B.5.2:4 - Solution - Structured abductive micro-cycle
B.5.2 begins from an admissible U.AbductivePrompt, expands a candidate set, compares it under explicit plausibility criteria, and publishes the selected conjecture as a hypothesis-bearing U.Episteme. Preserve the supports, rivals, limitations and allowed downstream use. Abduction alone assigns no AssuranceLevel.
B.5.2:4.1 - Nature of abduction in FPF
In FPF, abduction proposes a presently most plausible candidate explanation, model or conjecture under a declared prompt. Its plausibility can justify keeping or using that conjecture for a bounded purpose, but does not establish its causal mechanism or a stronger empirical claim. Deduction, evidence synthesis and action choice keep their own questions.
B.5.2:4.2 - Four-step micro-cycle
| Step | Core activity | Required publication outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Frame the prompt | State the initiating U.AbductivePrompt precisely enough that the unexplained contrast, opportunity, or probe pressure is explicit. | A prompt record with open question, scope notes, and provenance. |
| 2. Generate candidate hypotheses | Produce multiple candidate conjectures that could resolve the prompt. | A visible candidate set, even if lightweight. |
| 3. Apply plausibility filters | Compare candidates against explicit plausibility criteria. | A short rationale that records why some candidates remain live and others are rejected. |
| 4. Select and publish the prime hypothesis | Choose the presently preferred conjecture where the comparison warrants one. | A hypothesis-bearing U.Episteme with its prompt, selection rationale, live rivals, supports, fragilities and allowed use. No universal level or mandatory next experiment follows. |
The loop is intentionally iterable. A selected prime hypothesis may later be replaced, narrowed, or reopened if deduction, probe work, or evidence reveals a better rival.
B.5.2:4.3 - Entry discipline via U.AbductivePrompt
AnomalyStatement remains a canonical prompt species, but it is not the only one. B.5.2 also accepts the broader prompt species governed by B.5.2.0, such as ProblemCuePrompt, OpportunityCuePrompt, and ProbeCuePrompt. This broadens entry without dissolving type discipline.
B.5.2:4.4 - Plausibility filters
The filtering step is local and context-sensitive, but the criteria used SHALL be explicit. Typical filters include:
- Parsimony. Does the candidate introduce only the additional structure that the prompt requires?
- Explanatory reach. How much of the prompt does the candidate actually account for?
- Consistency with established constraints. Does the candidate avoid collision with already trusted pillars, mechanisms, or scope declarations?
- Falsifiability / probeability. What implication, deduction or possible observation could discriminate the candidate from its rivals? Keep that question separate from whether a check is obtainable and worth performing now.
- Scope fit. Is the candidate framed for the declared prompt scope rather than for an inflated or shifted target?
No one filter is universally decisive. The pattern only requires that at least two filters be declared when a prime hypothesis is selected.
When a causal hypothesis cannot yet yield a discriminating implication because its mechanisms and rival accounts are unspecified, use C.28.CM to construct comparable causal models. Return their conditional consequences and unresolved premises to these plausibility filters. A useful hypothesis whose present question is already answered needs no additional model merely to remain a candidate.
B.5.2:4.5 - Abductive Unfolding Structure Block
When the question concerns possible continuations of abductive work and their conditions, use A.22.CGUS’s ordinary branch. Open its formal branch only when the receiving use needs the structure’s identity or replay; reuse of a hypothesis note alone does not require that branch.
AbductiveUnfoldingStructureBlock:
unfoldingStructureRef: one independently identified A.22.CGUS structure
abductivePromptRef:
cueSetWithDownstreamPatternAlternativesRef:
rivalHypothesisSetRef:
hypothesisGenerationLoci[]:
plausibilityConstraintRefs[]:
evidenceReturnLoci[]:
languageStateMoveRefs[]:
poolPolicyOrSelectionRef?:
blockedOverread?: not inspiration event, not linear ideation workflow, not evidence by itself
Use unfoldingStructureRef to designate the selected structure. Recover its constituents, obtaining relation occurrences, applied constraints and selection-use frame under A.22; qualify its loci and potential continuations under A.22.CGUS. Keep the describing record separate from that identity. Use cueSetWithDownstreamPatternAlternativesRef when the prompt still carries several possible patterns for the next question. Use rivalHypothesisSetRef before selecting a prime hypothesis. Use evidenceReturnLoci[] to say where later evidence, deduction, probe design, or assurance work can return; do not use those loci as evidence. Abductive plausibility comparison remains here. Use C.18 for archive or front claims, C.19 for live-pool policy, G.5 for a selector’s selected-set declaration, or the direct comparison method when that distinct result is needed.
AbductiveSearchUnfoldingStructure is a local designation for an A.22.CGUS structure selected for an abductive-search question; it supplies no additional identity rule. It is not a root U-kind, ideation workflow, evidence, or selection decision. Use B.5.2 to state the abductive prompt, cue set with alternative next patterns, rival hypotheses, plausibility constraints, and evidence-return loci. Use the patterns that define or test evidence, deduction, probe design, assurance, selected-set result declaration, pool policy, and comparison when those claims become current.