fpf.tools
Library / First Principles Framework (FPF) - Core Conceptual Specification
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 118535–118545

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 14:36:52 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 14:38:14 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 15:00:09 UTC

G.10:2 - Problem — Why naive shipping breaks reuse, legality, and refresh

Naive shipping fails (conceptually) when any of the following occurs:

  1. Format-as-governing-spec. A concrete export format is treated as “the pack,” turning a tool choice into a governing pack definition.
  2. Editionless hand‑offs. Shipped artefacts omit the edition/policy pins required to replay or compare outcomes, so parity and RSCR become non‑actionable.
  3. Pack smuggles semantics. Shipping reintroduces “convenience” rules (hidden scalarisation, competing defaults, private gate decisions), fragmenting the governing spec ref.
  4. Invisible crossings. Cross-context or cross-plane reuse is present, but the pack does not expose the crossing bundles and penalty policy pins needed for audit and refresh planning.
  5. No method‑of‑obtaining‑output disclosure. Consumers receive outcomes without a minimal, citable trail of which methods, mechanisms, and policies were used, at which editions, to obtain them.
  6. Refresh orphaning. Telemetry and decay signals exist, but the shipped artefact provides no stable scope keys (PathId / PathSliceId) and no payload pins for RSCR triggers.