fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 107016–107042

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 13:25:20 UTC

F.6:0 - Use This When

Plain name. Check whether this already admitted Work was performed under this exact system-role assignment.

Use this pattern only after A.15.1 has independently admitted a dated U.Work occurrence. Use F.6 when deciding whether that already admitted Work was performed under a particular assignment occurrence from the U.SystemRoleAssignment family. When it was, the direct world-side performed-under-assignment relation obtains. A separate assertion or record can identify the two occurrences and state that relation.

Typical moments:

  • a work record says “Alice reviewed”, “Robot-7 inspected”, or “the operations team approved”, but the assignment occurrence is missing;
  • a MethodDescription names a system-role kind and the project must connect actual Work to the assigned performer;
  • source wording says RoleEnactment, “played the role”, or Holder#Role:Context@Window;
  • a stronger appointment has a commission, position, or locus participant and must retain that occurrence identity during attribution;
  • a report, standard, dashboard, or access label is described with role wording although it did not perform Work;
  • a corresponding kind or assignment from another context is cited without a current Bridge and local occurrence.

Primary EntityOfConcern. One obtaining performedUnderAssignment relation occurrence between a U.Work occurrence and an assignment occurrence whose species is declared under U.SystemRoleAssignment.

Primary working reader. An engineer, operator, Method author, manager, or FPF author deciding whether a performed-Work attribution is grounded strongly enough for the next use.

First useful move. Confirm that A.15.1 has already admitted the exact dated Work without using an F.6 conclusion. Name that Work and the assignment occurrence under which it is said to have been performed. Recover the assignment’s declared species and participant values, then confirm that the actual performer already has the A.13 core for this action, scope, working situation, and window and that this is the same obtaining assignment. Evidence supports those core facts; a characteristic profile enters only for a consumed Grade, autonomy or profile result, criterion-dependent characteristic, or assurance use. Ask what direct case fact links the exact pair. Confirm holder equality and interval coverage; those checks alone do not create the link. If the case does not establish the pair, retain the Work and leave only the attribution unresolved. Otherwise say plainly that the holder System performed the Work under that assignment.

What goes wrong if missed. Assignment is treated as proof of Work, a label replaces the assignment occurrence, a generic assignment duplicate erases a stronger appointment, or a log or report is made the performer. When several assignments overlap, interval coverage then attributes the same Work to all of them even though the exact pair was never established.

What this buys. Attribution is one thin relation. The holder System remains the actor, the assignment occurrence remains linked to its species and participant values, and Work, Method, capability, state, result, evidence, publication, and cross-context use remain separate.

Not this pattern when. Use A.2 for the system-role kind and classification, A.2.1 for assignment species and occurrence identity, A.2.5 for assignment state, A.2.2 for capability, and A.15.1 for the Work occurrence. Use the direct evidence, source-reliance, publication, access, authority, permission, responsibility, status, gate, or decision pattern when that relation is current. Use E.10.ROLE and A.6.RSIR when role denotes another object or relation position.