fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 82885–82896

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 06:55:20 UTC

E.4.DPF.DA:2 - Problem

DPF packages will often be produced quickly from source material, prompts, external literature, local practice, or generated candidates. Some are good enough as seeds; some can answer a domain question for an AI agent; some have publication carriers ready for public use; some are only source summaries wearing pattern headings.

Without a DPF-specific adequacy evaluation, teams tend to use one of three wrong substitutes:

  • they apply E.2.DA and ask whether the package is “FPF-like in general”, even though the package is meant for one domain;
  • they average E.21 scores of individual patterns and miss package-level failures such as missing source packs, broken dependency direction, poor first entry, or stale edition records;
  • they inspect section presence and conclude that an all-in-one carrier, map, or seed package is adequate because it has patterns, a table of contents, a readme, a preface, maps, and sources.

The result is adoption risk. A reader may get a fluent local framework that does not state its domain boundary, does not preserve rival source traditions, duplicates FPF Core ontology, hides relation functions, has no refresh route, or cannot tell a practitioner what typical problem is live, which known failure mode to avoid, and which SoTA solution move to try first.