E.4.DPF.DA:4.2 - Required coordinates

Every E.4.DPF.DA result includes every coordinate below, including a result for a seed: assign the value that the seed earns. A bounded diagnostic may borrow selected questions while stating its limited scope; it does not claim an E.4.DPF.DA result or local status.

In this pattern, known failure modes means beginner mistakes and experienced-practitioner failures caused by stale, local-only, or non-SoTA practice. Do not narrow the check to novice errors only.

Coordinate	Evaluation question	Good state
`D1DomainScopeAndUseAdequacy`	Are the domain or local situation, effective ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, reader, declared use, qualification window, stop or return, and any genuinely interpretation-changing model-use structure recoverable?	The package tells whom it is for, which domain situation and claims it covers, what to do first, when to stop or return, and which semantic qualifications constrain that use; a non-use boundary appears only for a grounded competing use a plausible reader could select.
`D2DidacticEntryAndAdoptionAdequacy`	Can the intended reader or assisting agent find the first useful entry and get a first working result without FPF developer knowledge?	ToC, readme, preface, pattern-use routes, skill entries, MCP access cues, and examples make adoption cheap and non-magical, while support maps are reached from work triggers rather than front-loaded as required reading.
`D3ScalableFormalityAndAssurancePathAdequacy`	Can the package move from plain local use toward stronger records, evaluation, evidence, or assurance without rewriting the package?	Plain guidance, typed records, source pins, evaluation rows, and paths to stronger evidence or assurance are staged.
`D4CoreDependencyAndDomainBoundaryAdequacy`	Does the checked framework edition depend on FPF Core while keeping domain knowledge inside the DPF and keeping edition dependency distinct from package/file membership?	Core patterns are reused; local terms do not redefine Core; possible Core amendment candidates are explicit; E.4.PFR records exact dependency and edition effects; FPF Core and the main monolith do not depend on this DPF. A transdisciplinary contribution enters Core through a deliberate amendment whose content no longer depends on the DPF.
`D5PackageFormLayeringAndRelationAdequacy`	Are framework episteme edition, package architecture, architecture decisions, pattern set, support maps or appendices, relation records, edition dependencies, publication units and occurrences, publication forms, presentation carriers, access-facing presentation carriers, access routes, actual access or use relations, source packs, and quality records separated?	`E.4.PFAD`, `E.4.PFR`, C.2.1, E.24.PUB, source, direct access or use, quality, support-map, appendix, and refresh loci remain distinct, findable, and reached from the right work triggers; file or package layout establishes no semantic membership.
`D6DomainLexiconAndKindSettlementAdequacy`	Are domain terms, local vocabulary, candidate ontics, and the applicable FPF patterns settled well enough for use?	Each local term has a stated kind, defining source, admissible use, and an applicable FPF pattern or naming route when needed; add a blocked reading only under F.19:4’s full independent-ground, plausible-reader, contribution, and smallest-clear-correction test.
`D7PracticeUtilityAndProblemResolutionAdequacy`	Does the package change real domain or local action, diagnosis, design, explanation, teaching, or repair?	Patterns solve recognizable domain problems with positive SoTA-informed moves, known failure modes or anti-patterns, and worked cases, not only taxonomy, ontology, commentary, or talk guidance.
`D8HeterogeneousCaseAndTransferAdequacy`	Has the package been tested against diverse enough domain cases, reader roles, or local situations?	Heterogeneous probes show where the same pattern set works, fails, or needs a contribution from another pattern that defines, constrains, or tests the affected claim.
`D9EditionStateAndCurrentnessAdequacy`	Are framework episteme edition, any obtaining EpistemeEditionRelation, source currentness, dependency pins, qualification window, publication occurrence, form, and presentation-carrier availability, access-route currentness, and actual access or use currentness explicit and separately changeable?	Readers can tell which exact framework episteme they use, which edition/dependency relations obtain, what source, publication, and access state supports the use, and which separate change reopens it.
`D10ImprovementAndRefreshAdequacy`	Can the package improve through `E.22` and `E.23` and refresh through `G.11` without giant reopen or process theatre?	Low values produce repair rows; source, edition, telemetry, and use failures have smallest reopen routes.
`D11DomainSoTAAlignmentAdequacy`	Does current domain or local SoTA discipline pattern selection, solution, examples, boundaries, and reopen triggers?	Sources change the package content; they are not bibliography, claim theatre, or authority by citation.
`D12DomainProblemFamilyCoverageAdequacy`	Does this current framework edition adequately answer its public field promise through its selected pattern sets and relied-on external results? Judge how the patterns actually work together, whether the first use can proceed without unpublished authoring context, what a representative cross-problem case reveals, and which important omissions remain.	The assessment shows what the current FPF and admitted DPFs provide for this edition, what remains uncovered, how the selected pattern sets work together, where later authors can revisit each important source-backed claim, and what observation reopens the answer. It checks that the first use includes every required pattern from this DPF. For every relied-on external result, it identifies the result, direct kind, supplying product and edition or current state, receiving use, discovery route, material currentness or availability, and externality; it keeps MethodDescription reference, source-evidence use, and unavailable-result statement separate. D12 records no proof that an author previously revisited coverage.