fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 53568–53596

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 12:05:13 UTC

C.11:4.6 - Minimal decision tuple and finish condition

A C.11 decision record is complete only when it states:

  • who or what is choosing: DecisionSubject at one DecisionSubjectGranularity;
  • what is currently choosable: OptionSet;
  • how the options are compared: PreferenceOrder or EvaluativeMeasure, plus BeliefState and OutcomeModel;
  • which heavier dependence layer is active when the case needs it: InterventionModel for causal repair, or CounterfactualModel plus SubjunctiveDependenceRelation for success-first or predictor-coupled repair;
  • what comparison doctrine currently governs the case: one explicit ChoiceRule;
  • when an inquiry alternative is live, an account of its feasibility, cost and possible contribution to the choice; when a decision or later use needs a retained inquiry limitation or reason, that minimum content in the same decision result.
  • what the current comparison concludes: one emitted ChoiceResult that says choose now, reject the current set, probe again, or reroute. That result must name either the selected option, the retained tie-set, the rejected current set, or the next probe or reroute named by value.

Without that explicit tuple, choice doctrine usually collapses into one of three easier but wrong substitutes: generic rationality talk, search folklore, or planning folklore.

The finish condition is more specific than “the record now sounds informed.” The record is finished enough for practical use only when the choice result stated in ChoiceResult follows from the stated comparison basis, stated ChoiceRule, and any applicable probe decision value rather than from unstated background assumptions.

A C.11 pass is finished enough for practical use when all three conditions hold:

  • the current comparison basis is explicit enough to explain the stated ChoiceResult: why an option or tie-set survives, no current option survives, or probing or rerouting is needed;
  • any live inquiry alternative has been resolved sufficiently to support the choice, and the result retains any inquiry reason or limitation needed by this decision or its recipient;
  • the next question is explicit: choose now, reject current set, probe again, or reroute.

An inactive inquiry item adds no placeholder or omission account to this tuple or finish condition.

If the case remains tied or underdetermined under the current basis, say that directly and keep the tie-set explicit. A lawful ChoiceResult may still be probe again or reroute, but it must not pretend that one winner already exists when the current basis has not earned that conclusion.

If those conditions are still missing, the pattern has not yet answered the choice question even if the terminology already sounds sophisticated.