E.2:1 - Problem frame

Use the Eleven Pillars in §4 to assess whether an FPF rule or artifact meets its constitutional obligations. Use the separate BLP policy in §6 when a computational choice claims a scale/generalization advantage or invokes a declared local generality policy: start with C.19.1’s cheap scale-claim probe. An ordinary bounded fixed procedure can stop with its task-specific justification; specialization alone creates no scale audit, heuristic-debt entry or waiver. Independently applicable assurance or oversight requirements retain their own checks.

E.1 sets the aim of making reliable reasoning accessible across disciplines through shared grounds, reusable Core methods and suitable domain methods. To turn that aim into a durable architecture, FPF needs a small, explicit constitution - principles that remain stable while everything built on top of them can evolve. Without such invariants, domain silos, vocabulary drift, and tool-centric shortcuts quickly erode coherence and reproducibility across disciplines.

The pillars are also the first-principles basis of FPF. They are the minimal commitments from which pattern-level work derives: decisive structure, teachability, maturing formality, open kernel, layering, register discipline, practical payoff, cross-scale consistency, explicit state, open-ended evolution, and SoTA renewal. Later patterns can support this basis by making a concrete argument about pillar support more inspectable; they do not replace pillar authority.