fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 53100–53115

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 06:55:20 UTC

C.11:4.2.2 - Probe-worthiness rule

Another probe is worth doing only when all three conditions hold together:

  • the probe fits inside the remaining ProbeBudget;
  • the expected gain from the probe, through ValueOfInformation or ValueOfComputation, is large enough to justify its CostToProbe;
  • the probe can actually change the local choice result by changing the ranking, breaking or creating a tie, showing that no current option survives, repairing one missing comparison, or showing that the question should reroute.

This is the current local or myopic probe-worthiness rule for C.11: judge the best next feasible probe over the current OptionSet, not one whole non-myopic experiment design over longer horizons. Later sequential or non-myopic OED may strengthen this doctrine, but they do not relocate the local-choice question outside C.11.

Do not keep probing merely because uncertainty remains. Uncertainty is ordinary. What matters is whether one feasible next probe can still change what should be chosen, or whether the current OptionSet should be rejected, from the current local choice question.

If the best available next probe cannot change the local choice result, or its expected gain cannot justify its cost, state one explicit ChoiceResult under the current basis and current ChoiceRule.

If the next probe would no longer change which option survives but would only change how one already-chosen option gets enacted, budgeted, or checkpointed, the question has already crossed to C.24.