Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading

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 13:00:08 UTC

C.2.1:4.5 - Relate distinct episteme editions explicitly

Tech name: EpistemeEditionRelation.

Plain reading: this later episteme continues this earlier episteme as an edition under one applicable continuity rule.

EpistemeEditionRelation has exactly two direct participants. Applying the shared declaration rule in 4.2.1, EpistemeEditionRelationSignature is one declaration episteme whose exact EntityOfConcern is EpistemeEditionRelation; the same individual has U.Signature membership and relation-facing RelationSignature use only under A.6.0. Its complete declaration includes the direct predicate, participant-determined identity, applicability, actual dependencies and provided names, and these SlotSpecs:

SlotKindRelation-participant meaningValueKindrefMode
EarlierEpistemeSlotexact episteme continued by the later editionU.EpistemeU.EpistemeRef
LaterEpistemeSlotexact episteme that continues the earlier editionU.EpistemeU.EpistemeRef

The relation obtains only when all of these conditions hold:

  1. the two epistemes have different C.2.1 identities;
  2. the later episteme actually uses the earlier episteme as the source for the claimed revision, refinement, or supersession;
  3. one applicable edition-continuity policy or rule states which claim, EntityOfConcern, and effective-reference-scheme features must be preserved, which may deliberately change, and what counts as continuation for this episteme family;
  4. the exact preserved and deliberately changed features satisfy that rule;
  5. no failure condition in that rule classifies the case as a fork, translation, retargeting, or independent reconstruction instead.

Work, an enacted Method, provenance, and change results supply case facts. Their labels do not make continuity true. C.2.P may recover the source expression and source-to-revision use; the direct change patterns supply exact changed features. If the continuity claim separately consumes a first-existence fact, apply the shared boundary in 4.9. A missing required rule or fact blocks only that positive edition claim.

One occurrence is identified by the exact <earlier episteme, later episteme> pair. Two revision Work occurrences do not create two edition occurrences for the same pair. The relation is acyclic in its earlier-to-later direction. A renamed file, later publication, shared title, bare provenance edge, or Method named “revision” establishes no occurrence.

Several edition occurrences form a lineage structure only when a receiving use depends on their organization. A separately identified edition collection remains under A.14; collection membership does not establish continuity. PhaseOf may describe one unchanged episteme over a proper interval but does not connect two different C.2.1 identities.

When claim content, EntityOfConcern, or effective reference scheme changes, the later object is another episteme. Apply A.6.4 separately when the current claim is effect-free retargeting between epistemes with different EntitiesOfConcern; retargeting alone does not establish edition continuity. A changed publication form alone identifies neither another episteme nor an edition relation.