fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 55894–55918

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 13:25:20 UTC

C.16.Q:4.0a - Operational repair sequence

When the trigger fires, follow the E.10.ARCH recovery order specialized to quality-term or evaluative characterization:

  1. Capture the trigger span. Copy the trigger phrase using quality or a red-flag derivative such as high-quality, quality metric, quality characteristic, or model quality.

  2. Recover the bearer and publication lane. Name the bearer and the relevant A.7 distinction between the EntityOfConcern being described, its description or another episteme, a publication face, and a carrier evaluated in its own right. Examples of bearers include a pattern, model, policy, explanation, candidate, architecture description, work result, relation, or action loop. Keep ordinary prose with no FPF-governed use ordinary.

  3. Recover interpretation locality and reconstruct candidates. Recover the effective ReferenceScheme, probe/model frame, separate A.19.CPM comparison frame or none, U.ClaimScope, evaluator, and U.ViewpointRef or none. Then enumerate plausible senses and the patterns or source relations for their candidate endpoints. If the occurrence is decision-bearing, publication-bearing, or cross-local, record these alternatives in a short quality-term Candidate-Set Note before selecting the repair.

  4. Exit when the claim being made is not quality-term or evaluative characterization. If the occurrence is primarily action invitation, relation construction, bridge, basedness, endpoint mismatch, evidence, assurance, gate, work, decision, causal-use, release, mathematical-lens use, characteristic and scale construction, or source-use, do not assign a QualitySense. Apply A.6.P, A.6.A, C.16.P, C.29, C.2.P, or the pattern for the recovered claim.

  5. Select one explicit quality sense. Pick one QualitySense token and state why rival senses were rejected in this local context.

  6. Emit an endpoint-explicit or transitional rewrite. Rewrite the sentence either into the evaluative form defined for a known endpoint (Characteristic | Q-Bundle | Objective | ExplanatoryMeritBundle | selector-value endpoint) or, while endpoint choice is still being stabilized, into one explicit qualityTermAscription(...) transitional repair form with bearer, effective ReferenceScheme, probe/model and comparison frames, evaluator and U.ViewpointRef, U.ClaimScope, normal form, result boundary, and separate witness/evidence/grounding and cross-local qualifiers.

  7. Classify boundary-bearing consequences. If the repaired statement is used for admissibility, commitments, publication, evidence-bearing decisions, gates, release, or work, apply the pattern for that downstream claim instead of letting quality carry it by itself.