fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 106727–106765

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 11:52:20 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 11:53:41 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 13:50:10 UTC

F.5:0 - Use This When

Plain name. Meaning-first naming discipline.

Use F.5 when a project needs a durable name for either:

  • a public U-kind already admitted through E.24.UK, or another durable cross-local value already recovered through the direct rule for that kind of value—for example, episteme constitution or relation obtaining; a Concept-Set row may cite comparison evidence but does not recover the value; or
  • one exact local system-role kind and, when needed, the separate SystemRoleKindDescription episteme that describes it.

Typical moments:

  • a Concept-Set comparison has enough witnesses for a naming question and the reusable value is already admitted, but candidate names import one source tradition too strongly;
  • an F.4 description names ReviewerSystemRole, OperatorSystemRole, InspectorSystemRole, or TransformerSystemRole, and the label must remain faithful to the exact local kind without smuggling assignment, capability, permission, Method, Work, evidence, status, or responsibility;
  • source wording with role must be named locally, but the project has not yet recovered its use—for example, a system-role kind, assignment, status or access relation, relation position, another object, or ordinary wording; or
  • similar names threaten to collapse independently governed objects—for example, a kind, assignment, status, Method, Work occurrence, and description episteme.

Primary EntityOfConcern. The EntityOfConcern is the naming discipline for these name families. It relates a recovered meaning to selected Tech and Plain designations. It defines neither the named U-kind nor the local system-role kind, constitutes no description, classifies no candidate, creates no assignment, asserts no status or responsibility, supplies no evidence, and publishes no form.

Primary working reader. The first reader is a practitioner who already has a candidate meaning and must choose a name that readers can use without creating another ontology—for example, an engineer-manager, analyst, pattern author, or terminology steward.

First useful move. Recover the exact named value and its direct meaning source before choosing the label. For a U-kind, use its accepted E.24.UK admission result or its direct admission rule. For a local system-role kind, use its A.2 and C.3 identity and criterion; use F.4 for the separate description episteme. Then choose one Tech label and one short Plain explanation whose scope does not exceed the recovered meaning.

Smallest useful result and stop. Stop with one already identified value, one Tech label, and one Plain explanation as soon as they resolve unambiguously for the named local use. Do not create a NameCard, public row, Bridge, description episteme, or new kind merely to complete a form. If the value or kind is unresolved, apply its direct recovery rule. Use F.18 or F.17 only for the durable or public use they address. Use C.3.3 only for an actual relation between exact local kinds and F.9 only for an actual relation between distinct F.17 cells. If the label starts carrying assignment, Work, result, provenance, assurance, responsibility, or publication claims, stop naming and recover those objects first.

What goes wrong if missed. Names become arguments. A system-role-kind label smuggles in neighboring claims—for example, assignment, permission, responsibility, or capability. A status phrase becomes a system-role kind. A U-kind name imports one practice’s or source’s private ontology. A polished global word hides disagreement among witnesses. Downstream patterns then repair semantics that naming already broke.

What this buys. Readers can use short names without guessing the ontology. U-kind names stay neutral across witnesses. Concrete ...SystemRole designations point to exact local kinds, and ...SystemRoleKindDescription designations point to their separate description epistemes. Names for neighboring claims—for example, status, evidence, access, requirement, source, publication, assurance, gate, and decision claims—remain with their direct relations.

Not this pattern when.

  • If the problem is ordinary phrase repair, use E.10, E.10.ROLE, E.10.ARCH, A.6.P, A.6.RSIR, or the direct pattern.
  • If the question is whether a U.* spelling or structural name should survive as a durable U-kind, use E.24.UK before F.5.
  • If the broader local-first protocol, NameCards, candidate comparisons, lineage, or public naming is current, use F.18.
  • If the current object is a SystemRoleKindDescription, use F.4 to constitute it before naming it.
  • If the question concerns kind admission, classification, assignment, assignment extent, or performed-Work attribution, use A.2 with C.3, A.2.1, or F.6.
  • If the current object is another governed value rather than a name—for example, a status, evidence use, source use, standard use, requirement use, publication use, assurance claim, gate result, or decision—use its direct pattern.
  • If role denotes a relation position, recover the position under A.6.RSIR and A.6.5.
  • If an actual cross-local relation is current, use C.3.3 for exact local kinds or F.9 for distinct F.17 cells.