FPF Reference

A.6.P:4.0 — Trigger rule (when A.6.P applies)

Preface node heading:a-6-p-4-0-trigger-rule-when-a-6-p-applies:10605

Content

A relation mention or relation-bearing phrase is in-scope for A.6.P when any of the following holds:

  • the predicate/verb phrase is lexically overloaded (umbrella tokens such as “same/sync/link/connect/anchor/ground/align/map/depends”), or
  • one or more endpoints/qualifiers are expressed via pronominal / deictic / metonymic stand-ins or over-broad kind tokens (e.g., “it/this/that”, “the service”, “the system”, “at the table”), such that multiple referents/facets remain plausible, or
  • a generic or over-broad head noun carries its load only through a qualifier, modifier, or surrounding phrase (e.g., “comparative note”, “safe guidance”, “interactive view”, “reliable output”), so the object kind is still ambiguous even though the qualifier sounds informative, or
  • the statement implicitly relies on scope / Γ_time / viewpoint/view / schemes (reference, representation), or
  • the relation is used for assurance / admissibility / gating / publication decisions, or
  • the relation crosses Contexts or planes (requires Bridges + CL; no silent equivalence), or
  • different stakeholders interpret endpoints differently (multi-view asymmetry and polarity fights).

Repair order note. When a load-bearing phrase is triggered because its head noun is too generic, first restore what kind of thing the head actually names (artifact, reading, process, lane, authority use, or another host-local kind) using local object-of-talk discipline (E.10, A.7, and nearby host law). A narrowing qualifier such as comparative, safe, interactive, or reliable may narrow the phrase, but it does not by itself restore the head kind. Then apply A.6.P to restore the remaining relation or comparison burden. Mixed-axis checks come after those two repairs, not before them.

Adoption test (review heuristic). If a reviewer can reasonably ask any of: “Which kind is this?”, “What exactly does this span refer to (which facet/kind, and in which lane: Object vs Description vs Carrier)?”, “What relation or comparison burden is hidden in this qualifier?”, “What else participates?”, “Under what scope/time/view?”, “What changed?”, or “What makes this admissible?”, then authors SHOULD treat the mention as in-scope and rewrite it into explicit kind+slots form before using it for cross-Context reuse or decision/publication claims.

Precision/relaxation note. A.6.P is not a blanket demand that every sentence stay maximally explicit forever. It is a trigger-based repair path for load-bearing prose. In design-time FPF texts and in run-time texts being prepared for admissible publication, review, gating, or reuse, the repair should be performed before any later didactic plain-language softening or lawful coarsening. Later relaxation is allowed only when the more precise upstream reading remains recoverable and authoritative.

Generic trigger-word governance rule (normative). Overloaded words are diagnostic entry points, not default future owners. Generic A.6.P therefore requires this order: restore head kind first, restore the remaining relation/comparison burden second, and only then judge whether one reusable burden family is strong enough to justify a new specialization. A new A.6.P specialization or broader trigger-word owner is owed only when one stable recurring burden, one reusable lens or rewrite kit, and one F.18 -> A.6.P-surviving head already exist by value across more than one worked case. Otherwise token-specific retained knowledge stays with an existing lawful specialization or in one cluster-local / owner-local note rather than expanding generic A.6.P into a token bucket store.