FPF Reference

A.2.9:4.4 — Separation rules with U.Commitment and U.PromiseContent (normative)

Preface node heading:a-2-9-4-4-separation-rules-with-u-commitment-and-u-promisecontent-normative:5189

Content

  1. Speech act is not the deontic binding. A speech act may institute a U.Commitment, but the deontic relation itself is the U.Commitment object (A.2.8). Do not encode obligations/permissions inside U.SpeechAct as prose; instead, create/point to U.Commitment IDs in institutes.commitments.

  2. Speech act is not the service promise clause. U.PromiseContent / promise contents are promise content; a speech act may be the act of offering/issuing that promise, but the promise content lives in the service/promise content objects and is referenced from the resulting commitments.

  3. Speech act is not the carrier. A “signed approval PDF”, “ticket record”, “Slack message”, or “API call log” is a carrier (and may carry an episteme as utterance content); the speech act is the Work occurrence that produced/issued it.

  4. Publishing a spec is not a commitment by default. Default interpretation rule (normative). A conformant model/interpreter MUST NOT infer U.Commitment objects solely from Publish/Approve speech acts. Publication MAY institute publication/status claims (e.g., “Published”, “Approved”, “Deprecated”), but any obligations/permissions on implementers/operators/providers MUST be modeled explicitly as U.Commitment objects (A.2.8). If a Context defines a policy that maps publication acts to commitment-instituting effects (e.g., a named SpecPublicationPolicy@Context), that policy MUST be named and cited where the implication is used.