FPF Reference

A.6.C:4.4 — MVPK faces are not second contracts

Preface node heading:a-6-c-4-4-mvpk-faces-are-not-second-contracts:7757

Content

A contract bundle has one canonical claim set. Publication faces are views of that set under viewpoints:

  • Faces may select, summarize, and render claims for audiences.
  • Faces must not introduce new semantic commitments beyond the underlying claim set.
  • Any face-level decision-relevant / normative-looking statement SHOULD cite the underlying claim ID(s). If it cannot be traced to claim IDs, it MUST be explicitly presented as informative commentary.

Keyword rule (faces). If a face contains BCP‑14 norm keywords (RFC 2119 + RFC 8174), including common synonyms (SHALL, REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, OPTIONAL), then each such sentence MUST be a projection of an existing D‑* claim (U.Commitment) and MUST cite the underlying D claim ID(s). If a sentence cannot be traced to D‑* claim IDs, it MUST be rewritten to remove BCP‑14 keywords (e.g., turn it into explanatory prose that cites the relevant claim IDs) or moved out of the face. To avoid keyword‑evasion, equivalent deontic phrasings (e.g., “is required to…”, “is prohibited from…”) SHOULD follow the same trace-by-ID discipline even when no BCP‑14 keyword is present.

Projection may be paraphrased for audience fit, but it MUST NOT change the deontic/semantic content; if exactness is critical or disputed, use verbatim.

This prevents faces from becoming “second contracts” by paraphrase drift.