fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 96564–96577

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 09:05:10 UTC

E.17.ID.CR:5.4.6.f - Method-option comparison without method choice

Source slice. Two method descriptions are already pinned for the same fabrication task. One foregrounds lower setup cost; the other foregrounds tighter result-measurement discipline.

Comparative review unit. For method review, the description of method M-1 foregrounds lower setup cost more, while the description of method M-2 foregrounds tighter result-measurement discipline more. This comparison helps prepare method discussion; method choice, a work plan, and evidence that either method has been performed remain outside it.

Why it stays here:

  • the reviewed source epistemes are pinned;
  • the comparison criterion is explicit;
  • no selected-method, work-plan, performed-work, evidence, or engineering-justification claim is added;
  • if the team chooses a method or prepares a work plan, record the selected method as project U.Method, record the work plan as U.WorkPlan under A.15.2, and use A.15.1 only when a dated U.Work occurrence is the governed occurrence claim.

Nearest neighboring-work examples. The next four cases are the nearest worked boundaries for prompt pressure, same-entity viewing, ontology shift, and gate or authority misuse. Use them when the near-top negative-boundary rows fit and you need one worked cue for keeping the comparison unit from carrying outside work.