fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 108152–108166

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 07:35:20 UTC

F.9:28 - Review matrix

A reader can test bridge integrity with eight questions:

  1. Do both endpoint refs resolve exact F.17 SchemeSenseCell values from different semantic contexts?
  2. Does the profile say only which semantic relation holds, with its endpoint readings, condition, applicability, truth rule, and stop dependencies?
  3. Is the Bridge claimed only after that fixed predicate is true?
  4. Does each proposed use separately name the action, direction, correspondence rule, tolerated loss, and polarity?
  5. Does the same use have a current descriptive A.10 evidence-provenance path citing independently established direct relations and a local disposition or, when an actual named assurance claim is current, its B.3 AssuranceResult?
  6. Are semantic suitability, reliance, assurance, and authorization kept distinct?
  7. If someone says the use happened, is the actual Work, assertion, publication, relation, operation application, or other object recovered under its own pattern?
  8. Does any card remain optional packaging rather than the source of relation truth, permission, or occurrence?

Repair same, equivalent, align, and map prose in that order: recover the exact senses; test the Bridge; state the bounded-use claim; check reliance; recover authorization or the actual receiving object only when those questions are live. Do not start from a polished card or a score.