fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 80004–80014

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 11:52:20 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 11:53:41 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 12:30:19 UTC

D.3:10 - SoTA-Echoing

SoTA here means the best current contribution to the practical question of making value conflict inspectable before deciding it. The comparison is current to 2026-08-20; publication date, popularity, and official status are not sufficient by themselves.

Practice questionExact source and statusSelected contribution and limitDecision, receiving locus, and reopen
How can design work expose affected parties, values, and long-horizon effects before choosing a solution?Batya Friedman and David G. Hendry, Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination (MIT Press, 2019), established method account (https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7585.001.0001).Stakeholder analysis, value scenarios, and multilifespan timelines support explicit affected parties, values, and horizons. VSD does not supply FPF episteme identity, direct-relation identity, or a complete method for resolving value conflicts.Adapt affected-entity, value-frame, and horizon prompts into D.3:2 and the worked cases; reject VSD as a conflict ontology or decision authority. Reopen if a later method connects conflict sides to affected entities more clearly at comparable effort.
How should ethical concerns remain traceable through system design?ISO/IEC/IEEE 24748-7000:2022, Edition 1, published 2022-11, Standard model process for addressing ethical concerns during system design (https://www.iso.org/standard/84893.html; IEEE 7000-2021 remains the earlier lineage edition).The standard traces elicited values through operational concepts, value propositions, requirements, and ethical risk-based design. Its full life-cycle process and organizational apparatus are much heavier than one D.3 map, and official status does not make it the default method.Adapt traceability from each value-frame claim to the affected design move and receiving decision in D.3:2.2-2.3; reject compulsory transfer of the full process. Reopen on a new edition or evidence that a lighter method gives better traceability.
Must every value conflict become a single-scale trade-off or optimization?Atay Kozlovski, “Parity and the Resolution of Value Conflicts in Design,” Science and Engineering Ethics 28, 22 (2022), DOI 10.1007/s11948-022-00375-4.The paper compares three VSD conflict approaches and argues that incommensurable values may stand in parity rather than in a better, worse, or equal ordering. It is a proposed repair, not a universal conflict-resolution procedure.Adapt the explicit tension branch and the rule against forcing one scale in D.3:2.1-2.2; send actual mediation to D.4. Reopen when stronger applied evidence changes how parity helps design decisions.
How can cross-scope benefits, harms, and uncertainty be mapped in a living technical programme?NIST, Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework 1.0 (NIST AI 100-1, 2023-01-26) and its live Core, checked 2026-08-20 (https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1; https://airc.nist.gov/airmf-resources/airmf/5-sec-core/). NIST states that a revised version is in progress.MAP 1 and MAP 5 connect intended uses with positive and negative impacts across individuals, groups, communities, organizations, society, and the planet, while keeping uncertainty and changing conditions visible. The framework is AI-specific and its actor, governance, and responsibility language does not establish FPF systemhood or direct responsibility relations.Adapt the multi-scope affected-entity, consequence, uncertainty, and horizon prompts into D.3:2 and the collection case; reject the AI taxonomy, full governance apparatus, and any responsibility inference. Reopen when the announced revision is published or another domain method outperforms it for this use.