fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 102854–102897

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 05:29:54 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 05:30:57 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 06:10:20 UTC

E.24:0 - Use This When

Use this pattern when FPF work appears to need a durable ontic: a connected action-facing ontology unit whose stable identity and admissible uses depend on keeping several direct relation kinds, their relation-participant meanings and admitted actual-participant kinds, reusable declarations, and neighboring subject patterns coherent.

On first reading, expect one required ontology-disposition result and, only when source use is current, a separate source-use record. First characterize the current candidate or source claim and run the existing-rule-content, identity, relation-or-constitution, dependent-use, and non-duplication tests below. Only then record the ontology disposition: introduce a durable ontic, coordinate already defined claims in a bounded local episteme, rely directly on current exact subject assertions and their ClaimGraph sources, or stop unresolved. A current source-use record states quote-only, reduced use, or a selected stronger source use with its exact provenance; omit it when source use is not current. Source use can accompany any resolved ontology disposition, but it is not a fourth ontology branch. Use source-only as a stop only when no exact payload assertion has been selected.

A durable ontic is a reusable ontology unit whose exact defining or constraining ClaimGraph states its identity rule and minimal relation set for dependent FPF use. A bounded local episteme is a claim-bearing U.Episteme that coordinates already identified entities, exact relations, and subject assertions for one named use. Direct rule-content use relies on those existing assertions and ClaimGraph sources without adding another ontology unit. An unresolved stop retains the inquiry without pretending that one of those three payload dispositions has been selected.

Typical, non-exhaustive working situations include:

  • a bounded local episteme starts being cited as though it were a new ontology unit;
  • a source expression or project-side expression keeps pointing to several FPF values at once;
  • a draft ToC row names a calculus or object family, but no current defining or constraining ClaimGraph states its meaning;
  • one pattern description begins to repeat local slot-relation doctrine that other uses also need;
  • a proposed subject needs one stable identity, constitution, or recognition rule plus the smallest set of governed relations that dependent use must keep coherent.

Primary EntityOfConcern. The pattern defines or constrains U.Ontic, the durable action-facing ontology unit. Each particular ontic-introduction decision episteme has one exact EntityOfConcern before judgment: an independently identified candidate entity, proposal episteme, or source-construct entity that carries the inquiry before any disposition is known. That object remains the EntityOfConcern for direct, bounded, durable, and unresolved results. The selected direct-use object, bounded local episteme, durable ontic, or unresolved reason is the branch payload recorded in the result, not a replacement for the decision’s subject. Source-use status does not change the subject. If a revised result changes the ClaimGraph, C.2.1 identifies another decision episteme; any edition continuity is stated separately rather than hidden by swapping the EntityOfConcern. An unresolved phrase or topic list is not itself an EntityOfConcern unless the exact source expression or source construct has been independently identified.

Primary working reader. The first reader is an FPF pattern author or reviewer deciding whether several nearby pattern descriptions concern one ontic, several already identified values, or only a compressed source expression. The downstream reader is the practitioner who needs the resulting subject assertions and practical guidance to decide what can be done, claimed, relied on, repaired, compared, or stopped. If a separate U.MethodDescription claim matters, apply A.3.1 and A.3.2 to identify its Method and show that the episteme substantively describes how that Method is done; the E.24 locator alone establishes neither.

Working concern and viewpoint. From the FPF-authoring viewpoint, preserve the subject’s exact relations, assertions, and defining or constraining ClaimGraph sources without duplicating kinds or promoting a claim-bearing episteme for one named use into durable ontology.

First useful move. State the working expression or current claim, identify one exact pre-judgment candidate entity, proposal episteme, or source-construct entity and its direct identity governor, and use that object as the decision episteme’s EntityOfConcern. Name the receiving use and record source provenance when current. Then run Checks 1–4: reuse existing exact predicates and ClaimGraph sources, test exact identity, recover the needed direct relations or constitution, and test dependent reuse without duplicate ontology. Fill the typed disposition result only from those tests; its direct, bounded, durable, or unresolved payload never replaces the decision subject. If no exact candidate or source construct can be identified, keep inquiry material and do not fabricate a decision episteme.

What goes wrong if missed. FPF grows shadow ontology. The same project concern becomes a method in one place, a mechanism in another, a record in a third, and a local checklist in a fourth. Later uses then repair visible symptoms instead of settling the underlying kind, slot, and subject-pattern question.

What this buys. A durable ontic gets an explicit identity plus named direct relation kinds, participant meanings, obtaining conditions, and occurrence-identity rules. RelationSignature and SlotSpec declarations are added only where dependent uses need reusable participant typing. Otherwise, state the coordination in a bounded local episteme whose ClaimGraph cites the direct entities, relations, exact assertions, and pattern-description locators for their rule content.

Main gains:

  • it prevents duplicate ontology by recovering the direct entities, relations, assertions, and defining or constraining ClaimGraph sources first;
  • it replaces negative catalogues with positive relation discipline: state the direct relation kind, relation-participant meanings, admitted actual-participant kinds, obtaining condition, and occurrence-identity rule; add RelationSignature and SlotSpec declarations only when a receiving use needs reusable typing;
  • it gives dependent uses one stable durable ontic and one exact rule-content locus to cite without copying direct relation rules or reusable SlotSpecs;
  • it keeps each current world-side participant, relation occurrence, reusable declaration, claim-bearing episteme, publication object, view or representation, and source expression under its own exact predicate, assertion, and defining or constraining ClaimGraph; E.24:4.3a is the single typed object map;
  • it makes wording follow the one mapped object selected by the current claim instead of repeating the surrounding inventory.

Not this pattern when.

  • If one existing defining or constraining ClaimGraph already states the claim kind, write the exact subject assertion and use the pattern id only as its locator.
  • If the issue is only one wording-use repair row, use E.10 and E.10.ARCH.
  • If the issue is only a new or revised mechanism meaning, use E.20.
  • If the issue is only durable naming, use F.18.
  • If the issue is only a pattern publication-form or section-order matter, use E.8.