NSTD.6:5.6 - FPF owner teaching

C.2.8 governs structural amount for architecture and non-architecture narratives alike. NSTD.6 applies it to the narrative and the selected observer/use conditions. C.33 retains the separate architecture-description adequacy question. Source-selection fit, source-return readiness, effort and usefulness remain separately judged; a story need not be an architecture description for its structural amount to be compared.

Pass case: an FPF seminar handout narrates how a practitioner moves from problem frame to forces to solution and checks. It names FPF pattern source sections, ordering rule, learner reconstruction task, and source-return points. Its necessary source relations are recoverable under the declared support; the other selected quality characteristics can reach 4 or 5 on their own scales. The handout is not evidence that FPF is correct, and those quality labels do not assign its structural amount.

Fail despite fluency: a polished architecture story says one chosen architecture “won” because it felt coherent, hides rejected candidates, omits architectural characteristics, and gives no source-return path. The needed architecture relations are missing, so the structural-use condition fails; assign an amount only when its selection and conditions are established. OrderingRecoverability and SourceReturnReadiness can fall below their own floors even if engagement is high.

Different object: an evaluator is asked whether a text generator is reliable across unseen topics. One narrative’s NSTD.6 result does not answer that question; the generator and its proposed operating range need their own evaluation. By contrast, a fluent generated story with an unknown source is still a narrative candidate: visible defects can be diagnosed, while source fidelity and structural amount remain unassigned where their required basis is unavailable.