NSTD.1:4 - Solution

Start with a useful reader question and the available material. Select what the account must preserve, choose a provisional order and try a short narrative. Compare it with the source for omitted relations, unsupported additions and misleading connections. Stop when that account serves the intended use, or name the missing source relation that prevents it.

For example, a paragraph states that a valve opens when pressure exceeds a threshold. An operator asks why the valve opened. The first useful account names that condition and the observed pressure, if available. If only the opening was observed, say that the threshold crossing is still unestablished. Filling a record cannot supply that observation.

Use the following optional intake when another worker must continue the task, several alternatives must be compared or a maintained collection needs the same fields. Include only fields that change that use. The filled records later in this section illustrate richer cases; they are not the minimum entry cost.

NarrativePurposeIntake@Context:
  sourceBasisRefs:
  selectedSourceStructureRefs:
  unfoldingStructureRefs?:
  demonstrativeSliceRefs?:
  sourceStructureSelectionRationale:
  sourceTemporalPosture:
  renderingMediationMode: direct-source-structure | architecture-mediated | mixed
  architectureMediationRef?:
  sourceDefinitionOrConstraintRef?:
  renderingContribution?:
  narrativeVoiceOrViewpoint?:
  generatedDraftInspectionRef?:
  intendedReaderOrListener:
  readerInterestOrUseHypothesis:
  intendedReaderOrListenerUse:
  narrativePurpose:
  likelyMisreading?:
  sourceReturn:
  additionalClaimQuestion?:
  refreshCondition?:

Use unfoldingStructureRefs? only when one selected source structure is governed as a constraint-governed unfolding structure by A.22.CGUS, E.18.3, or a local FPF block. Use demonstrativeSliceRefs? only for the slice the narrative renders for the reader; the slice is not the whole selected structure.

The intake supports these decisions when they matter:

1. Identify the material and selected relations or events, explaining their relevance to the reader’s purpose. State whether they concern past, live, proposed or fictional events when that changes the account.
2. If the account depends on an architecture description, decision or observation record, keep the needed return to that material. A direct explanation of source claims needs no architecture account.
3. Name the writer’s contribution and intended reader in ordinary project terms. Use NSTD.4 when voice or viewpoint changes what the reader can recover; use NSTD.7 for a generated draft. A precise system-role classification or assignment uses A.2 or A.2.1. A claimed dated production Work additionally needs the A.13 and A.15.1 grounds for that claim. None of those precise claims is required merely to ask a teacher or agent for an explanation.
4. Relate the purpose to the selected structure and reader use. Revise the purpose or the selection together when either proves unsuitable.
5. Identify a likely misleading inference only when it changes this use. For example, a plausible incident chronology still leaves its causal explanation open.
6. Give the source or further question to return to when an omitted relation or stronger claim becomes necessary.

For a difficult intake, these four questions can expose the unresolved choice. Stop once the useful choice is clear; they are not four required documents.

A draft can help discover the needed selection. Before relying on it, explain which relations or events matter without using their accidental prominence in that draft as the reason. If the reader’s purpose is still unclear, ask a question or offer a small orientation account that helps settle it. Broader claims about completeness or fidelity remain open.

Use these contrasts when the purpose remains unclear:

• Admissible: “This route helps new FPF readers reconstruct why EntityOfConcern, forces, and neighboring-pattern exits matter during pattern use.” The selected structures are named and the use is reconstructive.
• Below floor for the declared reconstruction lesson: “Make the seminar inspiring so people like FPF.” Motivation can help learners continue, but this purpose does not yet identify the source relations they must reconstruct or use. An expressive-only event can have a different sufficient aim.
• Different task: “Use the narrative to prove FPF is correct.” An account can explain an argument, but the argument’s premises and inferences still need justification. Choosing a narrative purpose does not supply that justification.

For prospective or fictional material, select the relevant canon, premises, design constraints or future-state hypotheses. The narrative may add proposed events within those constraints. If a turn conflicts with them, change the turn or explicitly change the premise; excitement alone does not resolve the conflict. A formal source pack is useful when maintaining canon or comparing alternatives requires it.

When the narrative selects part of a constraint-governed unfolding structure, identify that wider structure and the chosen part. The selected structure may be ConstraintGovernedUnfoldingStructure@Context, an E.18.3 transformation-flow unfolding structure, a P2S local block, an improvement-loop block, or a narrative-ordering block under A.6.3.NAR. The writer may choose one DemonstrativeUnfoldingSlice@Context for the reader’s use. Identify omitted branches, alternatives, loops, constraints or exits when losing them would change the reader’s understanding or next action. The slice is not the whole selected structure and not a work order.

Use role-specific intake prompts when the worker is stuck.

Mood, audience reaction, style or genre can be part of a legitimate purpose. When source fidelity or learning is also intended, those aims leave the needed source selection unanswered. Resolve that question before claiming fidelity or learning; NSTD.4 and NSTD.5 can help realize the expressive aim.

Examples of the optional intake for different uses:

NarrativePurposeIntake@FPFLearningRoute:
  sourceBasisRefs: selected FPF pattern bodies and relation records
  selectedSourceStructureRefs: EntityOfConcern discipline; problem frame; forces; solution; neighboring exits; quality and improvement loop
  unfoldingStructureRefs: A.22.CGUS only when the lesson explicitly teaches source-to-next-use unfolding
  demonstrativeSliceRefs: first seminar route through selected pattern-use positions
  sourceStructureSelectionRationale: learners must reconstruct how a practitioner chooses and uses a pattern
  sourceTemporalPosture: prospective planned learning route over current source corpus
  renderingMediationMode: direct-source-structure unless architecture-of-FPF explanation is opened
  renderingContribution: teacher or course designer
  intendedReaderOrListener: new FPF author or reviewer
  readerInterestOrUseHypothesis: learner needs usable entry, not complete monolith memory
  intendedReaderOrListenerUse: reconstruct one pattern-use route and apply it to a new case
  narrativePurpose: orient attention and sequence learning tasks around source-returnable pattern use
  likelyMisreading?: lesson is not evidence that FPF is correct and not replacement for pattern bodies
  sourceReturn: FPF source patterns and teaching publication-carrier relation
  refreshCondition: FPF edition, learner telemetry, or route evaluation changes

NarrativePurposeIntake@HomotopyExplanation:
  sourceBasisRefs: formal definitions, examples, diagrams, proof-status notes, and selected textbook or lecture source basis
  selectedSourceStructureRefs: definition dependency; example and counterexample relation; theorem prerequisite; formal-source return
  sourceStructureSelectionRationale: learner needs an intuitive route that preserves formal boundaries
  sourceTemporalPosture: retrospective or atemporal explanation over existing mathematical material
  renderingMediationMode: direct-source-structure unless a teaching architecture is explicitly used
  renderingContribution: teacher, explainer, or tool-assisted author
  intendedReaderOrListener: learner who must later distinguish intuition from proof
  readerInterestOrUseHypothesis: learner needs recoverable dependency order and analogy boundary
  intendedReaderOrListenerUse: use examples and return to formal statements without treating metaphor as theorem
  narrativePurpose: make abstractions followable while preserving proof-status boundary
  likelyMisreading?: narrative does not prove the theorem, replace notation, or authorize informal equivalence
  sourceReturn: mathematical source or proof owner
  refreshCondition: source correction, learner failure, or changed learning objective

NarrativePurposeIntake@LiveCommentary:
  sourceBasisRefs: live observations, official event feed, telemetry, recording, later official result
  selectedSourceStructureRefs: event order; score state; possession or control changes; actor roles; uncertainty markers
  sourceStructureSelectionRationale: listener needs orientation during an unfolding event stream
  sourceTemporalPosture: live unfolding source with later refresh
  renderingMediationMode: direct-source-structure
  renderingContribution: commentator or live analyst
  narrativeVoiceOrViewpoint: live commentator voice following the unfolding event under `NSTD.4`
  intendedReaderOrListener: listener following the event and later checking the official event record
  readerInterestOrUseHypothesis: listener needs distinction between observation, inference, prediction, and official correction
  intendedReaderOrListenerUse: follow the event without treating provisional interpretation as fact
  narrativePurpose: maintain orientation and attention under uncertainty
  likelyMisreading?: commentary is not official evidence, blame assignment, or final tactical analysis
  sourceReturn: event source owner, official record, recording, telemetry
  refreshCondition: official correction, telemetry, or post-event evidence changes

NarrativePurposeIntake@FictionalContinuationProbe:
  sourceBasisRefs: selected canon or local source pack for private storycraft test
  selectedSourceStructureRefs: canon constraints; continuity; premise and theme; character agency; causal plot support
  sourceStructureSelectionRationale: storycraft probe tests whether the DPF protects source constraints under dramatic pressure
  sourceTemporalPosture: prospective fictional source structure
  renderingMediationMode: direct-source-structure unless fictional organization or technology architecture is live
  renderingContribution: story designer or tool-assisted writer
  intendedReaderOrListener: private reviewer of storycraft plan
  readerInterestOrUseHypothesis: reviewer needs to see whether continuity and agency survive the route
  intendedReaderOrListenerUse: private design critique, not publication
  narrativePurpose: produce a source-returnable continuation route for testing
  likelyMisreading?: no authorization, no exhaustive canon authority, no publication permission
  sourceReturn: source-pack and canon owner; rights and publication owner when those claims are made
  refreshCondition: source-pack correction, canon selection change, generated-carrier admission change

When claim identity matters

Use the precise construction in A.6.3.NAR:4.0.1 when the receiving use needs identifiable source and narrative claims for citation, dispute, consequential cross-scheme use or another stated reliance requirement. Recover source episteme X, narrative episteme Y and the construction between them; preserve the same EntityOfConcern and test any correspondence on which it depends. Public distribution by itself does not require this fuller account. A permission, evidence or assurance claim still needs its own grounds.