fpf-problem-solving

---
name: fpf-problem-solving
description: "First Principles Framework (FPF) — thinking amplifier. Use when user wants to think through a complex problem, architect a system, evaluate alternatives, decompose complexity, classify problems, define quality attributes, plan rigorously, apply an FPF pattern to a first useful result, decide under uncertainty, establish causality, reason about time and trends, describe or synthesize architecture, check mathematical model fit, distinguish relation kinds or occurrences, govern ontic/U-kind admission, publish multi-view artifacts, refresh SoTA packs, trace provenance, or improve pattern quality. Also triggers on: FPF, bounded contexts, SoTA packs, assurance calculus, decision theory, causal reasoning, temporal reasoning, architecture description, modularity, constraint-governed unfolding, narrative rendering, structural adequacy, cultural evolution, quality gates, lexical discipline, FPF Parts A-I. Not for simple task planning, general philosophy, or Agile unrelated to FPF."
---

# First Principles Framework (FPF)

An "Operating System for Thought" — a transdisciplinary architecture for reasoning,
written in human- and machine-readable pseudo-code. FPF turns raw intelligence (human or machine)
into organisationally usable reasoning: explicit bounded contexts, auditable artefacts, multi-view
descriptions, and disciplined hand-offs between specialised actors.

## Use cases

Use FPF whenever you need to think more rigorously than the situation's default.

- Decompose a messy, cross-domain problem into parts that can be reasoned about independently
- Make a high-stakes decision with incomplete evidence — and know what evidence is still missing
- Get a mixed team to reason together without vocabulary collisions or hidden assumptions
- Audit whether a conclusion is well-founded or just plausible
- Transfer an insight across domains without losing precision or introducing category errors
- Structure a proposal that must survive scrutiny from multiple expert perspectives
- Generate alternatives systematically instead of anchoring on the first idea
- Define what "better" means before comparing options
- Classify what kind of problem you're facing before searching for solutions
- Plan how an AI agent should select and sequence its tools under budget and trust constraints
- Make a decision under uncertainty — identify options, weigh evidence, and commit with an auditable rationale
- Establish whether X causes Y — or just correlates — and determine what intervention would work
- Publish a stable multi-view artifact without changing the source semantics
- Refresh a SoTA pack, benchmark, or evidence trail when evidence decays or telemetry changes
- Synthesize architecture candidates, compare structural options, or repair modularity/reuse claims
- Govern when a new ontic concept or U-kind should be introduced instead of just renamed
- Apply one selected FPF pattern to a current question and stop at the first useful result

## How to navigate

The use cases above help decide WHETHER to invoke FPF. The router below decides WHERE to go once invoked.

### Step 1 — Match the thinking need to a starting point

| What you need to do | Start here |
|---|---|
| **Decompose** a complex whole into bounded parts | 05 Part A → A.1 Holons, A.1.1 Bounded Contexts, A.14 Mereology |
| **Assign** roles and responsibilities or **check permission** without confusing grants, exercise, and non-prohibition | 05 Part A → A.2 Roles, A.2.8.PER Permission, A.15 Role-Method-Work Alignment |
| **Set boundaries** on what statements mean, **distinguish relations** from their individuated occurrences, or derive a missing relation claim | 06 Signature Stack → A.6.B boundary norms, A.6.REL relation obtaining and occurrences, A.6.RCD relation-claim derivation, declarations, gates, duties, and evidence |
| **Prevent category errors** or reconcile ontology premises before extending the framework | 07 Constitutional Principles → A.7 Strict Distinction, A.7.1 Consequence-Guided Ontological Problem Solving, A.7.2 Premise Reconciliation, A.7.CP Constructive Premise Compact |
| **Evaluate confidence** in a claim or artifact — including formality, scope, and reliability of the underlying knowledge | 08 Part B → B.3 Trust & Assurance; 09 Part C → C.2 KD-CAL / F-G-R scoring, C.2.2 Reliability, C.2.3 Formality |
| **Compose** parts into wholes preserving properties | 08 Part B → B.1 Gamma algebra; 09 Part C → C.13 Compose-CAL, C.20 Discipline-CAL |
| **Reason through** a problem systematically | 08 Part B → B.5 Reasoning Cycle, B.5.2 Abductive Loop |
| **Apply** one selected FPF pattern to a working situation and obtain the first useful result | 11 Part E → E.11.PUA Pattern Use in a Working Situation and First Useful Result |
| **Generate alternatives** / explore solution space and keep apparatus use bounded | 09 Part C → C.17 Creativity-CHR, C.18 Open-Ended Search, C.19 Explore-Exploit, C.19.2 Use-Bounded Apparatus Application |
| **Measure and compare** options rigorously | 07 A.V → A.17-A.19 Characteristics, CSLC & SelectorMechanism; 09 Part C → C.16 MM-CHR; 13 Part G → G.9 Parity / Benchmark Harness |
| **Resolve conflicts** across stakeholders or values | 10 Part D → Ethics, bias audit, conflict optimization |
| **Unify vocabulary** across teams or domains | 12 Part F → concept sets, bridges, UTS, lexical continuity |
| **Document** for multiple audiences, render structure into narrative, or stabilize a publication unit | 06 A.IV.A → A.6.3.NAR Structure-to-Narrative Rendering; 11 Part E → E.17 Multi-View Publication Kit, E.17.EFP Explanation Faithfulness, E.17.AUD PublicationUnit Stability |
| **Sharpen expression** — repair vague wording, surface ambiguity, restore precision of epistemic / measurement / architecture terms | 11 Part E → E.10.ARCH Wording-Use Ontological Precision Restoration, E.17.EFP Explanation Faithfulness; 09 Part C → C.2.P, C.16.P, C.30.P; 06 A.IV.A → A.6.H Wholeness Unpacking |
| **Decide** under uncertainty — structure options, weigh evidence, commit with auditable rationale | 09 Part C → C.11 Decsn-CAL |
| **Reason about time and change** — distinguish state readings, trends, currentness, and intervention-sensitive change | 09 Part C → C.27 Temporal Claim Adequacy, C.27.TA Temporal Aspect |
| **Establish causality** — climb the causality ladder, identify causal structure, check realizability | 09 Part C → C.28 CausalUse-CAL |
| **Check mathematical or modeling fit** — assess whether a formal lens / math model is adequate for the problem | 09 Part C → C.29 Mathematical Lens Use |
| **Describe architecture or structural views** — characterize structure, unfold constraint-governed structure, produce adequate architectural descriptions and view types, triage cross-scope architectural residuals | 07 A.V → A.22 STRUCT-CAL, A.22.CGUS; 09 Part C → C.30, C.30.AD, C.30.ASV, C.30.LCA, C.30.ILC, C.30.TFS-REL |
| **Synthesize architecture** candidates or decisions — move from problem to structure, assess modularity/reuse, and publish ADR-style projections | 09 Part C → C.31 Modularity, C.32 Architecture Candidate Synthesis, C.32.P2S, C.32.PAD, C.32.ADR, C.32.ADA |
| **Assess structural information** — check architecture capture, source return, equivalence, morphisms, or discovery adequacy | 09 Part C → C.33, C.34, C.35 |
| **Model context-dependent or indeterminate states** — represent superposed, probe-coupled, or viability-bounded behaviour | 09 Part C → C.26 Quantum-Like Modeling Lens, C.26.1 Probe-Coupled Boundary, C.26.2 Enacted Distributed State, C.26.3 Viability-Envelope |
| **Survey a discipline** and build, ship, or refresh a reusable toolkit | 13 Part G → G.1-G.13 SoTA kit, CG-Frame, dispatcher, benchmarks, shipping, telemetry refresh, dashboards, external interop; 09 Part C → C.21 Discipline-CHR |
| **Classify** a problem type or state exactly what is problematic for whom before solving | 09 Part C → C.22 Problem-CHR, C.22.PFR Problematic-For Relation, C.3 Kind-CAL (typed reasoning) |
| **Define quality** attributes ("-ilities") as structured bundles | 09 Part C → C.25 Q-Bundle; 07 A.V → A.17-A.19 Characteristics |
| **Govern ontology** — decide whether a new ontic concept or U-kind is warranted | 11 Part E → E.24 Ontic Introduction Discipline, E.24.UK U-kind Admission and Ontic Settlement |
| **Reason about cultural evolution** — describe cultural-evolution engineering or repair cultural-evolution wording | 09 Part C → C.36 Cultural Evolution, C.36.P Precision Restoration |
| **Orchestrate** agentic tool use under budgets and trust gates | 09 Part C → C.24 Agent-Tools-CAL |
| **Trace provenance** of a claim or detect refresh debt | 07 A.V → A.10 Evidence Graph; 13 Part G → G.6 Provenance Ledger, G.11 Telemetry-Driven Refresh & Decay |

For complex problems, follow paths across multiple sections — the router shows where to start, not where to stop.

### Step 2 — Read the _index.md, then the sub-section

1. Open the `_index.md` of the target section folder — it lists all sub-sections with line counts and descriptions.
2. Read only the specific sub-section file you need.
3. Do NOT load entire sections. Pick the narrowest file that serves the user's question.

### Step 3 — Apply in plain language

Use plain language for the user. Introduce FPF-internal names (U.Holon, Gamma, F-G-R)
only when they add precision the user needs.

### Step 4 — Compose findings across sections

When a problem draws from multiple sections:

1. State each pattern's contribution in one line (e.g., "Bounded Contexts gives us the parts; Trust Calculus scores our confidence in each").
2. If patterns from different sections appear to conflict, check for category errors via A.7 Strict Distinction — the conflict is usually a level confusion (role vs. function, method vs. work), not a real contradiction.
3. Synthesize in natural order: decomposition first (what are the parts?), then evaluation (how confident are we?), then resolution (what do we do about gaps?).
4. Do not just list FPF patterns — weave them into a coherent answer to the user's actual question.

## Starter prompt (example — adapt to the user's actual role and need)

> You have the FPF specification loaded.
> Help me structure my project / problem / programme.
> Use plain language for an engineer-manager.
> Propose: (1) bounded contexts / specialisations, (2) decision criteria, (3) key alternatives,
> (4) hand-offs, and (5) missing evidence or tests before commitment.
> Introduce internal FPF names only when they add precision.

## Section INDEX

Structural reference. Each entry is a folder — read its `_index.md` first, then pick the sub-section.

| # | Section | Sub | When to use |
|---|---------|:---:|-------------|
| 01 | [Title page](sections/01-first-principles-framework---core-conceptual-specification/_index.md) | 0 | **Identify**: title, authorship, version date, top-level identity. |
| 02 | [Table of Content](sections/02-table-of-content/_index.md) | 0 | **Navigate**: locate a pattern, keyword, query cue, dependency, or neighboring section. |
| 03 | [FPF Readme](sections/03-first-principles-framework-readme/_index.md) | 7 | **Onboard**: understand what each part contributes before selecting a narrow pattern. |
| 04 | [Preface](sections/04-preface/_index.md) | 21 | **Orient**: read philosophy, adoption storylines, uncertainty posture, and purpose/non-goals. |
| 05 | [Part A — Kernel](sections/05-part-a---kernel-architecture-cluster/_index.md) | 22 | **Decompose, assign, and authorize**: holons, bounded contexts, roles, permission distinctions, transformers, method/work separation. |
| 06 | [A.IV.A — Signatures](sections/06-cluster-a-iv-a---signature-stack-boundary-discipline/_index.md) | 27 | **Set boundaries, derive relations, and render**: distinguish relations from occurrences; derive needed relation claims; classify statements as definitions, gates, duties, evidence, signatures, semantic repairs, or faithful structure-to-narrative transformations. |
| 07 | [A.V — Principles](sections/07-cluster-a-v---constitutional-principles-of-the-kernel/_index.md) | 40 | **Prevent confusion and reconcile premises**: category errors, ontology premises, measuring, comparing, evidence graphs, mechanism suites, flow constraints, gate profiles, constraint-governed unfolding. |
| 08 | [Part B — Reasoning](sections/08-part-b-trans-disciplinary-reasoning-cluster/_index.md) | 25 | **Compose and evaluate**: structural views (STRUCT-CAL), aggregation (Gamma), trust scores, emergence, reasoning cycles. |
| 09 | [Part C — Extensions](sections/09-part-c-kernel-extension-specifications/_index.md) | 75 | **Score, search, and architect**: epistemic quality, typed reasoning, problem-for relations, measurement, decisions, bounded apparatus use, agentic tool-use, quality bundles, temporal/causal/math lenses, architecture synthesis, structural adequacy, cultural evolution. |
| 10 | [Part D — Ethics](sections/10-part-d---multi-scale-ethics-and-conflict-optimization/_index.md) | 5 | **Resolve conflicts**: ethical trade-offs, bias auditing, safety overrides, conflict optimization. |
| 11 | [Part E — Constitution and Authoring](sections/11-part-e-the-fpf-constitution-and-authoring-guides/_index.md) | 57 | **Apply, govern, and publish**: practical-use guidance, first-useful-result pattern application, framework forms and carriers, lexical discipline, multi-view publication, transformation flows, pattern quality, ontic/U-kind governance. |
| 12 | [Part F — Unification](sections/12-part-f-the-unification-suite-concept-sets-sensecells-contextual-role-a/_index.md) | 21 | **Align vocabulary**: concept sets, sense cells, bridges, role descriptions, UTS, lexical continuity. |
| 13 | [Part G — SoTA Kit](sections/13-part-g-discipline-sota-patterns-kit/_index.md) | 15 | **Harvest and refresh disciplines**: SoTA Packs, CG-Frames, dispatchers, provenance ledgers, benchmark harnesses, shipping, telemetry refresh, dashboards, external interop. |
| 14 | [Part H — Reserved](sections/14-part-h---reserved/_index.md) | 0 | **Reserve**: preserve the upstream Part H position for future specification content. |
| 15 | [Part I — Annexes](sections/15-part-i-annexes-extended-tutorials/_index.md) | 1 | **Walk through**: expanded entry disambiguation cases for high-risk or repeatedly misclassified first-pattern choices. |