fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 11683–11692

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 07:10:10 UTC

A.6:4.6 - Classification sanity rules (informative, concept-level)

These are writing diagnostics, not tool requirements.

  • RFC keyword inside Definition, invariant, or admissibility predicate → classification error (rephrase as predicate; move obligation to D-*).
  • E-* with no exact actual occurrence or evaluated predicate, or with a carrier but no evidence relation for the claimed use → incomplete effect/evidence claim. Ground Work through A.15.1 only when it actually obtains; otherwise use A.3/A.3.4 or the exact interaction or causal-use pattern. A carrier supports the claim but does not create the effect.
  • D-* that re-states an A-*/L-* predicate instead of citing its ID or canonical location → drift risk (prefer “MUST satisfy A-…”).
  • A face introduces new L/A/D/E content not present in the canonical claim set → view-fork. Recover the direct object and classify the new claim—duty/commitment/grant in D; exercise/evaluated finding/evidence in E; gate in A—then add it to its canonical source before face publication. Informative commentary may explain existing claims without adding boundary semantics.
  • “The system or service SHALL …” where the phrase does not name a direct behavior claim, general prescription, or exact individual commitment with its actual bearer and constitutive basis → unresolved subject and modality. Recover the System or other party, state an actual E-* behavior claim separately only when its actual basis is supplied, and state either the normative content or the direct A.2.8 commitment. A service label, system-role kind, or assignment proves none of these claims.