fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 61095–61113

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 08:25:59 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 08:26:43 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 08:50:20 UTC

C.25:12 - Relations

E.21 specialises Q-Bundle-shaped claim content for FPF pattern-quality claims. C.25 remains the general endpoint pattern for engineering quality families; E.21 governs the claim when its exact EntityOfConcern is one FPF pattern version evaluated as action-guiding FPF text.

C.27 temporal-claim relation.

  • C.27 may flag: a quality-family statement where agility, resilience, adaptability, recovery, or robustness depends on braking, redirection, stabilization, recovery rate, or rhythm under effort.

  • This pattern keeps: quality-family bundle structure, scope, mechanism/status slots, evidence, qualification window, and failure mode.

  • Non-admissible use: temporal adequacy alone does not establish quality adequacy; speed, recovery, or rhythm becomes quality content only when it contributes to a declared quality-family claim. Include scope, mechanism/status slots, evidence, and failure mode only when the claim or receiving action depends on them.

  • Coordinate with C.27 only when a temporal claim is being used to change action; do not make every quality bundle carry dynamic slots.

  • Builds on: A.2.6 for scope algebra, A.6.1 for operation-declaration references when current, and C.16 / A.18 for CHR legality.

  • Coordinates with: C.2.2a, A.16.0, A.10 for ordinary reliance on a bounded cross-context use, B.3 only when an actual named assurance claim is current, A.15 for gate use, C.16.P for unresolved characteristic, scale, score, metric, or proxy wording inside a quality-family statement, C.16.Q for overloaded quality or evaluative-characterization wording, C.33, C.34, and C.35 when captured structure, lost structure, preservation, or generated-result adequacy becomes part of a composite architecture quality family, C.17, C.18, and C.19 for adjacent quality-family measures, and F.9 when bundle comparison needs semantic correspondence between local senses with different interpretation bases, or F.9.1 when Bridge stance annotation is required.

  • Constrains: engineering quality authoring whenever a quality term would otherwise drift between single-CHR and composite-bundle readings.

C.25:12.1 - Endpoint function in evaluative classification

In evaluative repair, C.25 is the endpoint pattern for engineering quality families after overloaded quality wording has been repaired by C.16.Q and any hidden characteristic, scale, score, metric, or proxy wording has been repaired by C.16.P. qualityTermAscription(...) may remain a transitional repair record, but it is not the universal resting place when the admissible result is a claim about one Characteristic, one episteme with Q-Bundle-shaped claim content, or an explicit objective-oriented quality claim under its own endpoint pattern.