Narrativization and Narrative Studies Principles Framework Architectural Reference
NSTD.Reference:1 - Problem frame and shared difficulty
This Domain Principle Framework helps authors, teachers, technical communicators, researchers and assisting agents construct and improve narratives from connected material. The material may concern observed events, mathematical relations, a proposed design, an unfolding event or a fictional world. A reader needs to recover selected relations in an order they can follow and use.
A fluent account can lose a condition, turn temporal order into a cause, hide another participant’s knowledge or teach a memorable slogan without its working distinctions. The task is to choose and arrange what matters, then detect and repair such losses. Narrative interest and clarity help that work; the warranted strength of the account still depends on its content.
The reader needs enough subject knowledge to identify the relevant material, or access to someone who can supply it. The methods help construct the account; a missing physical mechanism, proof step or factual observation may require work in that subject before a stronger explanation is possible. An accurate account of what remains unresolved can already be useful.
NSTD.Reference:2 - Solution and connected use
NSTD.1 relates reader purpose and source selection. NSTD.2 chooses presentation order while preserving the source relations needed for use. NSTD.3 tests the event, mechanism or dependency connections the account invites the reader to infer. NSTD.4 chooses voice and viewpoint; NSTD.5 develops attention and motivation without sacrificing needed content. NSTD.6 evaluates a narrative version, including a candidate. NSTD.7 connects planning, automated generation, inspection and repair. NSTD.8 organizes a learning route and its reconstruction or application tasks.
Enter at the demonstrated difficulty. A draft that implies a cause from chronology can begin at NSTD.3; it need not first receive a complete NSTD.1 record. A new explanation can start with the reader’s question and a few source relations, produce a short account and refine its selection during comparison. Evaluation can reveal the next useful repair or support keeping the sufficient result.
The Readme’s incident case illustrates the connection. A log shows a configuration change, failures, rollback and recovery. NSTD.3 leaves the two causal claims unsettled; NSTD.2 gives an accurate chronology. That account can answer what happened. A decision requiring the cause returns to the investigation. NSTD.4 checks whether the operator’s viewpoint falsely assigns blame, and NSTD.6 checks what the reader recovered.
NSTD.Reference:3 - Shared distinctions and conditions
A narrative account is content expressed in a form a reader can encounter. The source-to-narrative construction describes how it uses selected source content. This DPF uses A.6.3.NAR for that construction. Its ordinary entry is source selection, ordering and comparison. When citation, dispute or another receiving use depends on claim identity, NAR supplies the fuller construction between source and receiving epistemes. Public distribution alone does not require it.
Past events, live observations, proposed events and fiction have different truth conditions. Mark the difference where it changes understanding. A live inference may need later correction; a future scenario states assumptions; a fictional continuation can introduce events that satisfy its chosen premises and continuity constraints.
Sometimes the source is an architecture description or view. Preserve the decision, trade-off and actual-structure returns that matter to the narrative’s use. C.33 concerns architecture-description adequacy, C.34 a claimed structural correspondence, and C.35 a generated or discovered result intended to inform architecturing. Ordinary narrative generation does not select all three.
A displayed sequence may be one slice of a branching or constraint-governed structure. Where alternatives, loops, exits or stops change the reader’s action, preserve them or provide a usable return through A.22.CGUS, E.18.3 or the defining source. Showing one route does not settle which other routes remain possible.
Voice and focalization describe how an account presents its subject. A real writer, listener or organizational participant has a different relation to the work. Use the precise system-role, assignment, agency or Work conditions only for the corresponding claim. Ordinary contribution language and clear metonymy can remain ordinary.
NSTD.Reference:4 - Architectural Rationale, forces and performance across levels
The language separates contributions that can need different repairs while keeping their results connected. Changing order cannot supply a missing cause. Changing viewpoint can reveal an overlooked relation but can also obscure another. Increasing suspense can improve attention while delaying a prerequisite the reader needs. The shared comparison is therefore between the intended use, selected relations, their expression and the reader’s recovery.
Two alternatives are often sufficient: a direct factual answer with no narrative development, or a familiar genre convention that already serves the reader. Use the larger repertoire when a connected account introduces ordering, inference, viewpoint or learning difficulties. A fixed drafting pipeline would make these dependencies easy to list but would obstruct useful returns from a trial narrative to source selection. The patterns allow both direct entry and iteration.
The methods also participate in a vertical of ongoing work. While a teacher explains a counterexample, selecting its contrast, forming its sentences and observing the learner’s response are constituents of teaching at that moment. The whole task may require a distinction to be usable before the next exercise; that requirement can change the sentence, diagram or timing now. If the learner cannot yet recognize the mathematical objects, polishing the story cannot supply that capability. Add the needed explanation, reference or practice, or change the task. Likewise, a technical narrator must have the relevant subject knowledge or obtain that contribution from a specialist.
B.1.5.EW helps recover such simultaneous constituent and encompassing work; B.1.5.RS helps examine a replacement. The DPF describes part of the needed repertoire. Subject knowledge, language capability, available time, reader access and actual coordination may determine whether the combination can be performed.
There is no fixed number of useful refinement levels. A teaching application, genre-specific profile or local generation workflow can combine these same methods with narrower ones. A profile’s scope, a Method composition and a chapter’s position are different relations; the pattern numbering fixes addresses rather than an execution sequence.
NSTD.Reference:5 - Evaluation, typical failures and consequences
Before relying on a narrative, ask what the reader needs to recover, whether the account supports that recovery, and which remaining uncertainty changes the next action. Inspect an inferred cause or attribution against its source. For a draft or generated candidate, use the defect to choose a repair; acceptance is not a prerequisite for evaluation.
NSTD.6 applies C.2.8 to the account, its expression and a specified reader or observer. State the selected semantic relations, correctness criterion, preparation, help and budget as needed for the question. A qualitative comparison can suffice. A count also needs its grain and selected set. Retain which relations were recovered: equal counts may support different actions.
An expert walkthrough, an actual response and a formal estimate establish different things. One supported response does not establish unaided transfer or reliability across a population. Current product quality, fidelity to a named source and evidence of how the product was made are separate questions. Missing manufacturing notes do not prevent diagnosis of a visible defect.
Typical repairs follow those distinctions: qualify a cause inferred from sequence; restore a hidden viewpoint or condition; attach a prerequisite where the learner needs it; compare a generated scene with continuity constraints; or retain an adequate explanation when further work would add little. If repeated improvement is worthwhile, use E.22 to frame an unsettled question and E.23 to compare the change with protected characteristics, cost and risk in view.
The gain is an account whose content, order and use are easier to examine and change. The cost is the comparison and any necessary reader or subject work. Additional forms, probes and evidence are justified by what their result can change. A consequential permission, evidence, assurance or affected-party claim needs its own grounds; narrative quality alone does not supply them.
NSTD.Reference:6 - Source synthesis, coverage and relations
Narrative studies supplies several complementary contributions. Narratology distinguishes story, discourse, voice and focalization; cognitive narrative research examines event comprehension and reader processing; science communication makes the tension between engagement and supported claims visible; natural-language generation and narrative planning distinguish content, order, realization and control. Learning research contributes conditions for retrieval, spacing, interleaving and transfer. The Source Use And Refresh Map and each pattern’s SoTA-Echoing section state the adopted contributions and their limits.
The synthesis uses those distinctions as methods for recognizable work. It adapts staged planning into a revisable cycle and separates product evaluation from generation history. A purely stylistic account would miss source and dependency failures; a universal formal-admission procedure would add unnecessary work before ordinary explanation. Domain sources remain necessary when the proposed use exceeds a source’s actual reach or a newer result changes the method.
The publication foregrounds selection, order, event and mechanism support, viewpoint, engagement, evaluation, generation and learning routes. Its teaching, fiction, mathematical and live-event examples demonstrate different uses; they do not bound the repertoire or establish complete domain coverage. Genre craft, the full history of narratology, a complete learning-science curriculum, generation algorithms, legal permissions and formal metric calibration require their appropriate sources or more specialized methods.
The emphasis on explicit source relations can favor analytic and technical work. Expressive aims such as mood, voice and imaginative discovery remain legitimate; choose a fidelity or reconstruction criterion only when that use requires it. A provisional draft can help discover both the subject and the purpose. Actual field effectiveness and learning remain questions for observations qualified by their conditions.
This DPF depends on FPF’s general distinctions and adds narrative-domain methods. FPF does not depend on NSTD. The DPF Relations section explains the specific dependencies, teaching-publication relations and useful returns. In an architecture-mediated explanation, the reader may need to return from narrative to a description or view, then to the modeled structure and observations. A directly sourced explanation returns to its relevant material. Each representation may omit relations; inspect those omissions when they affect the use.
NSTD.Reference:7 - Worked combinations across narrative uses
The cases show how the methods combine across teaching, fiction, mathematics and live commentary. Each route can be shortened to the work the current difficulty needs.
Use a route to construct a narrative or to locate a defect in an existing one. An existing draft can be evaluated immediately; the absence of its production history does not prevent judging a visible problem. Return to the relevant construction step when repair needs it.
NSTD.Reference:7.1 - Case A - FPF Learning Route Probe With Seminar Carrier
Use: a seminar or slide series that teaches readers to apply FPF patterns. The complete course is a separate teaching publication; a worked teaching example may also appear in a pattern.
Patterns opened: NSTD.1, NSTD.2, NSTD.3, NSTD.5, NSTD.6, NSTD.8.
Selected content: what a pattern concerns, when and how to use it, how methods relate, when to consult a source, and how to evaluate and improve the result.
Temporal posture and rendering mediation mode: prospective planned learning route over current FPF source structures; direct source-structure mode unless an architecture-of-FPF explanation is explicitly opened as architecture-mediated support.
Ordering rule: didactic prerequisite order, with explicit divergence from monolith order when helpful.
Construction route:
NSTD.1: relate the learner’s task to the needed pattern content. For a first-use lesson, select a recognizable difficulty, the method’s first operation, its result and the next relevant method.NSTD.2: order the selected content so that each exercise has the needed prerequisites. Depart from the source’s chapter order where that serves the lesson, retaining a return to any omitted condition.NSTD.3: turn each session into a reconstruction target: after the session, the learner should be able to reconstruct one pattern-use route from source basis and selected source structure, not only repeat the teaching story.NSTD.5: add motivation devices only where they protect attention without replacing source return; slogans and examples remain subordinate to reconstructable source structure.NSTD.8: try a short learning sequence with a recurring anchor, a reconstruction or application task, and the support needed at that point. Drafting a slide can reveal a missing prerequisite; record the route when course coordination or revision needs it.NSTD.6: evaluate the route once the above source and use basis is recoverable. A missing structural-amount basis returns to source-spine selection; a demonstrated relation loss calls for repair of the selection, expression or usable source return through the relevant NSTD method before style polish. Compare any numerical amount only at its stated scale and conditions.
Intentionally lost or deferred: full monolith detail, all neighboring patterns, all source-pack rows, and advanced formal variants. These return through source links.
Related work: use E.17 and E.17.AUD for teaching-publication and audience-unit questions, NSTD.6 for narrative quality, the subject sources for the taught claims, and A.10 for evidence claims. G.2/G.11 apply when synthesizing or refreshing a SoTA basis.
Low NSTD.6 repair: if learners enjoy sessions but cannot reconstruct pattern use, repair NSTD.2, NSTD.3, and NSTD.8 before changing only style.
NSTD.Reference:7.2 - Case B - Franchise Continuation Storycraft
Use: plan a continuation of an existing fictional world, such as a space-opera franchise. This case concerns narrative construction; it does not determine publication rights.
Patterns opened: NSTD.1, NSTD.2, NSTD.3, NSTD.4, NSTD.5, NSTD.6, NSTD.7 when generation is used.
Selected constraints: canon and continuity, the premise and theme, character motivation, causal plot relations, viewpoint and stakes. New events can be invented within those chosen constraints.
Temporal posture: prospective fiction based on a chosen canon or local premise set. Compare directly with those sources; an architecture description is needed only if the story work itself uses one.
Ordering rule: choose how plot events and revelations reach the reader. A delayed reveal can be intentional; repair a missing connection when it defeats the intended plot or understanding.
Construction route:
NSTD.1: choose the premise and the canon constraints the continuation will retain. Existing excerpts or a compact note may suffice; build a maintained source collection only when repeated work needs it.NSTD.2: distinguish event order from reveal order. For a consequential action, ensure that the necessary means or motive are available in the story, even if the reader learns them later.NSTD.3: build an event or mechanism support map for the proposed plot: initiating condition, constraint, conflict, action, consequence, update, and unresolved tension.NSTD.4: choose the viewpoint and protagonist’s contribution. Clarify an attribution or omitted perspective only when it changes the intended account.NSTD.5: try stakes, curiosity, identification or a familiar allusion for the intended reader effect. Keep a device when its contribution is worth its cost and it preserves the chosen narrative constraints.NSTD.7: inspect generated candidates against the chosen premise and continuity. Repair, retain or reject them before deciding their use.NSTD.6: evaluate continuity, character agency, causal plot support, viewpoint discipline, andNarrativeRenderingEpiplexity; repair structure before increasing drama.
Intentionally lost or deferred: exhaustive canon, production rights, fan-service catalogue, and publication permission. These are outside this DPF case.
Related work: select canon and its constraints through NSTD.1; inspect generated continuations through NSTD.7 and NSTD.6. Use NSTD.4 for voice and attribution. Additional agency, responsibility, ethics or publication-rights questions depend on the claim and intended use. Maintaining canon alone selects neither G.2 nor C.35.
Low NSTD.6 repair: continuity drift, premise mismatch, character-agency collapse, escalation without causal structure, fan-service replacing plot function, viewpoint confusion, or stakes without source return repair through NSTD.1 through NSTD.4, not by adding more dramatic prose.
NSTD.Reference:7.3 - Case C - Homotopy Theory Explanation
Use: graph-heavy and structure-heavy mathematical theory rendered into sequential explanatory narrative for learners.
Patterns opened: NSTD.1, NSTD.2, NSTD.3, NSTD.5, NSTD.6, and NSTD.8 if taught as a series.
Source structures that must survive: definitions, dependency order, examples, counterexamples, proof-status boundaries, theorem prerequisites, and source return to formal statements.
Temporal posture and rendering mediation mode: retrospective or atemporal explanatory route over existing mathematical source structures; direct source-structure mode unless a teaching architecture or knowledge-graph architecture is explicitly used as mediation.
Ordering rule: didactic dependency order with source-return to formal proof order.
Construction route:
NSTD.1: select the learner use and source structures: definitions, dependency graph, examples, counterexamples, theorem prerequisites, proof-status boundaries, and formal-source return.NSTD.2: choose didactic dependency order; explicitly mark where it differs from formal proof order, historical order, or publication order.NSTD.3: define the reconstruction target for each step: what the learner must be able to state, distinguish, use in an example, or return to as formal proof status.NSTD.5: introduce an analogy, question or visual example where it helps the learner. Supply a condition before the learner’s next inference needs it; distinguish an intuitive image from a formal result.NSTD.8: if the explanation becomes a series, turn dependencies into session anchors and reconstruction tasks rather than a sequence of entertaining analogies.NSTD.6: evaluate whether learners can recover definitions, dependency order, example boundaries, proof-status boundaries, and source-return points; low values repair source selection and ordering before adding more metaphor.
Intentionally lost or deferred: full proof detail, every lemma, historical order, and advanced generalizations not needed for declared learner use.
Related work: C.29 supports a mathematical lens when one is being constructed; the mathematical source supplies the definition or proof. A.10 applies to an evidence claim and E.17 to the explanation’s publication form.
Low NSTD.6 repair: if learners can retell an analogy but cannot state definitions, dependency order, example boundaries, or proof status, repair NSTD.1, NSTD.2, and NSTD.3; do not raise engagement alone.
NSTD.Reference:7.4 - Case D - Live Event Commentary
Use: live commentary for an unfolding football match or analogous event stream, used for listener orientation and later review only under source-return conditions.
Patterns opened: NSTD.1, NSTD.2, NSTD.3, NSTD.4, NSTD.5, and NSTD.6.
Source structures that must survive: score state, event sequence, possession or control changes, tactical or situational structure, actor roles, uncertainty, provisional interpretation, and return to official result, telemetry, statistics, or recording.
Temporal posture and rendering mediation mode: live unfolding event stream; direct source-structure mode. Architecture-mediated mode opens only if the commentary is explicitly about structure of a team, venue, broadcast system, or other holon and uses architecture descriptions as admitted source basis.
Ordering rule: live event order with explicit prediction and uncertainty markers; later recap may use causal or tension order but must not erase which claims were provisional during the live event.
Construction route:
NSTD.1: identify what the listener needs from the live account, the available event source, the commentator’s viewpoint and which interpretations remain provisional.NSTD.2: follow live event order while marking when the sequence is observation, inference, tactical interpretation, or prediction.NSTD.3: preserve event and state-update support so listeners can reconstruct what changed, who acted, and what remains uncertain.NSTD.4: keep viewpoint and agency wording from assigning responsibility, intention, or capability beyond the observable or sourced basis.NSTD.5: use tension and suspense only as attention support; it cannot make predictions, disputed rulings, or emotional framing into settled evidence.NSTD.6: evaluate whether the listener can distinguish observed event, provisional interpretation, uncertainty, and source-return obligation.
Intentionally lost or deferred: full official statistics, all off-camera events, post-match medical or disciplinary facts, and later tactical analysis. These return through official source refs, telemetry, or recording.
Related work: return to the official record for a disputed fact or correction. Use the relevant publication guidance for broadcasting; use D.1–D.5 when an actual harm or value conflict arises and G.11 when a changed source affects a maintained account.
Low NSTD.6 repair: if listeners remember drama but cannot distinguish observed event from commentator inference or later official correction, repair NSTD.1, NSTD.2, NSTD.3, and NSTD.4 before increasing engagement.
NSTD.Reference:8 - Support Maps
Open these maps when a pattern’s instruction leaves a source, meaning or neighboring-method question unresolved. They are optional reference material, not prerequisites for beginning a narrative.
Use the architecture bridge for an actual architecture-related narrative; the semiotic bridge for an unresolved representation or interpretation problem; the source map for a relied-on research claim; and the precision map to distinguish an overloaded term.
NSTD.Reference:9 - Architecture and narrative work bridge
Architecture and narrative work both involve selecting and relating structures, but their results differ. The table identifies useful correspondences and the conditions under which an architecture method applies. A plot, synopsis or teaching route is not thereby an architecture description.
| Architecture question | Comparable narrative question | When the FPF contribution applies |
|---|---|---|
architecture-relevant problem pressure in C.32.P2S | narrative problem, communicative pressure, audience confusion, motivation gap, future-scenario need, story problem | Use NSTD.1 to name reader or listener use and source-structure selection rationale; use C.32.P2S only when the pressure is genuinely about holon architecture carry-through. |
| Which structure matters, and what is still unknown? | Which story-world constraint, event connection, mechanism or proof dependency does this account need? | State the relevant relations directly; use A.22 when a structural description is needed and C.30 only for architecture description. |
architecture structural view and viewpoint in C.30.ASV | focalization, narrative viewpoint, perspective, lens, whose path through the material, what the reader is allowed to see | Use NSTD.4 for voice or focalization wording; cite C.30.ASV when the viewpoint is over architecture-relevant selected structures. |
architecture description in C.30.AD | synopsis, outline, story bible, explanatory account, learning route, narrative-rendering publication carrier | Use A.6.3.NAR for structure-to-sequence rendering and E.17 for publication; use C.30.AD only when the source or target is an architecture description. |
candidate structure set and trade-off in C.32 | alternative plots, possible story plans, scenario branches, competing explanation routes, narrative design alternatives | Keep alternatives visible before picking the route; use NSTD.2 for ordering and NSTD.6 for declared-use quality. Use C.32 only for architecture candidate synthesis. |
Project architecture decision in C.32.PAD | Choosing a narrative route, plot, order or viewpoint | Use NSTD.2, NSTD.4 or NSTD.5 for the editorial choice. Use C.32.PAD when the choice actually concerns the architecture of the system being described. |
| Participants who use an architecture result | Writer, teacher, commentator, story designer or assisting agent | Identify the contribution needed for the narrative. Use A.2, A.13 or A.15.1 only for the corresponding system-role, agency or actual Work claim. |
reader-relative structural amount in C.2.8, architecture-description adequacy in C.33, and narrative source return in NSTD.6 | what selected relations this reader can extract from the narrative, what remains missing, and when the source or an architecture description must be consulted | Use NSTD.6 for NarrativeRenderingEpiplexity under C.2.8 and for the separate source-return judgement. Use C.33 for the architecture-description adequacy question. |
| Preserving a specified architectural relation through a change | Preserving canon, continuity or a selected explanatory relation through retelling | Compare ordinary narrative constraints directly. Use C.34 for an architectural preservation claim, including the losses and permitted use that claim needs. |
realized structure, operation, telemetry, feedback in C.32.P2S and G.11 | reader reception, learner reconstruction, field test, replay, audience misunderstanding, generated-output repair, official result after live commentary | Use NSTD.6, NSTD.8, E.23, and G.11 for evaluation, improvement, and refresh. Use architecture feedback owners only when actual holon structure or architecture-characteristic results are being checked. |
The comparison suggests possible training transfers, not an established transfer effect. An architect learning narrative work can practise presentation order, viewpoint and reader response while using familiar structural distinctions. A narrator learning architecture work must additionally learn how to identify the relevant real structures, compare design alternatives and check their consequences. Competence in one practice does not establish competence in the other.
NSTD.Reference:10 - Semiotic and language-precision bridge
Narrative construction changes how signs, sequence and viewpoint make material available to a reader. Use the following neighboring methods when they address the actual difficulty. Ordinary drafting can proceed without a formal language-state profile.
| Narrative wording or difficulty | Related method | Consequence for the narrative |
|---|---|---|
| “make it more interesting”, “more literary”, “more artistic” or “more memorable” | NSTD.5 for the intended reader effect; NSTD.6 for its evaluation. C.2.LS applies if a language-state distinction matters. | An expressive aim can be the use itself. Preserve any factual or structural claim that the chosen use also needs. |
| early hook, vibe, image, tension, felt mismatch, story seed, or low-articulation direction | A.16.1 to preserve the cue; NSTD.1 to develop purpose and source selection; NSTD.2 to try a provisional route and compare it with the source relations. | Preserve the cue without pretending that the narrative purpose, selected route, claim, method, or quality endpoint already exists. |
| Felt artistic fit before a clear narrative purpose | A.16.1 for preserving a cue; C.16.Q when distinguishing this signal from an evaluated quality | Keep the image, tension or suggestion available for exploration. Establish a quality value only when the corresponding question and basis exist. |
| overcommitted plot frame, failed explanatory frame, or too-strong narrative route | A.16.2 for reopen, sketch-backoff, respecify, or retire; A.6.P/C.16.Q only when relation or quality precision is actually repairable | Back off the narrative route honestly instead of hiding retreat behind “refined”, “made subtler”, or “more nuanced” prose. |
| Simplified, didactic, redacted or compressed retelling | A.6.3.CSC; E.17.EFP when it explains a source | Identify the lost distinctions that could change the intended use and provide a usable return when they are needed. |
| clearer explanation, tutorial wording, onboarding story, or source-linked retelling | E.17.EFP plus A.6.3.NAR when sequence and narrative order are load-bearing | Classify whether the rendering is source-pinned, source-linked reconstruction, didactic retelling, or speculative retelling; do not let helpful explanation become a second semantic rule track. |
| “same story”, adaptation fidelity, canon continuity, or narrative correspondence | Direct source comparison; NSTD.2 for order and NSTD.6 for quality. C.34 only for architecture-specific preservation. | State which relation or constraint must survive, compare the result, and disclose losses that matter to the intended use. |
| “quality”, “good narrative”, “adequate story”, “strong explanation”, or “better style” | C.16.Q for overloaded quality wording, A.19.ECS/C.16/NSTD.6 for evaluation, F.18 for durable names | Recover bearer, evaluation frame, quality sense, characteristic or bundle, and value meaning before using the term as improvement guidance. |
| An ambiguous “supports”, “grounds”, “maps”, “connects” or “aligned with” | A.6.P and the definition of the relation at issue; C.34 only for architecture preservation | Recover what relates to what and what the relation permits the reader to infer. An ordinary unambiguous connection needs no formal expansion. |
| Choosing style, genre, technique, voice or tone | NSTD.4 and NSTD.5 for viewpoint and reader effect; E.10 for a consequentially ambiguous term; F.18 when a stable reusable name is needed. | Choose the expression for the reader’s use. Resolve a naming or meaning question when it changes that choice or what the reader can infer. |
Use FPF for the general definition or method and NSTD for the narrative operation that uses it. This keeps the dependency from NSTD to FPF while avoiding a second set of general definitions inside narrative practice.
NSTD.Reference:11 - Working meanings and direct source returns
These terms help distinguish questions that occur in narrative work. A local field name does not create a new Core kind. Use the cited definition when the particular claim needs its precision.
| Term | Meaning in this DPF | When a related method is needed |
|---|---|---|
| source basis; admitted source basis | Material used for the account: a formal text, event record, story premise, canon, architecture description or another relevant source. “Admitted” adds a receiving-use condition only when one is specified. | Compare ordinary sources directly. Use G.2 for SoTA synthesis, A.10 for an evidence claim or E.17.EFP for a source-based explanation. |
| selected source structure | The relations or distinctions selected for the narrative. | A.6.3.NAR relates the source to the account; A.22 helps describe structure, C.2.8 its recovery by a reader, and C.33 architecture-description adequacy. |
| source-structure selection rationale | Why those relations matter for the reader’s use. | NSTD.1 revises selection and purpose together. |
| source temporal posture | Whether the account concerns past events, a live situation, a plan, prospective fiction or a combination. | NSTD.1 keeps observation, inference and invention distinguishable when their difference matters. |
| rendering mediation mode | Whether the narrative draws directly on source structure, through an architecture description, or both. | Use architecture methods only for the architecture contribution actually involved. |
| architecture-mediated narrativization route | Narrative construction that uses an architecture description, view, decision or account of actual structure as a source. | C.30/C.32 govern the relevant architecture work; NSTD.1/.2 govern selection and presentation. |
| rendering Work role | The writing, teaching, commentary or other contribution sought in the task. | A precise actual-Work claim separately identifies the System, applicable role assignment and occurrence through A.13 and A.15.1. The task description alone asserts no occurrence. |
| reader or listener role | The receiver’s working position and intended use. | NSTD.1/.6 use it to select material and judge the account; it does not establish actual comprehension. |
| reader-interest or use hypothesis | A tentative account of what the reader wants to understand, remember or do. | A comparison or reader response through NSTD.5/.6 may change that hypothesis. |
| narrative rendering | The resulting narrative account; where relevant, distinguish it from the construction relation and the file or other publication form. | A.6.3.NAR defines the construction; E.17 addresses publication form. |
| narrative purpose | The intended contribution to the reader’s use, including an expressive aim. | NSTD.1 relates it to the selected material. |
| ordering rule | The way selected material is presented in sequence. | NSTD.2 distinguishes presentation order from event time, proof dependency and required work order. |
| event model | A reader’s account of events, states and their connections. | NSTD.3 repairs those connections; use C.28 when a causal claim itself requires causal analysis. |
| viewpoint | The position from which the account presents its material. | NSTD.4 compares what this reveals and hides. |
| focalized object | The person, object, relation or situation made salient by the chosen viewpoint. | NSTD.4 separates salience from an attribution of action or responsibility. |
| voice | How the narrator speaks: stance, distance, confidence and relation to the events. | NSTD.4 checks a consequential mismatch between voice and what is known. |
| protagonist | A central participant or focus of the narrative. | Real responsibility or capability, when claimed, requires its own grounds. |
| actant | A function in a narrative relation or plot. | Distinguish it from a real System’s local system-role kind or assignment under A.2/A.2.1. |
| agency; personification | Agency concerns action; personification presents something through humanlike properties. | Use A.13 for a precise agency claim and NSTD.4 to repair misleading attribution. |
| engagement effect | A change in attention, motivation, immersion, memorability or willingness to continue. | NSTD.5/.6 distinguish these effects from understanding and source fidelity. |
| persuasion boundary | A condition on the intended influence or choice the account supports. | D.1–D.5 help resolve actual value, affected-party or harm conflicts. |
| generated source plan | A plan of selected material, relations and constraints supplied to a generator. | NSTD.7 compares it with the source and draft. G.2 concerns SoTA synthesis; C.35 concerns results entering architecture work. |
| plot or event plan | A proposed arrangement of fictional or narrated events. | NSTD.2/.7 compare the plan and draft; a plan is not evidence that events occurred. |
| schema constraint | A formal or informal rule imposed on generated output. | NSTD.7 distinguishes compliance with that rule from semantic adequacy or successful execution. |
| generation method | The procedure used to produce a draft. | NSTD.7 guides its use; a product can be inspected even when its production history is unknown. |
| repair loop | Repeated changes evaluated against the intended improvement. | E.22 frames an unresolved improvement question; E.23 uses results such as NSTD.6 to choose and reassess changes. |
| learning narrative route | An arrangement of material and learner activities intended to develop a capability. | NSTD.8 supplies needed support at each use; E.17 and E.17.AUD address the teaching publication. |
| learner reconstruction task | A task asking a learner to recover or use selected relations. | NSTD.8/.6 distinguish task performance, assistance and the wider learning claim. |
| narrative rendering epiplexity | In NSTD.6, the reader-relative recovery of selected structure, using C.2.8. | Qualify the observer, form, conditions and evidence. A qualitative comparison does not supply a bit estimate, general learning result or architecture-quality result. |
| narrative quality characteristic | One question about a narrative version for a declared use. | A.19.ECS, C.16 and NSTD.6 distinguish the characteristic, scale, observation and result. |
| narrative language-state facet profile | A description of articulation, closure, anchoring, representation and their relevant thresholds. | Use C.2.LS and C.2.4–C.2.7 when one of those distinctions changes the work. |
| pre-articulation narrative cue | An image, tension, mismatch or hint worth retaining before a clear narrative claim or route exists. | A.16.1 supports exploration without prematurely fixing a route. |
| preconceptual narrative fit signal | Felt rightness or artistic pull before a defined quality comparison. | C.16.Q distinguishes this signal from a characteristic value; A.16.1 can preserve it as a cue. |
| coarsened narrative rendering | A simplified or restricted account that omits distinctions from its source. | A.6.3.CSC identifies the consequences for use and needed source returns. |
| explanation-facing narrative rendering | A narrative used to help a reader understand a source. | E.17.EFP distinguishes its explanatory relation; A.6.3.NAR applies when narrative order is part of the construction. |
| narrative precision restoration | Resolving wording whose ambiguity changes the claim or action. | Use E.10, A.6.P, C.16.Q or C.2.P for the specific unresolved meaning. |
| artistic or literary rendering mode | A choice of voice, tone, genre, scene or technique for an expressive or other reader aim. | NSTD.4/.5 guide the choice; NSTD.6 assesses it for that aim without treating artistic effect as factual support. |
NSTD.Reference:12 - FPF contribution and compatibility
The definitions and general methods used by this edition are available in FPF Core. In particular, A.6.3.NAR supplies the source-to-narrative relation and its ordinary and claim-specific uses; C.2.8 supplies reader-qualified structural recovery; A.19.ECS and C.16 supply the evaluation distinctions used in NSTD.6. The support maps and the relations below identify the additional content used for each relevant claim.
NSTD depends on those definitions for the uses stated here. A relevant change calls for reconsidering the affected narrative instruction or evaluation; it does not require restarting unrelated uses. Compatibility across a changed Core edition is a separate question about that use. E.4.PFR explains this dependency distinction and G.11 the currentness question.
NSTD.Reference:13 - DPF relations
These relations explain how the methods combine and when their dependencies need to be revisited. A pattern citation locates the relevant definition or instruction; it does not own a subject or create an authority relation. Ordinary subject assertions below are sufficient for reading and use. A maintenance index may represent the same assertions through the optional forms in E.4.PFR.
| Relation used in this DPF | Consequence for the reader | Return or refresh condition |
|---|---|---|
| NSTD uses FPF’s definitions of narrative construction, source use, evaluation, agency and publication. | Interpret the domain methods through the specific cited content. Dependency runs from NSTD to FPF; compatibility across a changed FPF edition needs its own assessment. | Revisit only the dependent use when relevant defining content changes. E.4.PFR defines dependency; E.5.3 constrains its direction. |
NSTD.1–.8 develop domain methods using A.6.3.NAR. | Begin with ordinary source selection, ordering and comparison. Use NAR’s precise construction only when claim identity changes the receiving use. | Return to NAR for source/receiving episteme identity, construction or correspondence questions. |
NSTD.1/.2/.6/.8 use A.22.CGUS when the source has branching or constrained unfolding. | A narrative can display one slice while retaining the relevant alternatives, loops, exits and stops of the wider structure. | Return to CGUS, E.18.3 or the defining local block if the slice hides a relation needed for the next action. |
The Source Use And Refresh Map supplies domain source contributions under G.2. | Use each source for the claim and tradition it supports; a citation alone does not establish evidence or authority. | Reopen a missing, stale, contradicted or overextended source claim and compare serious alternatives. |
| NSTD.6 evaluates a narrative version produced or revised through the other methods. | Compare the candidate or accepted account for the intended reader and use; distinguish product quality, source fidelity and production history. | Use A.19.ECS for the characteristic space, C.16 for measurement, and C.2.8 for qualified structural recovery. Revisit changed selection, use, scale or evidence. |
NSTD.6 results can guide repeated improvement through E.22 and E.23. | Frame an unresolved quality question, select a worthwhile change, protect other needed characteristics and compare the resulting version. A retry alone is no improvement claim. | Return when the version, changed part, cost, risk or comparison basis is missing or changed. G.11 supports currentness. |
| NSTD.7 plans and inspects generated narratives. | Evaluate a candidate before deciding its use. If the generated result will inform architecturing, also apply C.35 to that architecture use. | Revisit affected claims when source, generator, constraints or proposed use changes; fluent output does not establish source fidelity. |
| NSTD.8 can be realized in a seminar, handout or other teaching publication. | The teaching material presents the selected learning route. E.17 concerns its source-backed form and E.24.PUB its publication and audience availability. | Revisit source relations, learning tasks or access when the source, audience or publication changes. A teaching file can contain useful examples without redefining the source pattern. |
| NSTD.8 and NSTD.6 support evaluation of learner reconstruction and use. | Distinguish a design walkthrough, an actual reading and a learning-effect claim. Feed an established defect into the relevant repair or E.23. | Revisit changed reader preparation, assistance, source selection or evidence; an evaluation does not by itself grant publication permission. |
| NSTD.4/.5 can expose agency, responsibility, persuasion or affected-party questions. | Use A.2, A.13, D.1–D.5, A.10 or B.3 for the corresponding claim when it is made. | Reopen the particular claim when wording changes who acts, who is affected, what is supported or who may decide. |
NSTD.Reference:14 - Refresh the affected narrative use
Use this route when the package is already being applied and one of its source, evaluation, or carrier assumptions changes.
- Revisit a source when a missing, stale or contradicted claim could change the narrative’s use. Use
G.2for a renewed SoTA synthesis; compare an ordinary event record or fictional canon directly. - Return to
NSTD.6when the evaluated object kind, declared use, value meaning, quality characteristic, evidence basis, or low-value repair route changes. - Use
E.22when the improvement question is underframed: purpose, floor, protected trade-offs, expected evidence, result form, or cost and risk are not explicit. - Use
E.23only for an exact changed narrative rendering version or declared changed slice withNSTD.6re-evaluation planned. - Use
G.11refresh when FPF Core edition, generated-narrative practice, reader telemetry, teaching-test evidence, source pack, or theNSTD.6evaluation characteristic space changes. - Distinguish the teaching or narrative product from observations about its use. Reuse an observation only for the claim and conditions it actually supports; a worked example may remain in the pattern that explains the method.
For source qualifications, citation and edition information, see the Sources and Edition Notes.