fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 47047–47076

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 14:30:10 UTC

B.5.2.0:14 - Prompt package discipline

A prompt becomes reusable in B.5.2 only when its initiating question is explicit enough to remain stable across downstream hypothesis work.

B.5.2.0:14.1 - Minimal prompt package

A robust abductive prompt should make explicit:

  • the prompt species,
  • the open question,
  • the motivating cue or route provenance,
  • the contrast set, if one is already visible,
  • the scope in which the question is being asked,
  • and the witnesses or cue grounds that justify beginning abduction.

This package lets downstream conjectures be tested against the same question rather than against a rewritten paraphrase.

For specialization-sensitive prompt species, the package should also make explicit the declared task family or utility target, the threshold or success condition being probed, the current budget window, the prior route provenance, and the rival prompt shapes still in play.

B.5.2.0:14.2 - Prompts are questions, not claims

A prompt may cue one explanation, but it remains a question-bearing entry form. If the text already asserts the answer, it has moved past prompt status and should be treated under B.5.2 or another governing pattern that carries the asserted answer.

B.5.2.0:14.3 - Prompt provenance remains load-bearing

The motivating provenance is part of prompt admission. Preserve the route, cue or witness basis actually used; a prompt with no routing history does not need an invented route.

B.5.2.0:14.4 - Check prompt against silent promotion

An assurance reader should watch for the common mistake where authors silently upgrade a prompt into a hypothesis merely because the prose sounds explanatory. If the text already leans on one preferred answer as settled, either rewrite it back into a real question or explicitly apply the governing pattern that carries the asserted answer.