fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 47095–47117

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.5.2.0:17 - Scope, rival-set, and comparative-validity discipline

A prompt should declare the scope in which its question is being asked: the domain fragment, operational horizon, or inquiry-bounded scope cut that makes the question answerable. If scope remains unbounded, rival hypotheses become incomparable because they are answering different questions.

A prompt need not list full hypotheses yet, but it should make visible whether rival answer types are already imaginable. If no rival answer space is even latent, the publication may still be a cue or orientation note rather than a true abductive prompt.

A prompt may be narrowed to become more discriminating, but the narrowing must not silently smuggle in the answer it is supposedly asking about. Otherwise the prompt ceases to be an initiating question and becomes a disguised conclusion. If a prompt already excludes every serious rival except one preferred explanatory line, the publication may already be preloading a hypothesis. Review should then either rewrite the prompt back into a real question or explicitly apply the governing pattern that carries the asserted answer.

Prompts may be compared across contexts only when their species, scope, and provenance are explicit. A probe-shaped question and an opportunity-shaped question are not the same kind of abductive entry merely because both invite explanation.

One note may legitimately contain a bundle of closely related prompts. If so, the bundle members should be distinguishable and still allow downstream rival comparison without confusion.

An assurance reader can test prompt readiness with three questions:

  1. Is there a real open explanatory question? An asserted answer is no longer a prompt; an action-choice question needs its own Method.
  2. Is the prompt species plausible? If the initiating cue shape is opportunity-shaped or probe-shaped, forcing anomaly species is a category error.
  3. Could rival hypotheses now be compared against this prompt? If not, the prompt candidate probably needs more stabilization before entering B.5.2.

Add three follow-up checks:

  • Is the scope tight enough for downstream comparison?
  • Is there an imaginable rival-set, even if not yet fully written?
  • Is the narrowing still a question rather than a disguised answer?