrete subject, participant, predicate, kind, permission, Work occurrence, or next subject question, the text SHALL recover that hidden choice through E.10 L-SERV and A.6.P:4.11a, then state the exact assertion under the recovered predicate with its pattern locator. Quoted, historical, illustrative, and harmless ordinary wording remains outside this recovery rule; an actual U.PromiseContent referent still uses the head phrase promise content, not bare service.

  5. CC‑A.6.C‑5 (Evidence hook for operational guarantees). If a “guarantee” is operational (requires reality to decide), the text SHALL include an E claim naming the exact Work, evaluation, or observation, predicate and object, scope or window, and measured or evaluated result. When a receiving decision relies on evidence, the claim SHALL cite the A.10 evidence path and exact carrier used for that reliance.

  6. CC‑A.6.C‑6 (No second contracts via faces). MVPK faces MUST NOT add new boundary claims; they publish only the existing canonical L/A/D/E claims under E.17. Informative commentary may explain those claims without adding boundary semantics. An asserted U.View separately requires E.17.0 conformance.

  7. CC‑A.6.C‑7 (RFC‑keyword discipline inside faces). If an MVPK face contains a BCP-14 keyword, each sentence MUST cite its classified claim ID or canonical location, direct object, and selected A6-AW-* row when permission-looking. Only norm/grant claims cite D; gate claims cite A; exercise and evaluated findings cite E.

  8. CC‑A.6.C‑8 (Obtaining is not representation). A Publish or Approve utterance, a document, carrier, or record does not by itself institute or prove a U.Commitment or GrantedPermissionRelation@Context. The exact obtaining predicate and cited context policy decide whether the relation obtains. A Claim Register row may assert or support reliance on it only when the row names the exact occurrence, predicate, SubjectPatternLocator, participants, scope/window, and current evidence required by that use. For a commitment, the row cites its rule-required actual instituting basis and policy; for a strong grant, it cites the actual instituting speech act and policy. The row alone does not create the relation. When the grant occurrence is the row’s direct object, directObjectDesignation SHALL be a U.RelationRef constrained to GrantedPermissionRelation@Context; an entity reference, ClaimAddress, display label, or arbitrary identifier cannot fill that branch.