FPF Reference

A.6.P:5.1 — System archetype: “same system across environments”

Preface node heading:a-6-p-5-1-system-archetype-same-system-across-environments:10917

Content

Tell. An operations note says: “Staging is the same service as Production.” Months later, incident metrics are aggregated “because it’s the same thing”, and evidence across environments is mixed, producing an incorrect causal story.

Show. Treat “same” as a red-flag umbrella token. Rewrite into an explicit cross-Context relation kind, typed to the facet the draft actually uses (service delivery system sameness for actuals/evidence aggregation; not about promise contents).

Show (candidate‑set note; endpoint facet restoration).

CandidateSetNote(triggerSpan="service" in "same service", role=endpointFacet(p₁)):
- candidates: {promiseContent, serviceAccessPoint, serviceProviderPrincipal, serviceDeliverySystem}
- selected:   serviceDeliverySystem
- why:        the claim is later used to justify mixing operational actuals/evidence (metrics + incident logs);
  local cues point to delivery artefacts (manifests/config/test runs), not clause carriers
- consequence: endpoints typecheck as `DeliverySystemRef` participants; clause/provider facets are explicitly out-of-scope

sameDeliverySystemUnder(
  leftDeliverySystemRef  = SystemRef(staging_delivery_system),
  rightDeliverySystemRef = SystemRef(prod_delivery_system),
  scope     = ClaimScope{SLO_family = X, signals = {latency, error_rate}},
  Γ_time    = interval[2025-12-01, 2026-01-31],
  viewpoint = OpsViewpoint,
  witnesses = {deploymentManifestPins, configPins, testRunPins}
)

aggregationAdmissibleIff(
  relationRef  = RelationRef(sameDeliverySystemUnder, SystemRef(staging_delivery_system), SystemRef(prod_delivery_system), ed=…),
  target       = deliveryWorkMetrics,                   // actuals
  Γ_time       = interval[2025-12-01, 2026-01-31],
  witnesses    = {metricCarrierPins, incidentLogPins}   // evidence carriers for the actuals
)

Show. Now the relation is auditable: aggregation is admissible only if the relation kind’s admissibility claims say it preserves the needed characteristics under the declared scope/time, and if witnesses exist. Cross-Context reuse is explicit and cannot piggyback on label identity.