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 10:39:28 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 10:40:04 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 11:00:13 UTC

C.25:15 - Worked Quality Families

C.25:15.1 - Availability family

A narrow service commitment may use AvailabilityRatio[%] as one characteristic. A broader availability family usually still needs a bundle because the claim depends on:

  • declared service and time scope,
  • observation and qualification window,
  • one or more mechanism slots such as failover or redundancy,
  • and evidence tying the measurement to declared observation conditions.

The bundle form makes it possible to distinguish “the measurement fell short” from “the measurement is fine but the declared mechanism prerequisite was absent”.

C.25:15.2 - Resilience family

Resilience is almost never one scalar. It commonly binds together:

  • disruption scenario scope,
  • restoration-related measures such as MTTR, RTO, or RPO,
  • recovery mechanisms and preparedness states,
  • and scenario-specific evidence about drills, restorations, or incident traces.

Trying to compress this into a single resilience value usually destroys the difference between fast recovery in one scenario and structural fragility in another.

C.25:15.3 - Security family

Security claims routinely combine:

  • trust-zone or attack-class scope,
  • measurable characteristics such as patch latency, control coverage, or response interval,
  • control-set and certification slots,
  • and evidence from audit, observation, or incident review.

C.25 therefore treats broad security-family claims as bundle-shaped unless the claim has already been narrowed to one admissible CHR characteristic.

C.25:15.4 - Maintainability and evolvability

Maintainability or evolvability claims often drift into pure rhetoric. In C.25, they become usable only when the publisher separates:

  • the declared scope of systems or change classes,
  • the measurable slots (for example change lead time, defect reintroduction rate, restoration interval, review load),
  • the enabling mechanisms (modularity rules, test harnesses, interface discipline),
  • and the window or evidence conditions under which those measures were observed.

This is exactly the kind of quality family that looks scalar in speech but turns composite once the claim is made explicit.