fpf.tools
Library / Checklist Principles Framework
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 26–73

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 08:25:59 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 08:26:43 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 10:05:06 UTC

Checklist Principles Framework Readme

Use this framework when a short, recurring set of questions could help people or AI agents notice consequential omissions, obtain defensible answers and coordinate the next action. Start with the difficulty you actually have. A checklist already in use can be examined or adapted without first designing a new one.

A checklist is a selected aid within skilled work. Its questions can concern physical things, descriptions, relationships or performed actions. A tick records an answer only to the question it actually denotes. The Methods below help preserve that meaning through preparation, use, delegation and change.

Practical entries

These are selected examples of first use, not a catalogue or coverage boundary. For another question, search the Table of Contents; the complete patterns give the actions and return conditions.

CHK-OMISSION — Useful questions are being missed

  • Situation: A seminar set keeps arriving complete in number but with wording that no longer fits the exercise.
  • Question: Which questions would expose the consequential omissions before use?
  • First useful result or blocker: A selected question set tied to the physical cards, the comparison description and the assumed contribution to the exercise; or a missing domain judgement about that contribution.
  • Start with: CHK.1.
  • Stop or return: Use a direct question if it suffices. Return an unsupported criterion to the person or inquiry able to establish it; qualify a disputed check through CHK.6.

CHK-ANSWERS — The list exists and work is happening

  • Situation: Some items have old answers, one description has changed, and the current occasion calls for a decision.
  • Question: Which answers remain usable, which are negative, and which are unresolved?
  • First useful result or blocker: Answers with sufficient grounds for this subject and occasion, followed by a separate decision; or the exact missing observation, interpretation or access.
  • Start with: CHK.4.
  • Stop or return: Stop checking when the selected questions are sufficiently answered. Reopen affected reliance after change; return inadequate criteria to CHK.1 or CHK.6 and conflicting shared claims to CHK.5.

CHK-CHECKER — A generated or inherited check looks convincing

  • Situation: An AI agent reports a successful import, but the team cares about identifier preservation, duplicate reporting and protection of the previous catalogue.
  • Question: Would the proposed check distinguish the relevant failures from success?
  • First useful result or blocker: A bounded judgement about which differences the criterion and checking means detect, with counterexamples or a missing basis named.
  • Start with: CHK.6.
  • Stop or return: Reuse an adequate qualification. Return uncovered work questions to CHK.1; obtain actual subject answers through CHK.4.

CHK-SHARED — Several people have green lists, but the session is uncertain

  • Situation: A venue technician, facilitator and organizer have separate preparation lists. The room or teaching material changes before the workshop.
  • Question: Which local answers support this session, and what changes their use?
  • First useful result or blocker: A shared account naming the session result, connecting local answers to their subjects and grounds, and showing what the whole still lacks.
  • Start with: CHK.5, using CHK.1 and CHK.6 for uncertain questions, CHK.3 for access to answers, and CHK.4 for actual checking.
  • Stop or return: A direct conversation can suffice. After change, reopen affected reliance and retain unaffected grounds. Return a missing performer or resource to coordination, a missing observation to checking, and an ineffective shared arrangement to Method improvement.

What changes in practice

The starting result is often small: three better questions, a repaired answer field, access to the right observation, or a decision to remove an unnecessary list. The framework also describes two larger combinations: from a recurring omission to a useful aid, and from local answers to shared work through change. Each complete application includes a long mantra for repeated or interrupted use.

If a capable participant can answer the one live question directly, do that. If the work calls for a complete operating procedure, substantive domain judgement or development of a missing ability, obtain that contribution from its own practice. A longer checklist does not supply it. You can ask an assisting agent to explain or comment on an application in ordinary language, without framework jargon.