fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 24066–24076

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 06:50:10 UTC

A.7.CP:11 - SoTA-Echoing

Practice questionCurrent practice and sourceFPF alignmentDisposition
Can exact claim content be reduced to possible-world equivalence?Fine 2017 argues for exact truthmaker content beyond coarse modal equivalence.Compact claims retain exact contents and IDs; FPF does not merge them into one modality field.Comparator only. No truthmaker ontology is imported.
How should formal claims preserve typed behavior?Homotopy type theory and related typed proof practice preserve exact proposition/type roles (Rijke, Shulman & Spitters 2020).Reasoning-basis use cites an exact claim episteme and does not infer world ontology from formal form.Adapt as formal comparator. Direct formal patterns keep proof semantics.
Do bearer and realization distinctions matter for capability claims?Applied-ontology capability work retains bearer and realization conditions (Toyoshima et al. 2022).A7CP-11 keeps capability claims under A.2.2 rather than importing a compact capability ontology.Comparator only. The external hierarchy is not imported.
Do weak permission, strong permission, and action satisfiers have the same content?Moltmann 2024 distinguishes those contents and their use.A7CP-11 protects direct permission patterns; exact claim IDs can support analysis without becoming permission objects.Adapt as separation pressure. No modal-object U-kind is added.

The current-practice implication is practical: exact claim use and subject-pattern boundaries matter more than a large premise catalogue. The worked cases demonstrate when two, four, or zero compact claims are used.