fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 53079–53099

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 07:00:10 UTC

C.11:4.2.1a - Minimal admissible decision semantics

This minimal choice doctrine does not settle every decision-theory dispute, but it already supports some semantic distinctions by value and rules out others.

The following are lawful in this C.11 body when they are stated explicitly:

  • one incomplete or only partially ordered PreferenceOrder, so long as the unresolved comparison stays visible through one retained tie-set, one further probe, or one honest reject current set result rather than one fake winner;
  • one EvaluativeMeasure for magnitude, threshold, or trade-off-sensitive cases, so long as the measure being used now is explicit enough to explain why the current result follows under it;
  • one temporary unresolved criterion conflict, so long as the record says whether the present comparison is using one priority order, one threshold, one explicit trade-off measure, or one unfinished state that still blocks closure;
  • one explicit BeliefState revision, so long as it enters the comparison as one named probe result or one named model repair rather than as one silent basis shift;
  • one widened DecisionSubject at person, team, organization, or other collectivity-bearing level, so long as the current subject-bearing level is explicit and the record does not hide unresolved cross-scale or cross-collective conflict behind one generic chooser label.

The following are not admissible in this C.11 body:

  • silently totalizing one genuinely partial preference relation just to force choose now;
  • silently switching from one criterion mix or one belief state to another across options;
  • pretending that unresolved cross-scale or cross-collectivity conflict is already one settled local ranking when the aggregation question has not actually been discharged;
  • using one polished record shape as a substitute for one stated comparison doctrine.

This is why C.11 is more than one note-taking protocol. The body already supports local incompleteness, partial order, explicit trade-off measures, and wider chooser-bearing cases, but it requires those semantic facts to change the lawful result rather than remain hidden beneath one elegant summary line.