F.1:5.3 - Portable first-hour case — function-to-module allocation

“First hour” means a compact entry slice, not a deadline or completeness claim.

Receiving question. Which current FPF sources must a Systems Engineering author use to prepare a first function-to-module allocation teaching slice without collapsing functions into modules? The project identifies this sentence as one exact question before treating the note as a C.2.1 episteme; that question is its EntityOfConcern.

Receiving use. Prepare a slice that helps a practitioner generate and compare candidate bearers, modules, allocations, interfaces, and trade-offs instead of copying functions into a component list or selecting familiar bearers first. This use stays in the note’s ClaimGraph.

Effective ReferenceScheme. FPFCoreReferenceScheme, applied to the FPF August 2026 edition and the exact section locators below.

Retained sources and answer-changing roles. All five are exact passages in that edition.

1. A.6.F §§4.2 and 4.5. Separates the possible subjects hidden by function-like wording and requires function, bearer, flow, module allocation, and interface claims to remain distinct. This blocks the one-function-one-component shortcut.
2. A.6.M §§4 and 4.3. Treats module use as claim content over exact holons, allows many-to-many or still-unallocated functional claims, and requires an actual interface specification when compatibility or substitution is claimed. This changes what an allocation row must show.
3. C.30.TFS-REL §4.2. Relates functional structure to selected transformation-flow structure without identifying them. This exposes candidate flow topology, crossings, and correspondence limits that can change bearer placement.
4. C.31 §4.5. Makes function-module alignment, interface burden, and flow-boundary alignment separate characteristics rather than one modularity score. This changes the trade-offs the comparison must expose.
5. C.32 §§4–5. Starts candidate synthesis from functional demand and candidate bearers, keeps materially different configurations visible, and records expected gain, known loss, constraints, and source-return conditions. This prevents the source cut from pretending to choose the architecture.

Deliberate limits. The cut claims neither an exhaustive survey of allocation algorithms nor one module taxonomy or cross-sector optimum. It does not decide the final DPF pattern identity.

First result. One SourceCutNote whose ClaimGraph contains the five roles, use, limits, and reopen conditions; whose EntityOfConcern is the stated question; and whose effective scheme is FPFCoreReferenceScheme for FPF August 2026. The later comparison must expose unsupported capabilities, unallocated functions, unresolved interfaces, alternatives, trade-offs, and accepted losses.

Reopen when. A relied FPF passage changes, the question expands to external allocation algorithms or another domain, or the intended DPF use changes the required answer or boundary.