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 05:29:54 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 05:30:57 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 07:35:20 UTC

C.30.ASV:4.7 - Correspondence and source return

Use correspondence records when the view relates functional, flow, control, module-interface, information, runtime, placement, work, evidence, scale, or logical structures. Do not assert cross-view consistency by prose alone.

Correspondence examples:

Source wordingRecover
“This function is implemented by that module.”FunctionToModuleAllocationRef or the allocation or relation record named by value.
“This flow crosses that runtime boundary.”FlowToRuntimeInteractionCorrespondence.
“This evidence covers the replacement.”EvidenceReuseToAffectedStructure; use A.10 for bounded source-to-use reliance, G.6 for citable provenance paths, and B.3 only for a named assurance claim. Establish sufficiency under the applicable result pattern.
“This requirement constrains that structure.”RequirementToStructureConstraint or a constraint record named by value.
“This scale window changes the structure kind.”ScaleWindowToStructureKindCorrespondence; assign scale-lens claims to C.29 when those claims are being made.

Use SourceReturnCondition when compression, extraction, coarsening, evidence reuse, ML evaluation, bounded exception, many-to-many allocation, publication, or decision claim hides a distinction needed for action, assurance, causal use, law-domain review, regulatory review, comparison, or reopening.

If viewConstruction is query, extraction, coarsening, correspondenceSlice, or sourceReturnSlice, and omitted structure changes action, assurance, causal use, law-domain or regulatory review, or subsequent decision reopening, SourceReturnCondition is needed.

When the view is used to name affected structures for a next architecture use but no decision record is being used, use C.30 AffectedArchitectureStructureNote: affected structure kinds, affected structure refs when known, affected ASV refs, accepted or suspected view loss, source-return condition, and the next admissible use. The note is not an architecture decision, ADR, gate passage, evidence sufficiency, or release authority.

Use the thinnest source or reliance relation that preserves the next architecture move. Use fuller source, evidence, assurance, or claim-kind relation only when the source or reliance relation being used cannot be inspected, used, compared, refreshed, or bounded without it. A ControlStructureViewNote may precede full C.30.LCA use or use of the applicable proof or assurance pattern when one control relation and its boundary are enough for the architecture move being made.

Treat source return as a user action, not only a metadata field:

SourceReturnAction:
  returnTo:
    sourceStructure | sourceEpisteme | sourceView | sourceTrace |
    sourceCorpus | sourceModel | sourceEvidence | sourcePublication
  because:
    hiddenRelation | lostConstraint | coarsenedScale |
    ambiguousExtraction | staleEdition | crossViewMismatch |
    lawDomainOrRegulatoryUse | assuranceOrDecisionUse
  nextSourceReturnAction:
    inspect | split | downgradeUse | addCorrespondence |
    openNeighborPattern | stop

Do not make source return mandatory for ordinary local recognition when no hidden distinction is being used for action. Do not omit source return when a hidden distinction carries a selected reliance relation, assurance, law-domain, comparison, causal, gate, or decision commitment. The condition is needed only when the repaired text still relies on the hidden source-side distinction.

Model cards, system cards, and evaluation harness reports may publish or substantiate an architecture structural view only when the structural-view claim is recoverable. The view must name the relevant structure kind, such as RuntimeInteractionStructure, InformationDataStructure, SecurityTrustBoundaryStructure, EvidenceAssuranceStructure, ModuleInterfaceStructure, or another declared structure kind; it must also state intended-use scope, evaluation scope and known loss when evaluation is used, deployment-context mismatch when that mismatch is being claimed, and the applicable evidence or assurance pattern when the publication is used beyond transparency. A card or harness is not architecture adequacy, safety proof, or release claim or gate claim by publication alone.

Currentness and smallest reopen. When a decisive input changes, reopen only the ArchitectureStructuralView locus and use conclusions that depend on it. A changed selected structure or structure kind reopens its exact structure fields and, when another structure becomes the EntityOfConcern, requires a separately identified description episteme; a changed description identity reopens only that episteme’s view admission; a changed viewpoint or conformance occurrence reopens only the E.17.0 predicate; changed construction or knowledge state, correspondence, source edition or lost structure reopens the matching provenance, correspondence, source-to-use, hidden or lost structure, or source-return locus; and a changed admissible-use boundary or applicable rule reopens only its dependent use or claim. Update that locus, narrow use, return to the named source, or stop. If conformance to the current exact viewpoint is not established, use a structural description or ArchitectureStructureKindTriage@Project for the next move. Changed use alone leaves fixed <E,P> conformance unchanged; unrelated structures, views, and claims stay closed.