fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 103016–103109

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 07:35:20 UTC

E.24:4.0a - Shared E.24-Family Settlement and Atomic Co-decision

E.24 and E.24.UK use this one schema without weakening or restating it differently. MinimalGovernedRelationSet means the smallest independently defined direct-relation rules needed by named dependent use. It does not require one universal head relation. IdentityBearingDirectRelationIfSelected is filled only when an exact identity assertion under its defining ClaimGraph selects such a relation; otherwise it is explicitly none.

E24FamilySettlementDecision:
  DecisionEpistemeIdentity:
    ClaimGraph:
    EntityOfConcern: one independently identified pre-judgment candidate entity, proposal episteme, or source-construct entity; unchanged by the disposition.
    EntityOfConcernIdentityGovernor:
    EffectiveReferenceScheme:
  CandidateInputs:
    ReceivingUseAndVisibleResult:
    PrimaryGovernedSubjectKind:
    SubjectIdentityConstitutionOrRecognitionRule:
    CandidatePublicSpellingIfAny?: naming pressure only; it establishes neither the governed object nor admission.
    ProposedDurableUKindIfAny:
      GovernedIndividuals:
      DurableMembershipRuleAndReferenceScheme:
      IntendedExtentAndNonMemberBoundary:
      RootInclusionImplicationIfSameIndividualDependent?:
      ExactDependenceRelationAndDiscriminatorsIfIdentityDependent?:
    ExistingGovernorAndNonDuplicationResult:
    MinimalGovernedRelationSet:
      DirectRelationKind:
      ParticipantMeaningsAndAdmittedActualParticipantKinds:
      ObtainingAndOccurrenceIdentityRule:
      DirectGovernor:
      DependentUseEnabled:
    IdentityBearingDirectRelationIfSelected: exact direct relation entry | none.
    ReusableDeclarationsActuallyConsumed:
    NamedDependentPatternReliance:
    NonUseBoundary:
    ReopenCondition:
  Outputs:
    OntologyDispositionResult?:
      Disposition: subject-pattern-use | bounded-local-episteme | durable-ontic | unresolved-stop.
      DirectUseResult?:
        ExactClosingAssertionRefs:
        DirectPatternLocators:
      BoundedEpistemeResult?:
        BoundedEpistemeRef:
        DeclaredUseAndStop:
      DurableOnticResult?:
        OnticSettlementResultRef:
        SelectedOnticRef:
        OnticSubjectPatternLocator:
      UnresolvedResult?:
        UnresolvedReason:
        MissingEvidenceOrRuleRefs:
    OnticSettlementResult?: # only for a selected durable ontic, or the explicit bootstrap case
      OnticSettlementResultRef:
      SelectedOnticRefOrBootstrapSchemaRef:
      PrimaryGovernedSubjectKind:
      SubjectIdentityRule:
      MinimalGovernedRelationSet:
      NamedDependentPatternReliance:
      NonUseAndReopenBoundary:
    UKindAdmissionResult?:
      UKindAdmissionResultRef:
      AdmissionDisposition: root | same-individual-dependent | identity-dependent | reuse | local-kind | reject.
      SubjectPatternLocator:
      DurableMembershipAndExtentResultIfPositive?:
      BranchSpecificResultRef: exact membership/inclusion/dependence result required by the admission branch; an ontic result only when actually consumed.
      NonUseAndReopenBoundary:
  DecisionMode: ontic-only | U-kind-only | atomic ontic-plus-U-kind.

When the E.24 ontology-disposition question is current, fill exactly one branch field inside OntologyDispositionResult; the decision EntityOfConcern remains fixed and the selected payload stays in that field. A changed result changes the decision’s ClaimGraph and therefore identifies another decision episteme under C.2.1; state any edition continuity explicitly.

In ontic-only, cite the already accepted U-kind result consumed by the ontology-disposition decision and omit a new UKindAdmissionResult. A direct-use or bounded-coordination conclusion returns no new OnticSettlementResult. In U-kind-only, either cite an accepted ontic settlement actually needed by the use, or explicitly conclude that no additional durable ontic is needed and record the sufficient direct-use or bounded-local-episteme disposition. The positive admission still requires every E.24.UK membership, extent, witness, need, non-duplication and branch-specific condition. Its result does not depend on manufacturing a sibling ontic.

Use atomic ontic-plus-U-kind only when both new outputs are independently needed. Evaluate them from common candidate inputs; neither is prior evidence for the other, and they remain provisional together while either required branch is unresolved. If one branch fails, preserve independently valid existing objects and return the exact gap. If the tests instead establish that no additional ontic is needed, select the explicit U-kind-only branch with its direct-use or bounded-coordination grounds; do not call an empty ontology unit connected or silently drop a genuinely required dependency.

The bootstrap co-decision is E24-CO-UONTIC-BOOT-01. Its EntityOfConcern is the exact source-construct entity defined by E.24:4 for the kind U.Ontic; it does not presuppose an admitted U.Ontic or a pre-existing ontic instance. From that common input it returns two distinct accepted outputs: E24-OS-UONTIC-BOOT-01, which accepts this shared settlement schema as the direct rule for identifying future ontology-unit individuals, and E24UK-AR-UONTIC-BOOT-01, which admits the root kind U.Ontic. The schema, pattern, decision episteme, and kind are not thereby instances of U.Ontic; each concrete ontology-unit individual still needs an ordinary OnticSettlementResult. No relation-about-relation or relation from the kind to itself is invented for the bootstrap.

E.24 is compatible with modular ontology and ontology-design-pattern practice: modular ontology libraries and ontology design patterns show why reusable small ontology structures matter, and recent process-modeling work reports loss of reuse when process patterns remain implicit. E.24 is narrower and more FPF-specific: it governs the decision whether FPF should introduce a durable action-facing ontic, rather than importing an external microtheory or treating every reusable repair table as ontology.

If the three resolved ontology dispositions need reusable comparison, use A.19.ECS to construct the evaluation CharacteristicSpace: retain the current subject assertions and relations, add one bounded local episteme for a declared use, or add a durable ontic with its own rule content. The A.19.ECS locator establishes neither a Method nor a MethodDescription; apply A.3.1 and A.3.2 only if those identities matter. E.24 supplies the candidate dispositions and their ontic constraints, while characteristic selection and evaluation remain separate A.19.ECS assertions. Source-use status remains an independent provenance choice, not a fourth candidate, and a comparison result does not establish ontic identity.

Within this split, the rule content located at E.24 states the distinction among the ontic, the claim-bearing decision episteme, reusable declarations, and publication-side objects, plus the ontic-introduction decision needed before dependent uses rely on a durable ontic. Publication-section rules, adequacy scales, wording-use restoration rules, and evaluation of the resulting FPF pattern-set structures remain separate exact assertions whose ClaimGraph sources are located through the neighboring patterns named above.

Use the current split this way:

  • use E.24 for U.Ontic identity, the primary governed subject kind, exact identity or constitution rule, minimal governed relation set, subject patterns, named dependent-pattern reliance, and non-use boundary;
  • use E.24.CD when the current problem is detecting and characterizing an apparent subject before deciding whether it should enter an E.24 ontic-introduction decision at all; E.24.CD supplies detection and characterization only and selects no E.24 disposition. Local use frame is not an E.24 disposition: recover whether the payload needs direct subject-assertion use, a bounded local episteme under C.2.1, a durable ontic, or an unresolved stop; record any source-use status separately.
  • use E.24.PUB when the current problem is the distinction among the ontic, an ontic-description episteme, the publication occurrence that makes one selected edition available, the publication form that expresses it for that use, and the U.PresentationCarrier that bears the form; use E.17.0 for U.View membership, A.6.3 for optional viewing construction, and C.29 for a representation;
  • use A.19.ECS only when the contested question is how to construct an evaluation CharacteristicSpace for comparing the resulting FPF pattern-set structures after retaining the subject-pattern relations, adding one bounded local episteme whose claims cite them for a declared use, or adding a durable ontic and its subject pattern.

This split keeps E.24 ontic-first. Questions about candidate detection, publication discipline, and contested evaluation remain separate exact subject assertions under their own defining or constraining ClaimGraph sources rather than becoming sections that turn E.24 into a general discovery, documentation, or scoring pattern.

Introduce or rely on a durable FPF ontic only after the ontic-introduction decision satisfies four checks.