fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 47735–47747

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 08:25:59 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 10:17:34 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 10:25:09 UTC

C.2:4.1 - Coordinates, constitution, and neighboring relations

KD‑CAL characteristics (single‑episteme, point‑values).

  • Formality F. From free prose to machine‑checkable proof/specification. Litmus: would a machine reject it if wrong?
  • Claim scope (G), a set‑valued applicability over U.ContextSlice, with ∩/SpanUnion/translate algebra; CL penalties apply to R, not to F/G. Litmus: how wide is the declared scope, and under what minimal assumptions does the claim hold?
  • Reliability R. Warrant for this exact claim and receiving use. Litmus: what supports this conclusion, under which assumptions, and what limits it? R-claims MUST bind to their actual formal or empirical support. A numerical R requires the B.3/C.2.2 meaning, scale, and model; otherwise retain separate support and a bounded reasoned conclusion. A proof under axioms needs no empirical score, and F cannot be substituted for R. Relevance windows and B.3.4 currentness rules apply where the relied-on support consumes them.

Congruence Level (CL), pairwise ladder. CL‑0 Opposed/Disjoint (contrastive; no substitution); CL‑1 Comparable / Naming‑only (label similarity; no substitution); CL‑2 Translatable (structure‑preserving correspondence in a declared fragment with stated loss); CL‑3 Near‑identity (the declared invariants match). CL is a characteristic of a relation between two epistemes; it is not a fourth member of the F–G–R assurance tuple and it is not a characteristic space of its own. KD-CAL substitution constraint: plane preservation and CL ≥ 2 are necessary for a substitution under this calculus; substituting type‑structure additionally requires CL = 3. These conditions do not establish suitability for the proposed use. State the exact substitution, direction, correspondence rule, and tolerated loss under the direct receiving pattern, and establish reliance separately. When local meanings cross semantic contexts, first test the F.9 Bridge predicate on exact F.17 cells; keep the obtaining Bridge, bounded-use claim, and reliance result distinct. A CL value establishes no local system-role-kind membership or assignment.

Constitution and neighboring relations. State F, G, and R for one exact claim of one C.2.1 episteme. Its exact claim content, EntityOfConcern, and effective U.ReferenceScheme identify the episteme through EpistemeConstitutionRelation. F characterizes the claim’s form; G is the separate U.ClaimScope; R relies on exact evaluation, evidence-use, and assurance relations. Empirical grounding and edition remain separate C.2.1 relations. Viewpoint selection and view conformance remain under E.17.0; notation and other representation structure remain under C.29/A.6.3.RT; publication occurrence, form, and carrier remain under E.17/E.24.PUB. Multiple notations are allowed only when their exact representation or notation relation is explicit and any declared loss is applied to R rather than hidden in an omnibus episteme field.