E.2.DA:2 - Problem

E.2 gives the Pillars and their constitutional meaning. It does not by itself evaluate whether a concrete FPF object realizes those Pillars well enough for a concrete use. Without E.2.DA, corpus-level reviews tend to collapse into local pattern scores, process state, review praise, or broad claims that “FPF improved.”

The specific failures are:

1. Local pattern quality is averaged into FPF adequacy.
2. Entry projections and companion files become separately maintained sources of definitions, constraints, or tests supplied by pattern bodies.
3. Precision repair improves terminology but damages first-use comprehension or changes the FPF kind carried by the repaired text.
4. Source and SoTA rows are counted rather than checked for changes in FPF moves.
5. Front-like words such as all 5s, exceptional, Pareto, SoTA, NQD, or shortlist become loose synonyms.
6. Corpus-level stop claims hide what became worse.
7. Pillar values become repair targets, so the corpus gains projection proof, entry apparatus, source rows, or review evidence while the FPF object becomes less usable, less layered, or less decisive.