NSTD.7:5.6 - FPF owner teaching
NSTD.7 connects content planning, realization and evaluation. A generated account has claims expressed through a publication form; its fluency alone does not establish those claims. Use C.2.8 for reader recovery, A.10 for evidence claims and B.3 for assurance claims when they arise. C.35 is restricted to generated or discovered results intended to inform architecture work. Source changes and changed generator behavior can reopen an earlier comparison.
An LLM drafts an explanation of FPF pattern use from notes. Compare its selected relations, order and returns with those notes and the applicable pattern content. NSTD.6 can assess the candidate immediately; if the necessary subject basis is missing, it leaves that amount unassigned while retaining independently supported defect findings. An absent generation journal does not erase visible product qualities or defects.
A graph-to-text system turns an event graph into a match recap. The event graph, source timestamp, uncertainty markers, and official-result refresh route are admitted source basis for this rendering. The generated recap is a carrier. If the system adds causal explanations not in the graph, those claims are not admitted by graph-to-text success. Repair by lowering causal language, adding source return, or opening the evidence owner.
A game story-planning pipeline generates a branching scene. The schema may require objective, location, actors, traits, constraints, and available actions. NSTD.7 treats those fields as method and source-plan support, not as proof of playable, coherent, or ethically acceptable narrative. Structural, semantic, executable, and human probes remain separate from fluency.
An LLM proposes themes from interview notes for qualitative narrative analysis. The generated theme list is not the researcher’s interpretation by default. Human interpretive agency remains live: the researcher checks source excerpts, reflexive stance, alternative readings, and admissible use before any narrative rendering or report uses the generated material.
Use these examples to distinguish evaluation from acceptance:
| Generated account | Current evaluation or use decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| A fluent summary with an unknown source. | Assess visible narrative defects; leave source fidelity unresolved. | The source relation cannot yet be compared. |
| A graph-to-text candidate with event IDs and a stated order. | Evaluate through NSTD.6, then use or repair it. | Its needed relations and losses can be inspected without prior acceptance. |
| A schema-valid RPG scene contradicting a selected continuity constraint. | Unsuitable for that source-faithful use until repaired. | Field validity does not establish continuity. |
| An FPF seminar outline with source references and reconstruction tasks. | Evaluate its teaching route through NSTD.8 and NSTD.6. | Product quality and actual learning-effect claims use different evidence. |
| A homotopy metaphor with an unstated analogy limit. | Diagnose the missing condition and clarify it. | An intuitive explanation can be evaluated before it is fit for proof-related reliance. |
When automated repair is used, preserve version identity. “Regenerate until better” destroys improvement evidence. Record the previous carrier, changed prompt or method, selected changed slice, expected value movement, protected trade-offs, and re-evaluation route. A generated variant can be more fluent and still worse on epiplexity, source return, or agency discipline.
Pipeline variants by source type:
| Source type | Content plan | Discourse or story plan | Admission danger | Evaluation focus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge graph or event graph | Select nodes, edges, event ids, uncertainty, and omissions. | Choose traversal, grouping, and return links. | Treating graph coverage as semantic truth. | Epiplexity, ordering recoverability, relation strength. |
| Architecture source pack | Select structures, candidate trade-offs, decisions, telemetry, and residual exceptions. | Use decision-memory or trade-off route. | Treating generated explanation as architecture decision or assurance. | Structural-information capture, correspondence, source return. |
| Fictional canon or source pack | Select canon constraints, premise, agency, continuity, and non-use boundary. | Use causal plot plus reveal order. | Treating private generated scene as authorized continuation. | Continuity, character agency, causal support, rights boundary. |
| Teaching source spine | Select concepts, dependencies, examples, counterexamples, tasks. | Use didactic prerequisite route with repeated anchors. | Treating generated outline as source framework. | Reconstruction tasks, learning-route quality, source-return readiness. |
| Qualitative notes or interviews | Select excerpts, themes, alternative readings, reflexive stance. | Use analysis narrative with traceable source excerpts. | Treating generated theme as researcher judgment. | Human interpretive agency, source traceability, ethical boundary. |
If a pipeline variant requires a source type not covered by the current source pack, mark the case as a source-refresh trigger rather than silently generalizing. A graph-to-text claim, for example, may require a more specific graph-to-text source than a general NLG survey. A game narrative pipeline may need executable or playability probes that a plain text-generation source does not supply.