FPF Reference

    A.6.P:4.0b — Candidate‑Set Note (informative; repair/disambiguation record)

    Preface node heading:a-6-p-4-0b-candidate-set-note-informative-repair-disambiguation-record:13235

    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

    When endpoint identity (pronoun, deixis, metonymy, or coarse kind) or relation-kind selection is ambiguous, reviews can collapse into “lexicon debates”. A.6.P treats this as an ontology reconstruction step with an explicit, checkable intermediate record.

    Candidate‑Set Note template (informative).

    Collision note. This “Candidate‑Set Note” is not the F.18 naming-process candidate set (NQD-front). It is a local disambiguation record for endpoint referents and facets and RelationKind selection during RPR repairs.

    For each ambiguous position (relation kind, endpoint facet or kind, qualifier, mediator), record:

    • Trigger span: the trigger token named by value(s) in the draft (copied by value).
    • Position being disambiguated: headKind | relationKind | endpointFacet(pᵢ) | endpointRef(pᵢ) | qualifier(qⱼ) | mediator.
    • A.7 side (when endpoint-side): EntityOfConcern | Description episteme | publication carrier (state explicitly when live contenders span sides; side-mixing is a common source of boundary-interface category errors).
    • Candidate set: a short list of plausible head kinds, endpoint facets or endpoint kinds, and RelationKind tokens when relation-kind selection is live, each with the local cue(s) that made it plausible.
    • Selected facet or kind (and selected RelationKind, if relevant): the chosen candidate(s).
    • Why: the discriminating test(s) that were applied, plus pointers to the specific local evidence and witness cues used (carriers, claims, records, or carrier records).
    • Consequence: which SlotSpecs become required or forbidden and which A.6.B hooks are now triggered (L, A, D, and E).

    Minimal one‑screen representation:

    Candidates (kinds, facets, or tokens)Selected facet or kindWhy (tests and cues)Consequence (slots plus L, A, D, and E hooks)
    C1 …; C2 …; C3 …………

    Notes.

    • For metonymy, list both the literal candidate and the intended endpoint candidate (and make the shift explicit).
    • Keep the candidate set small: include only live contenders, and state the elimination test for the others.
    • This note is informative: it does not replace classified L, A, D, and E claims. It exists to prevent "lexicon instead of ontology".

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