fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 59412–59455

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 16:02:47 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 16:03:51 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 16:25:20 UTC

C.22.PFR:4.1 - Use one exact criterion-applicability relation

CharacteristicSpacePredicate is a by-value predicate used by an A.19 comparison, acceptance, state, gate, or other direct consumer. It is not a new U-kind, publication record, description edition, or comparison result. Its meaning is recoverable from the declared characteristic-space coordinates, scales, normalization or bridge values, operator, cut or band, polarity, and the selected direct consumer’s governed comparator, admissibility, and predicate-use semantics. A separately performed evaluation remains U.Work; its result episteme and evidential-support relations remain separately governed, and none of these constitutes predicate meaning.

Before testing adversity, answer three plain questions: what exact point or value does this condition supply, how is that point obtained, and why is it the input for this problem-for entity and use? The by-value predicate therefore carries one ConditionToPredicateInputRule as part of its own semantics, not as another PFR participant:

  • Direct input: the actual-condition participant is already a governed characteristic-assignment or state relation whose subject pattern exposes the exact characteristic-space coordinate, scale, and value used by the predicate.
  • Projected input: when that relation does not itself expose the needed point, the rule cites one exact governed projection or bridge, its source relation kind and participant positions, target characteristic space, coordinate and scale, and the direct relation or predicate connecting that input to the problem-for entity and receiving use.

A relation reference alone is not a coordinate. If neither path yields the exact point and the problem-for link, adverse truth and PFR remain unestablished. When two projections are plausible, the rule names the selected one; identify the nearest inadmissible alternative only when one fails the declared input or problem-for-link conditions. ConditionToPredicateInputRule is a pattern-local by-value rule inside CharacteristicSpacePredicate; it is not a U-kind, relation occurrence, evaluation result, or copied PFR field.

Public name settlement. The following F.18 NameCard names the applicability relation kind.

NameCard:
  NameCardId: NC-PROBLEM-CRITERION-APPLICABILITY-RELATION
  GovernedValueRef: ProblemCriterionApplicabilityRelation under C.22.PFR
  SubjectPatternLocator: C.22.PFR
  ReferenceScheme: FPFCoreReferenceScheme
  LocalSenseRef: obtaining relation saying that one characteristic-space predicate currently governs one exact problem-for entity and claim scope under one declared criterion-applicability window, independently of whether an actual condition presently satisfies the adverse predicate; repeated occurrences with the same four participants are distinguished by maximal continuous actual applicability
  TechLabel: ProblemCriterionApplicabilityRelation
  PlainLabel: problem-criterion applicability
  CandidateSet: ProblemCriterionApplicabilityRelation; CriterionApplicabilityRelation; ProblemCriterionUseRelation; ApplicableProblemCriterion
  RejectedCandidates: CriterionApplicabilityRelation overclaims a universal criterion ontology; ProblemCriterionUseRelation hides obtaining applicability behind use wording; ApplicableProblemCriterion turns a relation into an adjective-headed value
  SelectionRationale: preserve distinct applicability occurrences for different exact entities, scopes, or declared windows and after actual loss and restoration of applicability, without making a predicate-description edition identity-bearing
  PublicRowStatus: pending
  LineageEntries: replaces description-edition and generic criterion-use identity proposals
  RefreshCondition: reopen if the four fixed participants plus maximal continuous actual applicability cannot distinguish applicability occurrences, or if the direct rule no longer separates criterion governance from adverse-condition satisfaction

Use one individuable dependent U.Relation for applicability:

ProblemCriterionApplicabilityRelation:
  ProblemCriterionPredicateSlot: CharacteristicSpacePredicate, byValue
  ProblemForEntitySlot: U.Entity, byRef with an exact local ValueKind
  PredicateClaimScopeSlot: U.ClaimScope, byValue
  DeclaredCriterionApplicabilityWindowSlot: DeclaredCriterionApplicabilityWindow, byValue; use an explicit unbounded value when no finite bound is intended

This relation states that one exact predicate currently governs one exact entity and claim scope under one declared criterion-applicability window. Its direct applicability predicate is satisfied while that criterion remains selected and governing for that entity, scope, and window; it does not ask whether any actual condition is presently on the adverse side. The applicability occurrence can therefore continue across adverse, non-adverse, and later adverse condition intervals. It ceases when the criterion is withdrawn or replaced for that use, the entity or claim scope changes, the declared window no longer covers the use, or another direct applicability condition fails. One occurrence is identified by the four fixed participants plus the maximal continuous period of actual applicability. Changing a participant yields another occurrence; actual loss and later restoration of applicability yields distinct occurrences even when all four participants stay fixed. A coextensional description edition or carrier change does not change either the predicate participant or the occurrence. Assessment windows, evidence-relevance intervals, description editions, claim-currentness windows, and adverse-truth intervals remain with their own claims and relations.

A semantic predicate change selects a different predicate participant; it is not an edition-only repair. If the new predicate replaces the old predicate for the same use and the old applicability therefore ceases, the old applicability occurrence ends and a new occurrence begins only if the new predicate actually applies. The PFR dependent on the old occurrence can then end, and another PFR can begin under the new occurrence when adverse truth obtains. If both predicates remain applicable, two applicability occurrences may coexist; a new criterion description alone does not prove replacement or cessation.