FPF Reference

    A.6.C:7 — Conformance Checklist

    Preface node heading:a-6-c-7-conformance-checklist:9644

    What this page is

    This is generated FPF reference text from the specification preface or supporting sections. It helps interpret FPF; it is not FPF Reference product documentation.

    Methodology

    Use it to understand how the specification wants to be read, then return to a route, pattern, or work packet for active work. Cite generated IDs only when the wording changes the task decision.

    Content

    A boundary description conforms to A.6.C iff it satisfies all items below:

    1. CC‑A.6.C‑1 (Unpacking when contract-language appears). If the text uses “contract”, “guarantee”, “promise”, or “SLA” language, it SHALL explicitly disambiguate the statement as referring to at least one of: Promise content (promise content), Utterance (published description), Commitment (deontic binding), Performed work and evidence (adjudication).

    2. CC‑A.6.C‑2 (No agency to epistemes). The text MUST NOT attribute promising, committing, or obligating agency to signatures, mechanisms, interfaces, or documents. Any duty or commitment SHALL name an accountable role assignment, U.Role, or admitted acting system.

    3. CC‑A.6.C‑3 (Classify contract-language statements via A.6.B). Contract-language statements SHALL be classifiable as atomic claims to L/A/D/E, with dependencies expressed by explicit references rather than paraphrase.

    4. CC‑A.6.C‑4 (Promise content ≠ Work discipline). Statements about what is executed or observed SHALL be expressed as E claims about work, evidence, and carriers. Promise-content language SHALL refer to the promise content (U.PromiseContent, A.2.3) and its L-defined semantics (and to explicit D-* commitments represented as U.Commitment, A.2.8), not to execution events (U.Work) or runtime effects. Unqualified head‑noun service (and the co‑moving cluster service provider and server) in normative boundary prose SHALL be unpacked per A.6.8 (RPR‑SERV).

    5. CC‑A.6.C‑5 (Evidence hook for operational guarantees). If a “guarantee” is operational (requires reality to decide), the text SHALL include an E claim that states what evidence would adjudicate it, with the evidence carrier or evidence claim named when current.

    6. CC‑A.6.C‑6 (No second contracts via faces). MVPK faces MUST NOT add new commitments beyond the underlying L/A/D/E-classified claims; faces may only project, summarize, or select from the canonical claim set under a viewpoint.

    7. CC‑A.6.C‑7 (RFC‑keyword discipline inside faces). If an MVPK face contains BCP‑14 norm keywords, each BCP‑14 sentence MUST cite the underlying D‑* claim ID(s) (U.Commitment) it is projecting. If it cannot, the face is non‑conformant until rewritten (no BCP‑14 keyword) or moved out of the face.

    8. CC‑A.6.C‑8 (No commitment-by-publication default). A Publish or Approve utterance (including publishing a …Spec) MUST NOT be treated as instituting U.Commitment objects by default. If a Context policy maps publication acts to binding effects, the policy SHALL be cited, and any resulting bindings SHALL still be represented explicitly as U.Commitment objects with accountable subjects.

    Last Updated: 2026-06-17 — upstream FPF commit 646b0b9b (github.com/ailev/FPF)