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 11:05:10 UTC

C.30.ASV:4.5 - Initial architecture structure kinds and view records

The initial set is a seed for first architecture moves, not an atlas. Use the table to choose one structure kind under consideration and the applicable pattern for any non-ASV claim.

Seed structure kindStructural viewMinimum record fields beyond common ASV fieldsFirst boundary
FunctionalStructureFunctionalStructureViewfunctionalBehaviorClaimRefs, requiredOrDesiredEffectClaimRefs?, actualTransformationRefs?, selectedTransformationFlowStructureRefs?, functionalElementClaimRefs?, transformerSideFillerRefs?, candidateBearerRefs?, input-condition refs, output-condition refs, functional-port refs, capability refs, dependency refs, allocation refs, correspondence refsRequired or desired content stays a claim; use A.3.4 only for independently actual transformations, and use capability, work, module-allocation, or requirement patterns when those claims are being made.
TransformationFlowStructureTransformationFlowStructureViewtransformationFlowStructureRef, pathSliceRefs, crossingRefs, valuationRefs, mathematicalDescriptionRefs?Use E.18 and C.30.TFS-REL for selected transformation-flow structure, transformation-flow path, or crossing input; use E.18.2 and C.29 for mathematical graph descriptions; use C.28 for causal claims.
RuntimeInteractionStructureRuntimeInteractionStructureViewruntime elements, connectors and protocols, event topology and message topology, failure boundaries and latency boundariesUse temporal, failure, evidence, or assurance patterns when runtime claims exceed structure.
ModuleInterfaceStructureModuleInterfaceStructureViewmodule claim or admitted relation refs, interface specs, admissibility conditions, substitutability policy or change policyUse A.6.M to repair the module claim and identify the admitted interface or relation separately when those claims are being made.
PlacementDeploymentStructurePlacementDeploymentStructureViewallocation-to-site refs or environment refs, network locality or physical locality, jurisdiction constraints or safety constraintsUse temporal, evidence, law-domain, regulatory, or safety patterns when claims of those non-placement kinds are being made.
InformationDataStructureInformationDataStructureViewstate bearer and residence refs, schema refs, semantic refs, persistence locus, provenance relation, custody relation, source-return conditions, privacy constraintsUse evidence, privacy, or source-return patterns when those claims are being made.
SecurityTrustBoundaryStructureSecurityTrustBoundaryStructureViewprotected asset or effect refs, trust boundary refs, untrusted input refs, privilege or authority refs, data-flow and control-flow refs, attack exposure refs, abuse or misuse path refs, secure-default or hardening boundary, supply-chain or update-channel refs, detection-response boundary refs when the corresponding claim is being madeGives a first security-architecture move before evidence, assurance, gate, risk-score, or compliance proof.
ControlStructureControlStructureViewcontrol-participant refs, declared control-rate refs, observer, estimator, controller, planner, and supervisor relations, feedback refsUse C.30.LCA, dynamics, temporal, causal, evidence, and assurance patterns when those claims are being made.
ConstraintRequirementStructureConstraintRequirementStructureViewrequirement refs, constraint refs, and invariant refs, affected structure refs, admissibility conditionsRequirements shape structures; use the applicable requirement, gate, evidence, causal, or decision pattern for those claims.
MaterialSpatialStructureMaterialSpatialStructureViewgeometry, adjacency, containment, energy flow or material flow, safety separationPhysical separation is not safety proof; use the applicable safety, evidence, dynamics, or causal pattern for those claims.
DeclaredLogicalStructureLogicalStructureViewlocal logical relation class, relation constraints, correspondence to functional structures, module structures, runtime structures, and data structuresCovers logical architecture without making logical a universal ontology token.

Classifier values defined outside C.30.ASV remain admissible when they are the architecture-relevant structure under consideration, but C.30.ASV does not define their full record families:

Classifier value defined outside C.30.ASVASV useFull semantics and applicable patterns
WorkMethodStructureA Method’s organization or an arrangement of performed work changes the architecture move.§4.5a selects the relevant questions for Methods. A.3.1 supplies Method identity and relation recovery; B.1.5 qualifies Method composition and interfaces. A.15 keeps MethodDescription, one exact WorkPlan and dated Work occurrences separate. Use the applicable rule for an actual allocation, exception, launch or gate claim.
AllocationResponsibilityStructureExact responsibility relations or enactor-allocation relations change the architecture move.Preserve each admitted direct responsibility predicate and occurrence through the view. Keep the System, local system-role kind, separate System-classification judgment, assignment, enactor relation, organization relation, actual Work basis, concern or affected-party relation, authority, ownership, stewardship, and responsibility distinct. Recover owner, steward, and stakeholder from the claim they make and use the corresponding direct ownership, governance, stewardship, concern, affected-party, participation, responsibility, authority, or ordinary-label route. Use E.10.ROLE only when the source wording actually uses unresolved claim-bearing role. Return the exact missing-governor for a required relation rather than treating an org chart, title, assignment, or Work as that relation.
EvidenceAssuranceStructureEvidence reuse or assurance arrangement changes affected structure or source return.Use A.10 for bounded source-to-use reliance, G.6 for citable provenance paths, and B.3 only for a named assurance claim; the applicable result pattern establishes evidence sufficiency. ASV only names the structure and loss boundary.
ScaleEvolutionStructureScale window, replacement or change policy, trajectory reference, or coarse-graining changes the architecture move.Use C.29, C.16, temporal, source-return, or decision patterns for scale, characterization, or selection claims.
OtherDeclaredStructureKindA local structure kind is declared because none of the seed or externally defined values fits.Name its definition, selected-structure admission test, relation families, applicable patterns, and effective reference scheme when local meaning depends on one; do not mint a root kind by label alone.

Minimum useful seed examples:

Structure kindMinimal exampleFalse interpretationPattern for the first non-ASV claim
FunctionalStructureCapability, required or desired effect claim, or separately actual transformation allocation.Purpose truth, requirement satisfaction, or a required effect treated as actual change.A.6.F, A.3.4 only for actual transformation, capability, work, or requirement pattern when that claim kind is being made.
TransformationFlowStructureTransformation-flow path, crossing, valuation, or selected transformation slice.Whole architecture or causal proof.E.18, C.30.TFS-REL, E.18.2, C.29, or C.28 when selected structure, graph description, transformation-flow path, crossing, mathematical-lens, or causal-use claim kind is being made.
ControlStructureController, observer, plant, feedback, or rate relation.Stability, safety, or assurance proof.C.30.LCA, temporal, dynamics, causal, evidence, or assurance pattern when that claim kind is being made.
ModuleInterfaceStructureModule relation, interface spec, or substitutability boundary.Module tree as all architecture.A.6.M module-relation repair, conformance evidence, or decision pattern when that claim kind is being made.
InformationDataStructureState bearer, residence, provenance, and custody.Database label.Evidence, privacy, or source-return pattern when that claim or reliance use is being made.
SecurityTrustBoundaryStructureTrust boundary, untrusted input, privilege path, or attack exposure.Security proof, risk score, or compliance label.Evidence, assurance, gate, C.24 call planning after the action or option is fixed, C.16, C.25, or C.30.LCA when that security, evidence, assurance, gate, call-planning, measurement, quality, or control claim or use is current.
MaterialSpatialStructureSeparation, adjacency, containment, or energy path or material path.Safety proof or geometry as architecture truth.Safety, evidence, dynamics, or causal pattern when that claim kind is being made.
DeclaredLogicalStructureLocal logical relation class with correspondence to other structures.Universal logical architecture ontology.Use the applicable correspondence, function, module, runtime, or data pattern for the relation or claim.

Minimal SecurityTrustBoundaryStructureView fields:

SecurityTrustBoundaryStructureView ::= {
  architectureStructuralViewRef:
  protectedAssetOrEffectRefs:
  trustBoundaryRefs:
  untrustedInputRefs:
  privilegeOrAuthorityRefs:
  dataFlowOrControlFlowRefs:
  attackExposureRefs:
  abuseOrMisusePathRefs:
  secureDefaultOrHardeningBoundary:
  updateOrSupplyChainChannelRefs:
  detectionResponseBoundaryRefs?:
  claimPatternRefs:
    A.10 | G.6 | B.3 | C.28 | A.20 | A.21 |
    C.16 | C.25 | C.24 call planning after the action or option is fixed | C.30.LCA when a control relation is being claimed
  admissibleUse:
  otherClaimBoundary:
    compliance, risk-score, assurance, checklist-security, and zero-trust claims use the applicable evidence, assurance, risk, gate, or security pattern
}

SecurityTrustBoundaryStructure carries adversarial-boundary interpretation: which protected assets or effects are under consideration, who or what is trusted, where untrusted input crosses, what authority or privilege is exposed, which adversarial paths and attack exposures matter, which data-flow or control-flow security boundaries matter, and where secure defaults, hardening, update or supply-chain channels, detection, or response boundaries change the next architecture move.

Apply evidence, assurance, gate, or compliance patterns only when the architecture move relies on evidence sufficiency, assurance verdict, gate passage, regulatory acceptance, or release authority. If the selected move is structural, first recover the structure: trust boundary, loss-control relation, control relation, evidence reuse structure, or affected structure or affected view.

Use a SafetyLossControlStructureNote when a safety-architecture concern first needs the architecture-side loss-control structure rather than a safety-case verdict:

SafetyLossControlStructureNote:
  lossOrHarm:
  hazardOrUnsafeState:
  unsafeControlActionOrMissingControl:
  controlledProcessOrPlantRef:
  controlConstraintRef:
  feedbackOrObservabilityBoundary:
  timingOrRateBoundary:
  operationalDesignScopeOrMisuseScope:
  foreseeableMisuseRefs?:
  architectureStructureKindRefs:
    ControlStructure | ConstraintRequirementStructure |
    SecurityTrustBoundaryStructure | InformationDataStructure |
    EvidenceAssuranceStructure
  claimPatternRefs:
    A.3.3 dynamics, C.27 temporal or rate,
    C.28 causal-use, A.10 or G.6 evidence,
    B.3 assurance, A.20 internal-constraint validity, A.21 gate decisions
  nonAdmissibleUse:
    not safety proof, not safety-case verdict, not regulatory acceptance

The note gives a positive first architecture move: find the loss-control structure, controlled process or plant, constraint, foreseeable misuse, operational design scope, and action-relevant boundary. It does not replace evidence, assurance, gate, causal, dynamics, or temporal claims.