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 11:52:20 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 11:53:41 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 14:15:10 UTC

D.3:2.2 - Reusable conflict description

When another reader or later use must cite, compare, revise, or publish the result, identify one InterlevelEthicalConflictDescription. This is an ordinary local name for one C.2.1 U.Episteme, not a newly admitted U.* kind.

Apply the C.2.1 identity test:

  • EntityOfConcern: one exact entity already recovered for the case, such as the plan, proposed system change, or decision situation whose ethical tension is being described. Do not use a loose bundle of several possible subjects.
  • ClaimGraph: the exact claim content containing the conflict sides, their tension, and the next-use question. When those claims are explicitly restricted to part of the situation, it also identifies the description’s ClaimScope.
  • effective ReferenceScheme: the designation, interpretation, measurement, comparison, and evaluation rules needed to read those claims.

Changed claim content, EntityOfConcern, or effective ReferenceScheme identifies another episteme. Say that a later description revises or supersedes an earlier one only when an exact C.2.1 EpistemeEditionRelation is asserted. A changed narrative, table layout, publication form, carrier, or publication occurrence does not by itself change the episteme.

Use this compact content shape when a reusable record helps:

InterlevelEthicalConflictDescription — C.2.1 identity:
  entityOfConcernRef
  claimGraph:
    descriptionClaimScopeRef?
    conflictSides: at least two rows
      - sideId
        ethicalClaim: plain statement that identifies the claim; add a ClaimAddress only when reusing an existing claim
        affectedEntityRef
        declaredLevelRelationRef?
        sideClaimScopeRef?
        affectedWorkExtentRef?
        valueFrameEditionRef
        expectedConsequence: what changes and why it counts, for example, as a benefit, harm, or constraint under that value frame
        consequenceHorizon
        evidenceUseRef?
        uncertaintyStatement?
    tension:
      sideIds
      plainStatement
      directRelationDefinitionRef?
      obtainingRelationOccurrenceRef?
      missingGovernorRef?
    nextUse: plain statement; cite a question episteme only when another use needs that identity
  effectiveReferenceSchemeRef

When present, descriptionClaimScopeRef identifies the declared part of the situation covered by the whole description. Do not add it merely to complete the shape. A side’s ClaimScope or Work extent says where that side applies; it never substitutes for the whole-description scope.

The plainStatement must name the exact incompatibility, trade-off, parity, or other tension claimed among the sides. In an ordinary case, it remains claim content in the description. If a receiving use relies on a separately obtaining direct relation, cite the exact relation definition and occurrence with its participants, applicability, and identity. If no adequate governor exists, record the exact A.6.RCD missing-governor result. Merely filling a reference field never makes a direct relation obtain.