fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 94072–94082

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 16:02:47 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 16:03:51 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 16:45:04 UTC

E.17.0:7 - Rationale, lineage, and current FPF basis

Only a recoverable exact external source may appear here as SoTA evidence. ISO 42010 remains vocabulary lineage. The local design rationale below uses the current FPF construction, representation, relation, evaluation, and work boundaries directly; a category label is not evidence.

Source or practice lineAdopted moveRejected overreadPractical effect
Architecture-description viewpoint practice, including ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2022, used as established practice lineage rather than current architecting SoTASeparate concern-bearing viewpoint, view, described entity, correspondence, and publication.A standards vocabulary does not supply FPF identity, obtaining, or work methods.Readers can recover familiar distinctions while using FPF direct relations and dependent-kind criteria.
Local design rationale, not external SoTA evidence: current C.2.1 identifies source and receiving epistemes; use A.6.3 for any actual source-to-receiving construction, A.15.1 for performed query or projection work, and C.29 for its representation.Treat a query or projection as one possible construction route between separately identified epistemes.Query execution, a query definition, or a projected form does not grant U.View membership or prove claim preservation.Directly authored and query-produced candidates use the same independent E/P conformance test; construction history is opened only when consumed.
Local design rationale, not external SoTA evidence: current direct-relation patterns define and test correspondence predicates; C.29 defines their representations, F.9 defines an exact Bridge between distinct F.17 cells when its predicate obtains, evaluation patterns test consistency, and A.15.1 identifies repair work.Keep correspondence, consistency evaluation, and performed repair distinct.A trace link, graph edge, correspondence episteme, or repair result does not make the subject relation obtain.Inconsistency and repair can be stated and acted on without collapsing world-side relation, epistemic judgment, representation, and work.
Local design rationale, not external SoTA evidence: current FPF constructive-relation and episteme architectureIdentify E and P independently; identify selected S and convention-dependency occurrences only in the action-changing structured branch; derive U.View membership from obtaining E/P conformance.Do not materialize a universal family record, mandatory convention structure, context slot bundle, or correspondence-model kind.Ordinary authoring can stop at self-contained P, while shared-convention maintenance remains replayable when it actually exists.