fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 11396–11410

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 05:29:54 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 05:30:57 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 07:05:20 UTC

A.6:2 - Problem

When boundaries are described without an L/A/D/E claim-classification discipline, four confusions dominate:

  1. Laws vs admissibility. Authors encode runtime gate predicates as “laws”, or write invariants using RFC‑style deontic verbs, blurring “what is true or defined” with “what is allowed to be applied”. FPF explicitly separates these: operational guard predicates belong to mechanisms (A.6.1), not signatures (A.6.0). Common mistake #0 — Applicability ≠ Admissibility (informative): Signature Applicability scopes declared admissible use and bounded context; it is not a runtime entry gate. Runtime entry checks belong in U.Mechanism.AdmissibilityConditions as A-*. Such a predicate may consume the direct object selected by one A6-AW-* row as input, but it neither creates that object nor proves gate passage. A generic prescription states what one exact policy or other normative episteme requires; it does not create an individual duty bearer or commitment occurrence. A claim that one actual System or separately governed party has that duty instead cites one separately obtaining A.2.8 U.Commitment. Either branch can reference the A-* gate by ID or canonical location without becoming the gate.

  2. Admissibility vs deontics. MUST, SHOULD, MAY, and authority-looking words do not reveal whether a statement is a duty, one A6-AW-* permission branch, or an entry predicate. Classify the claim by its job; neither the word, selected subject pattern, nor kind of direct object decides the quadrant.

  3. Contract talk category errors. If “the interface promises…” leaves a consequential ambiguity about the claim or its participant, use A.6.C to recover it before treating the wording as an agency error. Use A.2.3 for promise content, A.2.9 for the instituting speech-act Work, A.2.8 and A.2.8.PER for the commitment or grant, and A.15.1 only to identify the dated Work occurrence. An application result, production, delivery/transfer, acceptance, and evidence use each follows its own row in A.15.1:4.6 and is omitted when that claim is absent. F.18 only names recovered terms when durable naming is current.

  4. Effect claims without an actual occurrence. A description, diagram, log, or metric can state or support an effect claim, but none creates the effect. Ground the actual occurrence first. Use U.Work only when each exact actual performer has its A.13 core and A.15.1 independently identifies the Work, Method, time, and containing System. Add F.6 only when the receiving boundary claim expressly consumes precise assignment-bound attribution through the same obtaining A.13 assignment; missing or failed F.6 leaves the Work intact. Use A.3 and A.3.4, or the pattern that defines the interaction or causal claim, for natural, spontaneous, formal, or other non-Work change. Then name the observation and A.10 evidence path needed for reliance.

These confusions destroy evolvability: you cannot swap implementations behind a stable signature if the signature already smuggles mechanism gates, audit logistics, individual commitments, or assignment-based applicability conditions into “laws”.