fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 18854–18886

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 14:36:52 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 14:38:14 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 15:20:20 UTC

A.6.RCD:0 - Use This When

Use this pattern when an engineer can name the exact participant referents and the claim, check, decision, or continuation that is blocked, but no current direct relation states the needed relation-bearing claim.

Typical first-minute situations are:

  • several exact base-relation facts seem to imply the needed claim, but related to or a convenient verb hides how;
  • a formula, query path, graph edge, or rule appears to define the answer, and the team is about to treat it as a relation kind;
  • the same compound claim recurs and the team needs to decide whether to keep deriving it locally, publish reusable predicate semantics, or admit a relation kind;
  • a proposed primitive relation appears to be only a composition, projection, closure, aggregation, or cross-algebra juxtaposition of existing claims.

Primary EntityOfConcern. One exact needed relation-bearing claim for one named receiving use. The application also settles whether that claim remains local, receives a reusable predicate-definition episteme, or justifies a derived or primitive relation kind. This wording does not mint a NeededRelationClaim kind or an application-record kind.

First useful move. Write the blocked receiving use and the participant meanings in ordinary domain language. Then use A.6.P to recover the pattern containing the current subject predicate and ask whether that predicate can already state the needed affirmative, negative, or exact rule-qualified modal claim for those participants. If it can, apply its test and use the exact blocker boundary below when the result cannot yet be stated. Derive a compound predicate only when no current direct predicate can express the needed claim.

What goes wrong if missed. A team either leaves the claim as vague connective prose or promotes a formula, query, graph path, definition, or convenient name into ontology. The first loses replayable meaning. The second invents relation kinds without an obtaining law or occurrence identity.

What this buys. The engineer gets the lightest sufficient result: an existing direct relation, a local compound claim, reusable predicate-definition content with an optional separately admitted derived relation kind, or a genuinely irreducible primitive relation kind. The ontology grows only when the receiving use needs occurrence semantics that claim content alone cannot supply.

Ordinary non-use boundary. Do not use this pattern when a current direct predicate can already state the needed affirmative, negative, or exact rule-qualified modal claim; write that claim using the predicate’s pattern and stop. A negative, hypothetical, forecast, or rule-qualified modal claim needs no obtaining relation occurrence. If the predicate and its applicability rule exist but the attempted positive result cannot be stated, use the three-way boundary below: factually unsupported only when the available case basis is sufficient to apply the positive test and that test fails; missing-information when a fact needed to decide that test is unavailable. Do not use A.6.RCD for wording-only cleanup, mathematical-lens adequacy, naming, evidence, assurance, or publication questions. E.10, C.29, F.18, A.10, B.3, and E.17 supply the relevant definitions or tests.

Cheap stop. If a readable current direct relation closes the receiving use, stop before constructing a compound claim. If a local compound claim closes it, stop before publishing a reusable definition. If a reusable definition closes it, stop before admitting a relation kind.

A.6.RCD:0.1 - Name the exact blocker

Use three ordinary blocker phrases without turning them into a common result kind:

  • missing-governor means that, for the stated participants and use, no current predicate definition, applicability condition, occurrence rule, or other governing rule can state or test the attempted relation claim. It says nothing about whether case facts exist.
  • factually unsupported means that the required governor and positive test exist, the available case basis is sufficient to apply that test, and the test fails. It stops the attempted affirmative; it does not establish the negative.
  • missing-information means that at least one fact needed to decide the current test is unavailable, so the test cannot yet return its positive, negative, or inapplicable result.

If an applicability rule exists and the available case basis establishes that the case is outside it, return that rule’s inapplicable result. State a negative claim only when an applicable non-obtaining criterion or complete closure basis exists and the available facts satisfy it; failure of the positive test alone is not that basis. If the governing rule itself is absent, use missing-governor; if a fact needed to decide its test is unavailable, use missing-information. missing-substrate remains the narrower section 4.2 stop for unavailable constructor semantics. These phrases are readable outcomes, not new U-kinds, result records, or an omnibus blocker ontology.