fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 69911–69930

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 06:15:20 UTC

C.30.ASV:7 - Conformance Checklist

IDRequirementFailed-check repair
CC-ASV-1 Structure target.Every architecture structural view has one exact selected U.Structure as its C.2.1 EntityOfConcern.Name and constitute the selected structure under A.22, or keep the inspected episteme or publication as an architecture question input that does not yet claim to be a structural view.
CC-ASV-2 Structure kind.Every architecture structural view names structureKindRef.Use ArchitectureStructureKindTriage@Project; if no structure kind changes action, keep the text as ordinary prose or a source note.
CC-ASV-3 Exact episteme and subject trace.The view preserves one exact claim graph, one selected-structure EntityOfConcern, effective U.ReferenceScheme, and the subject trace to the exact holon and any obtaining ArchitectureRelation; optional architecture claim, ClaimScope, empirical grounding, and model-use structure remain separate.Restore the exact episteme identity and subject trace, or identify a new description before relying on it; do not derive identity from an architecture-claim field or context bundle.
CC-ASV-4 Viewpoint conformance.The candidate episteme and exact viewpoint episteme satisfy the fixed five-part E.17.0 predicate, and viewpointConformanceRelationRef names the participant-determined obtaining occurrence. A bundle or viewpoint label is only discovery support.Apply E.17.0. If the predicate does not obtain, keep a structural description or triage result and do not call it U.View.
CC-ASV-5 Lost structure.The view names hidden or lost structure, especially for query, extraction, coarsening, or publication uses.Add a one-line hidden-structure note or lost-structure note, or narrow the admissible use so omitted structure is not relied on.
CC-ASV-6 Correspondence.Cross-view claims are carried by exact correspondence claims or independently established obtaining relations, not by prose, shared packaging, or graph adjacency alone.Add a correspondence claim or direct relation, or stop at a single-view statement without a cross-view consistency claim.
CC-ASV-7 No representation or publication collapse.A diagram, model, table, dashboard, generated relation graph, ADR, publication occurrence, form, or carrier is kept separate from the view episteme and selected structure.Name the exact description episteme, any C.29 representation, and the E.24.PUB occurrence, form, and carrier separately; claim U.View only when E.17.0 conformance obtains.
CC-ASV-8 No single-view architecture.If a decision uses an architecture view, it names the affected structures and views, not only one favored diagram.Add affected structure and view refs, or narrow the decision to the single view’s admissible use.
CC-ASV-9 No proof overread.The view does not stand in for empirical grounding, evidence, safety proof, causal proof, gate decision, or work record; each such claim needs the basis required by its applicable pattern.Use EpistemeEmpiricalGroundingRelation for grounding, A.10 for bounded source-to-use reliance, G.6 for citable provenance paths, B.3 only for named assurance, A.20 for internal-constraint validity, A.21 for gate decisions, C.28 for causal support, and the applicable safety or Work pattern for its result; mark an unsupported claim as such. Do not add more ASV fields as a substitute.
CC-ASV-10 Relation or correspondence record named by value.Every cross-reference names the exact kind, claim, relation, or record: selected structure, structure kind, viewpoint, conformance occurrence, correspondence claim or relation, allocation record, bridge record, evidence relation, publication relation when publication is current, interface specification, or applicable record kind named by value.Replace the ambiguous reference with the object that actually carries the claim, or split the sentence into separate objects.
CC-ASV-11 Source return.When compression, extraction, coarsening, evidence reuse, publication, or many-to-many allocation hides distinctions on which the intended use relies, SourceReturnCondition is present.Add one source-return trigger, or narrow the view’s admissible use so omitted distinctions are not used for action, assurance, causal use, law-domain review, regulatory review, or reopening.
CC-ASV-12 Architecture-name recovery.Every <X>Architecture phrase recovers exact selected structure, <X>StructureKind, or a declared local relation or claim.Rewrite the phrase through ArchitectureStructureKindTriage@Project; if no relation is being claimed, keep the name as Plain prose and do not let it carry ontology.
CC-ASV-13 Useful action.The repair leaves a surviving admissible architecture move: inspect, split, relate, downgrade, generate candidates, state a structural description or view, add correspondence, add source return, use the applicable pattern, or stop.Restore one move, or classify the phrase as reduced-use cue, quote-only wording, blocked transfer, or incomplete rewrite.

For a Method-architecture use, check that the selected questions in §4.5a recover the affected Method, its exact relations and the consequence of a changed condition. A calculation and a domain claim used to extend its application retain their separate premises and limits; state which uses must be reconsidered if either loses its basis. Keep allocation and Work facts under their own rules. When orientation carries a claim, apply A.22:4.3a to its named structure and representation convention.