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, or plan rigorously. Also triggers on: FPF, bounded contexts, SoTA packs, assurance calculus, FPF Parts A-K. Not for simple task planning, general philosophy, or Agile unrelated to FPF.
license	MIT

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

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	04 Kernel → A.1 Holons, A.1.1 Bounded Contexts, A.14 Mereology
Assign roles and responsibilities	04 Kernel → A.2 Roles, A.15 Role-Method-Work Alignment
Set boundaries on what statements mean	05 Signature Stack → classify as definitions, gates, duties, or evidence
Prevent category errors (role vs. function, method vs. work)	06 Constitutional Principles → A.7 Strict Distinction
Evaluate confidence in a claim or artifact	07 Part B → B.3 Trust & Assurance; 08 Part C → C.2 F-G-R scoring
Compose parts into wholes preserving properties	07 Part B → B.1 Gamma algebra; 08 Part C → C.13 Compose-CAL
Reason through a problem systematically	07 Part B → B.5 Reasoning Cycle, B.5.2 Abductive Loop
Generate alternatives / explore solution space	08 Part C → C.18 NQD Open-Ended Search, C.19 Explore-Exploit
Measure and compare options rigorously	06 A.V → A.17-A.19 Characteristics & CSLC; 08 Part C → C.16 MM-CHR
Score knowledge quality (formality, scope, reliability)	08 Part C → C.2 KD-CAL, C.2.2 Reliability, C.2.3 Formality
Resolve conflicts across stakeholders or values	09 Part D → Ethics & Conflict
Unify vocabulary across teams or domains	13 F.I Context of Meaning → 14-15 UTS tables → 20 Lexical Debt
Document for multiple audiences	11 E-I Constitution → E.17 Multi-View Publication Kit
Sharpen expression — repair vague wording, surface ambiguity	11 E-I → E.17.SD Surface Discipline, E.17.EFP Explanation Faithfulness; 05 A.IV.A → A.6.H Wholeness Unpacking
Survey a discipline and build a reusable toolkit	16 Part G → SoTA Packs, TraditionCards, OperatorCards
Trace provenance of a claim	06 A.V → A.10 Evidence Graph; 16 Part G → G.6 Provenance Ledger

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	Authorship, version date, top-level identity.
02	Table of Content	0	Navigate the spec, locate a pattern, trace inter-section dependencies.
03	Preface	17	Onboard: reading paths by role, FPF philosophy, purpose and non-goals.
04	Part A — Kernel	19	Decompose and assign: holons, bounded contexts, roles, transformers, method/work separation.
05	A.IV.A — Signatures	20	Set boundaries: classify statements as definitions, gates, duties, or evidence.
06	A.V — Principles	29	Prevent confusion: category errors, measuring, comparing, evidence graphs.
07	Part B — Reasoning	24	Compose and evaluate: aggregation (Gamma), trust scores, emergence, reasoning cycles.
08	Part C — Extensions	30	: epistemic quality (F-G-R), kinds, measurement, open-ended search.