fpf-problem-solving

name

fpf-problem-solving

description

Use First Principles Framework (FPF) to solve problems, architect systems, evaluate alternatives, decompose complexity, classify problems, define quality, recover methods from work evidence, steer or recovery-test work, discover consequence-bearing systems, compare configuration changes, clarify learning/development claims, probe capability loss, decide under uncertainty, establish causality, reason about time, synthesize architecture, check model fit, recover project/process/case/role subjects, govern ontic/U-kind admission, request specialist results, synthesize ontologies, publish views, revalidate sources, select representations, compare result routes. Also triggers on: FPF, bounded contexts, SoTA packs, assurance calculus, decision theory, causal/temporal reasoning, architecture, modularity, transformation-flow networks, narrative rendering, structural adequacy, cultural evolution, quality gates, lexical discipline, 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
• Transform or transfer an insight without losing its subject, precision, or stated limitations
• 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
• Assemble or check a public framework publication form while preserving product-specific bodies and references
• Develop a holder system's capability for a named Work family and verify transfer in representative Work
• Synthesize source ontologies for one bounded authoring decision without flattening their local meanings
• 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
• Detect an ontic candidate, decide its first-use disposition, and govern whether a new concept or U-kind should be introduced instead of just renamed
• Identify the exact system that acts or is intended to change, then trace a lost path from outside use to architecture, production, and recursive builders
• Discover other systems that may bear relevant consequences before a decision closes
• Recover a reusable method cautiously from several performances, logs, or observations without treating the evidence as the method itself
• Choose the next action during ongoing work when current facts, authority, and stop conditions matter
• Recover the actual performer/support configuration for Work and test what survives interruption, handoff, delay, or reconfiguration
• Compare what a finite addition, replacement, or intervention contributes relative to the current configuration
• Clarify what a claim about human, machine, organizational, or cultural “learning” actually says changed
• Clarify what “development” or “evolution” means by naming the changed subject, continuity rule, posture, and value basis
• Probe whether apparent capability loss is really an envelope, support, access, adaptation, enactment, or capability-change issue before choosing redevelopment
• Revalidate affected decisions when a relied-on source changes and the full set of receivers is unknown
• Request or reuse a bounded specialist result while preserving supplier authority and the receiving decision
• Select and combine diagrams, models, records, or other representations for one exact use
• Turn build, buy, reuse, outsource, or AI labels into comparable complete ways to obtain one result
• 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
Identify, trace, and discover the acting or changed system, find omitted Systems that may bear consequences, then locate the first unsupported dependency from outside use through recursive builders	05 Part A → A.1.SCR System Recognition, A.1.CSD Consequence-Bearer Discovery, A.1.STM System-Thinking Long Mantra; 03 FPF Readme → Recover a Lost Path
Assign system roles and responsibilities, recover what “role” means, check permission, or distinguish production work from the identity and completion of its product	05 Part A → A.2 System Role Kinds and Assignments, A.2.8.PER Permission; 11 Part E → E.10.ROLE Role Meaning Recovery; 07 A.V → A.15 Role-Method-Work Alignment, A.15.PROD Production Work
Recover a reusable method from several performances or direct evidence without overclaiming Method identity	05 Part A → A.3.1.MR Candidate-Method Recovery from Work Evidence
Recover what project, process, or case language directly refers to before modeling it	07 A.V → A.15.6 Project, Process, and Case Recovery
Steer and recovery-test Work by choosing the next action from current facts or recovering the actual performer/support configuration and probing interruption, handoff, delay, or reconfiguration	07 A.V → A.15.7 Situation-Responsive Work Steering, A.15.8 Work-Performance Configuration and Recovery Testing
Request or reuse specialist results for one receiving decision while preserving the other practice’s authority	07 A.V → A.15.9 Bounded Result from Another Practice
Select and combine representations for one exact action or decision without treating them as interchangeable	09 Part C → C.37 Use-Bounded Representation Selection and Co-Use
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

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	0	Identify: title, authorship, version date, top-level identity.
02	Table of Contents	0	Navigate: locate a pattern, keyword, query cue, dependency, or neighboring section.
03	FPF Readme	9	Enter, onboard, and recover: choose a practical entry, understand what each part contributes, connect transformation flows, or recover a lost path from outside use to recursive builders.
04	Preface	21	Orient: read philosophy, adoption storylines, uncertainty posture, and purpose/non-goals.
05	Part A — Kernel	26	Decompose, identify, discover, trace, assign, recover, and authorize: holons, bounded contexts, acting/changed-system recognition, consequence-bearing System discovery, outside-use dependency tracing, roles, permissions, candidate-Method recovery from Work evidence, transformers, method/work separation.
06	A.IV.A — Signatures	27	Set boundaries, derive relations, transform epistemes, and render: distinguish relations from occurrences; recover exact method/work and under-specified service/access relations; derive needed relation claims; keep source, receiving episteme, arrow, use claim, work, and publication distinct; classify statements or render structure faithfully.