#U.ActionInvitationPrecisionRestoration — Affordance / Action-Invitation Precision Restoration (ACT-INV)

A.6.A · Stable · Architectural (A) · Normative (Core) · Part A - Kernel Architecture Cluster

#About this pattern

This is a generated FPF pattern page projected from the published FPF source. It is canonical FPF content for this ID; it is not a FPF Reference product feature page.

#How to use this pattern

Read the ID, status, type, and normativity first. Use the content for exact wording, the relations for adjacent concepts, and citations to keep active work grounded without pasting the whole specification.

Type: Architectural (A) Status: Stable Normativity: Normative (Core)

Plain-name. Affordance and action-invitation precision restoration.

Intent. Provide a reusable discipline for repairing overloaded affordance-like and action-first language in FPF texts.

This pattern is an A.6.P RPR specialisation for post-threshold action-oriented content: it turns bare action-oriented prose into one explicit, slot-explicit action invitation relation family with a declared sense family, admissible normal forms (CuePack | ActionOption | OptionSet | PolicyHook), explicit change semantics, and lexical guardrails. Pre-threshold action-guiding cue content remains with A.16.1 or B.4.1 until the cue is articulated enough for actionInvitation(...) publication. It does not mint a parallel execution ontology: whenever an invitation is articulated far enough to reference executable method descriptions, work plans, or work occurrences, use the governing A.15 pattern family (U.Method, U.MethodDescription, U.WorkPlan, or actual U.Work once execution has occurred) rather than inventing new action kinds by prose.

It allows ecological-psychology, phenomenological, active-inference, control-theoretic, interface, engineering-operations, and robotics uses to coexist without false identity by label.

Placement. Part A > cluster A.6 Signature Stack & Boundary Discipline > specialisation of A.6.P for under-specified affordance-like and action-first language.

Builds on. A.3, A.6, A.6.B, A.6.P, A.6.RSIR, A.6.S, A.6.0, A.6.5, A.2.6, A.7, A.15, E.8, E.10, F.9, F.18.

Coordinates with. C.16.Q for evaluative-language repair; C.2.2a, A.16, A.16.1, A.16.2, and B.4.1 for language-state chart positions, articulation and closure coordination, admissible moves, early cue classification, responsibility transfer, and admissible retreat when a published invitation must be reopened; use A.16.0 only when lineage, branch, loss, or responsibility-transfer history itself must be published as an explicit trajectory account; B.5.2.0 when the admissible continuation is still an open probe question rather than an invitation; C.2.LS, C.2.4, C.2.5, C.2.6, and C.2.7 for articulation, closure, anchoring, and representation-factor facets referenced but not governed here; A.10 and B.3 for evidence and assurance; B.4 and B.5 for anomaly-driven cycles; E.17 and E.18 for viewpoint publication; F.9.1 for bridge-stance annotations; C.3.3 for kind-bridge repair when endpoint kind mismatches appear.

E.10.ARCH relation. A.6.A is the precision-restoration realization pattern for action-invitation wording only. E.10 or E.10.ARCH sends wording here when action-first language still hides a site, invited enactor, candidate action, coupling frame, detector or viewpoint, normal form, admissible use, or governing-pattern boundary after quality, capability, deontic, work, evidence, assurance, gate, decision, publication, state-family, architecture, function-like, and relation-only cases have been excluded or assigned to their patterns governing the recovered claims. If the repaired phrase is primarily evaluative, use C.16.Q; if it is primarily capability, method, work, duty, evidence, assurance, gate, or decision, use the governing pattern and keep A.6.A only as an optional preceding invitation record when the invitation semantics remain live.

Non-goal. This pattern does not assert that physical affordances, interface affordances, social affordances, epistemic probe moves, articulation-closure moves, latent policy cues, and control opportunities are one concept.

Its job is to publish a disciplined bridge interpretation across those traditions while preventing false identity by shared language.

It also does not assert that every trigger use of action-first language is admissibly repaired by actionInvitation(...):

• where the repaired statement is primarily evaluative, use C.16.Q;
• where it is primarily about general capability, capability wording, method wording, or method-description wording, use A.6.F, U.Capability, U.Method, or MethodDescription according to the claim being made;
• where it is primarily deontic, apply A.6.B;
• where it is primarily about scheduled or executed enactment, use the governing A.15 pattern family (U.Method, U.MethodDescription, U.WorkPlan, or actual U.Work once execution has occurred) rather than letting actionInvitation(...) become a shadow execution model.

FPF repeatedly encounters a predictable precision failure mode around affordance-like and action-first language.

#Keywords

• affordance
• action invitation
• action-first language
• post-threshold classification
• A.15 docking
• language-state seam.

#Relations

#Content

#Problem frame

FPF repeatedly encounters a predictable precision failure mode around affordance-like and action-first language.

Authors say:

• “this handle affords pulling”
• “the interface invites confirmation”
• “the alarm calls for rollback”
• “this discrepancy suggests probing deeper”
• “the draft is ready for formalization”
• “the model wants to brake”
• “the situation is actionable”

…but the intended meaning is actually one of several different action-oriented families, for example:

1. Physical affordance — a physical or environmental configuration offers a bodily action to an embodied agent.
2. Interface affordance — an operator-interface element, operator panel, alarm, or publication face presents an operator move.
3. Social affordance — another agent or interactional setting invites a response or coordination move.
4. Epistemic probe move — a problem situation invites asking, comparing, measuring, testing, or instrumenting.
5. Closure-advance move — a situation invites naming, rescoping, proxy declaration, or formalization.
6. Latent policy cue — a learned or distributed state carries an action-oriented tendency not yet locally articulated.
7. Control opportunity — a closed-loop state invites braking, rollback, replan, isolate, escalate, or override.

The recurrent failure modes are:

• Site confusion. The invitation-bearing site is unclear: physical entity, scene, interface entity, description episteme, carrier, policy state, or problem episode.
• Enactor confusion. It is unclear which U.System, collective system, or role assignment whose holder is a U.System is invited to act: human operator, robot controller, research team, review service, or named automation system.
• Action confusion. The candidate action is hidden behind vague language like actionable, calls for, ready for, natural next step.
• Invitation vs obligation collapse. A situation that merely invites an action is rewritten as if it already created a duty.
• Invitation vs capability collapse. A local, situated action opportunity is rewritten as if it were a general capability claim.
• Invitation vs work collapse. Offered action is narrated as if it had already been executed.
• Substrate confusion. Ecological, embodied, latent-distributed, and symbolic-local action cues are silently collapsed.
• Bridge illusion. Similar language across traditions is mistaken for sameness.
• Premature closure. An early cue is published as if it were already a committed method, gate, or policy.

#Problem

How can FPF let authors use the communicative convenience of affordance-like and action-first language while preventing category errors when the language crosses:

• ecological and phenomenological discourse,
• interface and operator-facing discourse,
• active-inference and world-model discourse,
• control, monitoring, and incident-response discourse,
• robotics and embodied-AI discourse,
• epistemic exploration and problem-framing discourse?

#Forces

• Action speed vs auditability. Action-first language is attractive because it is fast; that same speed makes it unsafe at boundaries.
• Situated coupling vs explicit publication. Affordances arise in agent–environment or policy–world coupling, but boundary use requires explicit local publication.
• Preconceptual cue vs later articulation. Some invitations are real before they are stably worded.
• Enactor specificity vs shared discourse. A cue may be visible to one detector yet relevant to another would-be enactor.
• Opportunity vs obligation. Not every invitation is a gate or commitment.
• Option plurality vs premature scalarisation. Several candidate actions may co-exist without an admissible total ordering.
• Cross-tradition dialogue vs false unification. The framework should preserve parallels without asserting identity.
• Progressive closure. An action cue may later become an option, then a policy hook, and only later a formal gate or work plan.

#Solution - Stable lens -> Sense Family -> Slots -> Normal Form -> Change Lexicon -> Guardrails

#Trigger rule

A use of affordance-like or action-first language is in scope for A.6.A when any of the following holds:

• the prose uses tokens such as affords, invites, calls for, actionable, ready for, ripe for, natural next step, the model wants, the interface tells, this problem asks for;
• a boundary, gate, incident note, design note, or review note uses such language for admission, selection, triage, or action guidance;
• different traditions are compared using the same action-first wording;
• a draft introduces model affordance, interface affordance, actionable insight, policy invitation, or ready for formalization without declared sense;
• the author intends the phrase to carry more than one of: situational action opportunity, latent cue, operator move, probe move, closure move, or control move.

#Operational repair sequence

When the trigger fires, authors SHOULD follow the A.6.P repair sequence:

1. Capture the trigger span. Copy the trigger phrase.

2. Reconstruct the candidate set. Enumerate plausible candidate interpretations, including:

   • candidate relation families (actionInvitation vs evaluativeAscription vs capability claim vs commitment vs work occurrence),
   • candidate site classification over the EntityOfConcern and Description-episteme boundary, with publication or carrier participation stated separately when live,
   • candidate would-be enactor classifications,
   • candidate action tuples.

   If the occurrence is decision-bearing or publication-bearing, record a short Candidate-Set Note before selecting a repair.

3. Select one explicit action-invitation sense. Pick one ActionInvitationSense token and state why rivals were rejected in this local context.

4. Emit a slot-explicit rewrite. Rewrite the sentence into one explicit actionInvitation(...) record with site, would-be enactor, candidate action, coupling frame, detector and viewpoint when live, normal form, and qualifiers.

5. Classify boundary-bearing consequences. If the repaired statement is used for admissibility, commitments, publication, automation, or evidence-bearing decisions, classify the downstream claim uses with A.6.B and, where enactment is implied, through A.15, instead of letting the vague action-first phrase carry evidence, admissibility, gate, or decision consequences by itself.

#Post-threshold lens: action-invitation classification specified by actionInvitation(...)

A.6.A stabilises the ambiguity cluster by treating in-scope post-threshold affordance-like or action-first statements as qualified action-oriented content that must publish an explicit action-invitation normal form and declared downstream classification, not as bare adjectives or rhetorical verbs. Early action-guiding cue content may remain in A.16.1 or B.4.1 as cue-pack content, a RoutedCueSet, or another typed cue-preserving upstream publication before A.6.A application. A.6.A is therefore applied only once local AE is high enough to name site, enactor, and action structure explicitly and local CD is high enough that one invitation interpretation is worth publishing as a relation record rather than remaining cue-pack or unresolved cue content. If the admissible publication is still a cue pack, RoutedCueSet, or open abductive prompt, stay in A.16.1, B.4.1, or B.5.2.0. If a published actionInvitation(...) later loses those minimal articulation and closure conditions, retreat via A.16.2 rather than leaving a stale invitation record live.

In A.6.P terms, this pattern fixes one post-threshold relation family and one downstream classification discipline:

• actionInvitation — the explicit post-threshold relation kind for affordance, invitation, control-opportunity, probe-move, and closure-advance rewrites once the cue or content is articulated enough to publish a relation record.

#RelationKind specification skeleton for actionInvitation

The family-specific RelationKind token is actionInvitation. Its relation specification publication SHALL declare, at minimum:

• (L) applicability in the local Context or plane set;
• (L) site-centred polarity: the relation is about a site or situation inviting a candidate action for an enactor; it SHALL NOT be silently rewritten as a monadic property of a site participant alone;
• (L) participant SlotSpecs for site, invited enactor, candidate action, sense, coupling frame, and normal-form positions;
• (A) repair options for site-kind and enactor-kind mismatches: explicit narrowing, KindBridge, retargetSite(...), retargetInvitedEnactor(...), or a stated combination of these repairs when several mismatch conditions are live;
• (L) qualifier expectations for scope, Γ_time, viewpoint, view, representationSubstrate, bridgeRef, and (when relevant) articulationHint;
• (D) detector and invited-enactor separation discipline: the perceiver or detector SHALL NOT be silently collapsed into the invited enactor when they differ;
• (D) obligation barrier: invitation language SHALL NOT be silently rewritten as duty language;
• (A/E) witness discipline for decision use, publication use, and automation use;
• (L/A) admissible semantic change classes and edition-fence expectations;
• (A/E) cross-context and cross-plane policy when reuse is claimed.

Each in-scope occurrence SHALL be representable as a pattern-specific QualifiedRelationRecord:

ActionInvitationRecord := ⟨ relationKind : actionInvitation, siteTuple : …, siteClassification? : tuple-member -> EntityOfConcern ref, Description episteme ref, or non-claim-bearing site kind, publicationOrCarrierParticipation? : publication face, publication form, carrier, rendering, or none, invitedEnactorTuple : …, candidateActionTuple : …, actionInvitationSense : ActionInvitationSense, couplingFrame : …, detector? : …, viewpoint? : U.Viewpoint, view? : U.View, normalForm : CuePack | ActionOption | OptionSet | PolicyHook, articulationHint? : open-cue | sketched | option-explicit | hook-explicit, scope? : U.Scope, Γ_time? : U.GammaTimePolicy, representationSubstrate? : ecological-world-coupled | embodied-kinesthetic | latent-distributed | symbolic-local | hybrid, bridgeRef? : BridgeId, witnesses? : EvidenceRefSet ⟩

So the sentence “X affords Y” is never accepted as a terminal form. Within the scope of A.6.A it must be rewritten into an explicit actionInvitation(...) instance with declared downstream governing pattern or publication; earlier pre-threshold cue content may instead remain as cue-pack content, a RoutedCueSet, or another typed cue-preserving upstream publication before A.6.A application.

Discipline note. ActionInvitationSense is a slot value inside the relation family; it is not a replacement for the relation family itself. The stable intermediate lens is the actionInvitation(...) relation; the sense token refines what kind of invitation is being published.

P2W relation note. candidateActionTuple names the invited move as relation content. It is not an actual U.Work occurrence, not a U.WorkPlan, not a U.MethodDescription, and not a selected method. When the publication needs intended work, planned work, actual work, method selection, work result, or result measurement, use A.15, A.15.1, or A.15.2 instead of stretching actionInvitation(...).

A.7 boundary note. siteClassification uses the EntityOfConcern and Description-episteme boundary: the site member is either an EntityOfConcern-side participant, a Description episteme participant, or a non-claim-bearing site kind named directly. If a publication face, publication form, interop publication form, carrier, or rendering participates, declare it in publicationOrCarrierParticipation under A.7 and publication-face and publication-form discipline rather than widening the site classification with a generic quoted Surface token.

Separation note. detector and invitedEnactor are not synonyms. When both matter, they SHALL be published separately.

Enactor note. When invitedEnactorTuple is published as an actual would-be enactor, it SHALL resolve to a U.System or to a role assignment whose holder is a U.System. An episteme, description, publication face, or carrier may participate in the site, but not as the acting bearer.

Episteme non-agency note. If the site is a Description episteme, any later enactment still occurs through carriers, acted-on systems, or both; the description itself never acts.

#Core construct: ActionInvitationSense

Every in-scope use SHALL resolve to an explicit ActionInvitationSense token.

An ActionInvitationSense token publishes at least:

ActionInvitationSense := ⟨ senseId, siteArity, enactorArity, candidateActionArity, defaultArticulationHint, admissibleArticulationHints, defaultRepresentationSubstrate, admissibleRepresentationSubstrates, defaultNormalForm, admissibleNormalForms, couplingFrameKind, admissibleEvidenceModes, admissibleChangeClasses, bridgePolicy ⟩

Where:

• defaultArticulationHint and admissibleArticulationHints use the current local articulation-token set { open-cue, sketched, option-explicit, hook-explicit }
• defaultRepresentationSubstrate ∈ { ecological-world-coupled, embodied-kinesthetic, latent-distributed, symbolic-local, hybrid }
• admissibleRepresentationSubstrates explicitly declares the admissible publication substrates for the sense;
• defaultNormalForm ∈ { CuePack, ActionOption, OptionSet, PolicyHook }

#A.16 articulation-token relation note

A.6.A carries articulationHint only as a local articulation-cue field.

This field is deliberately not a new formality progression, not a maturity scale, and not a surrogate for F. Its only job is to preserve local articulation and closure cues until they can be related to A.16 move logic and the explicit C.2.4 and C.2.5 governing facets.

Local articulationHint tokens SHALL be related to A.16 move logic and to the explicit C.2.4 and C.2.5 governing facets one-for-one, and A.6.A SHALL treat them as local publication cues only. Until then, local hints SHALL NOT be thresholded, aggregated, or compared across Contexts.

#Normative starter set of sense families

A Context MAY add local senses, but the following starter set is normative as the initial disambiguation menu:

Normative rewrite note.

• In ecological and embodied contexts, bare affords SHALL rewrite to AIS.PhysicalAffordance unless another sense is explicitly declared.
• In operator-interface, alarm, or operator-panel contexts, bare action-first phrasing SHALL rewrite to AIS.InterfaceAffordance, AIS.ControlOpportunity, or both when both senses are live. If the wording instead claims module interface, functional port, API, protocol, signature, interface specification, or service-access compatibility, use A.6.RSIR, A.6.M, A.6.F, or A.6.0 according to the recovered EoC rather than treating the cue as an action invitation.
• In epistemic exploration contexts, "this suggests probing, formalizing, or reframing" SHALL rewrite to AIS.EpistemicProbe, AIS.ClosureAdvance, or both when both senses are live.
• In learned world-model, active-inference, or policy contexts, bare "the model wants" or "the state suggests" SHALL rewrite to AIS.LatentPolicyCue, AIS.ControlOpportunity, or both when both senses are live, with the distinction made explicit.
• If the sentence is chiefly about better, worse, fit, or merit, use C.16.Q instead of A.6.A.

#Required slots for a conforming actionInvitation

A conforming actionInvitation SHALL make explicit:

1. Site tuple and site classification. Site tuple members: named EntityOfConcern, scene, interface element or front-end element, Description episteme, episode, control state, or non-claim-bearing site kind - with publication or carrier participation stated separately when live.

2. Invited enactor tuple. Which U.System, collective system, or role assignment whose holder is a U.System is invited to act.

3. Candidate action tuple. What action is being invited.

4. ActionInvitationSense. Which action-oriented family is intended.

5. Coupling frame. The live coupling relation and admissible-use boundary under which the invitation is published. Examples: reach envelope, interface state, incident horizon, control horizon, probe pack, open issue set.

6. Detector, viewpoint, or both. Who or what detected the cue, and under which viewpoint it is published.

7. Normal form and articulationHint. How the invitation is published and how far it has been articulated.

8. Scope and time when relevant. U.Scope and Γ_time SHALL be explicit when omission changes meaning.

9. Representation substrate when relevant. Especially when comparing ecological, embodied, latent-distributed, and symbolic-local treatments.

10. Witness mode and evidence references. Exemplars, sensory traces, probe notes, kinematic data, interface events, controller traces, run logs, or review notes.

#Normal-form discipline

An ActionInvitationSense SHALL declare one admissible default normal form and MAY declare additional admissible normal forms explicitly.

Docking note. Where a published invitation already points to executable method descriptions, work plans, work occurrences, or their identifiers, the record SHOULD reuse existing U.Method, U.MethodDescription, U.WorkPlan, and U.Work identifiers or refs. PolicyHook SHALL always be a hook over pre-existing gate, method, or protocol publications; it does not mint a new execution, admissibility, or deontic ontology.

ANF-1 — CuePack. Use for early or low-articulation action invitations, especially AIS.PhysicalAffordance, AIS.SocialAffordance, and many cases of AIS.LatentPolicyCue.

A conforming CuePack publishes:

• exemplar or contrast episodes, sensory traces, or probe cues,
• site conditions,
• enactor descriptor or enactor constraints,
• a small gloss set of candidate actions,
• optional ordinal urgency or salience summaries,
• explicit warning that the cue is not yet a commitment, a selected method, a gate, or work,
• explicit note that witness-bearing does not by itself make the hinted action correct, required, or selected.

ANF-2 — ActionOption. Use when one candidate action tuple is explicit.

A conforming ActionOption publishes:

• one candidate action tuple,
• invited enactor and role assignment when live,
• local guard sketch,
• expected near-field effect,
• optional U.Method, U.MethodDescription, or U.WorkPlan refs when those already exist in-context,
• explicit note that the option is not yet selected, not yet obligatory, and not yet executed.

ANF-3 — OptionSet. Use when several candidate actions coexist.

A conforming OptionSet publishes:

• explicit action members,
• any local comparator, triage rule, or partial order,
• admissible incomparability if no total order is admissible,
• prohibition on hidden scalarisation.

ANF-4 — PolicyHook. Use when the invitation is explicitly bound to an existing controller, gate, playbook, method, or override protocol.

A conforming PolicyHook publishes:

• referenced policy, method, gate, and protocol ids (pre-existing governing FPF patterns or authoritySourceRef named sources only),
• applicable guard or trigger conditions,
• accountable role or authoritySourceRef named source,
• escalation or override references when relevant,
• explicit note that the hook is a binding publication over existing semantics, not itself a commitment, an admissibility rule, or a work occurrence.

#Separation from quality, capability, commitment, and work

A.6.A SHALL prevent the collapse of action invitation language into neighbouring families.

• A statement about better, worse, fit, or merit belongs to C.16.Q.
• A statement about what a system can do in general belongs to capability wording, method wording, or method-description wording under A.6.F and the governing pattern for the asserted capability, method, or method-description claim.
• A statement about what must be done belongs to A.6.B when the wording asserts an A-classified admissibility claim or a D-classified commitment claim.
• A statement about what was actually done belongs to A.15 and U.Work.
• If an invitation points to a Description episteme, any later enactment still occurs through symbol carriers, acted-on systems, or both; the description itself never acts.
• Mixed sentences that carry both evaluative and invitational content SHALL be split into evaluativeAscription(...) and actionInvitation(...) records, with explicit cross-references when the co-occurrence matters.

Mixed sentences SHALL be split.

Examples:

• “This scene is good for grasping” may require both evaluativeAscription(...) and actionInvitation(...).
• “This alarm requires rollback” is not an admissible final affordance record; it needs explicit gate or duty classification.
• “The robot can grasp this handle” is a capability claim unless the situated site, enactor, coupling frame, and invitation are made explicit.
• “The operator clicked rollback” is work, not invitation.

#Bridge discipline across traditions

Whenever two traditions are compared using action-first language, the author SHALL publish an explicit bridge stance and loss note.

Allowed bridge stances:

• localRename
• operationalizes
• partialAnalogy
• projection
• nonEquivalent

Examples:

• AIS.PhysicalAffordance - AIS.InterfaceAffordance is usually partialAnalogy, not identity.
• AIS.EpistemicProbe - AIS.ClosureAdvance is usually a progression-by-closure relation, not identity.
• AIS.LatentPolicyCue > AIS.ControlOpportunity is often operationalizes or projection.
• AIS.PhysicalAffordance > PolicyHook in robotics is usually projection under a controller frame.
• Action invitation and quality ascription may co-occur, but co-occurrence is not identity.

#Change lexicon

A conforming pattern SHALL narrate changes with a stable change lexicon aligned to A.6.P:

• declareActionInvitation(...) — create a new explicit action invitation record.
• withdrawActionInvitation(...) — retire a prior record.
• retargetSite(...) — change the site tuple while keeping the same relation family.
• retargetInvitedEnactor(...) — change the invited enactor tuple when that slot is ref-backed.
• reviseAction(...) — change the candidate action tuple by value (or split into the corresponding retargetParticipant(...) form if the local relation specification makes the action slot ref-backed).
• reviseSense(...) — change the value in the actionInvitationSense slot.
• reArticulate(...) — change the articulationHint while preserving sense family.
• reFrame(...) — change coupling frame.
• reGuard(...) — change guard sketch or hook condition.
• rePolicyHook(...) — change policy, gate, or method hook details.
• reView(...) — change detector publication, viewpoint publication, or view publication.
• rescope(...) — change U.Scope.
• retime(...) — change Γ_time.
• refreshWitnesses(...) — refresh witness bindings.
• changeRelationKind(...) — semantic move to a different relation family; never edit in place silently.

A silent move from invitation to commitment, capability, or work is a breaking semantic change.

A.6.P rewrite note. retargetSite(...) and retargetInvitedEnactor(...) are family-specific refinements of participant retargeting and SHALL be used only when the corresponding slots are ref-backed. reviseAction(...), reviseSense(...), reArticulate(...), reFrame(...), reGuard(...), and rePolicyHook(...) are by-value revisions unless the local relation specification explicitly declares the corresponding slot as ref-backed, in which case the text SHALL use the matching retargetParticipant(...) form. This preserves A.6.5’s ref-vs-value discipline.

#A.6.B classification template for actionInvitation

When an action invitation becomes boundary-bearing, classify it explicitly:

• L — actionInvitation relation specification skeleton, ActionInvitationSense semantics, normal-form admissibility, enactor and site discipline, bridge stances.
• A — admissibility conditions for using the invitation in selector use, triage use, automation use, or publication use.
• D — duties on authors, operators, or stewards of the named source with authority-reference relation: lexical firewall, naming the invited actor, naming the hook authoritySourceRef source, naming override paths where required.
• E — carrier-referenced witnesses: sensory traces, interface events, probe notes, controller logs, run traces, incident records.

Do not let bare action-first language carry L-, A-, D-, or E-classified claims, admissible-use consequences, or evidence consequences by itself.

#Lexical guardrails

In Tech prose and normative prose:

• bare affords, invites, calls for, actionable, ready for, ripe for, natural next step, the model wants, or the interface tells MUST NOT appear without immediate repair;
• actionable insight MUST be rewritten to ActionOption, OptionSet, or PolicyHook, or to C.16.Q if the use is primarily evaluative;
• affordance MUST NOT be treated as a monadic property of a site participant without enactor, site, and coupling frame;
• an invitation MUST NOT be presented as if it were already a duty, gate, or work occurrence;
• a latent policy cue MUST NOT be presented as if it were already an explanation;
• articulationHint MUST NOT be treated as F, as acceptance status, or as a replacement for A.16 grounding references;
• generic Surface facet tokens MUST NOT be introduced inside A.6.A; publication face, publication form, interop publication form, carrier, or rendering participation must be declared under A.7 and publication-face and publication-form discipline, not by widening the site classification;
• hidden enactor language inside adjectives such as graspable, deployable, actionable, ready SHALL be unpacked;
• quoted metalinguistic uses are allowed, but SHALL be marked as token-under-discussion.

#Progressive elaboration

A.6.A allows monotone elaboration:

1. Start by selecting an ActionInvitationSense and recording rival candidates when ambiguity is live.
2. Declare site, would-be enactor, action, frame, and site-facet relation binding.
3. Choose an admissible normal form and a local articulationHint when omission would hide articulation state.
4. Add guards, method hooks, policy hooks, and witness bindings.
5. If a CuePack or ActionOption is projected into OptionSet or PolicyHook, or connected to C.16.Q, A.6.B, or the relevant A.15 pattern family, publish an explicit projection or operationalization note rather than silently upgrading the invitation.
6. Add bridges and loss notes if traditions are compared.
7. If the invitation becomes boundary-bearing, emit the relevant L, A, D, and E decomposition hooks and, where enactment is implied, apply the relevant A.15 pattern family.
8. Never move from invitation into capability, commitment, or work silently.

#Endpoint-first downstream discipline

If a repaired phrase already names an admissible downstream authoritySourceRef, governingPatternRef, or P2W method-to-work reference such as a gate hook, method reference, U.WorkPlan, U.WorkPlanning plan record, or U.Work occurrence, authors SHOULD publish that downstream reference directly and keep actionInvitation(...) only as the preceding repair record when the invitation semantics themselves still matter. actionInvitation(...) is therefore a post-threshold invitation record, not a shadow substitute for A.6.B, A.15, or gate-governing patterns.

#Archetypal Grounding

#Tell

If a draft says affords, calls for, invites, or actionable, the author has not yet named the action-oriented family.

A conforming post-threshold rewrite publishes one explicit actionInvitation(...) with one ActionInvitationSense, one site tuple, one invited enactor tuple, one candidate action tuple, one coupling frame, one normal form, and explicit articulation, scope, time, and substrate qualifiers when they matter. Earlier action-guiding cue content may still remain outside A.6.A as cue-pack content, a RoutedCueSet, or another typed cue-preserving upstream publication until threshold conditions are met.

#Show (System case)

Draft: “The alarm calls for rollback.”

Repair A — control and incident line

actionInvitation( site = AlarmBundle_AB9 × ServiceState_S7, siteClassification = { AlarmBundle_AB9: non-claim-bearing carrier site, ServiceState_S7: EntityOfConcern }, publicationOrCarrierParticipation = { AlarmBundle_AB9: carrier exposing cue }, invitedEnactor = OpsTeam_Phoenix, candidateAction = Enact(MethodDescriptionRef = RollbackRunbook_R41, actedOn = Release_R41), actionInvitationSense = AIS.ControlOpportunity, couplingFrame = IncidentPolicy_IP2 × Horizon_H15m, detector = AnomalyPolicy_AP7, viewpoint = VP.OperationsControl, normalForm = PolicyHook, articulationHint = hook-explicit, scope = U.WorkScope(ProdCluster_EU_1), Γ_time = RunWindow_RW, witnesses = {AlertTrace_91, ErrorBudgetSeries_4} )

Repair B — ecological and robot line

Draft: “This handle affords pulling.”

actionInvitation( site = DoorHandle_17 × DoorState_Closed × ReachEnvelope_RE2, siteClassification = { DoorHandle_17: EntityOfConcern, DoorState_Closed: EntityOfConcern, ReachEnvelope_RE2: Description episteme }, invitedEnactor = ServiceRobot_R2, candidateAction = PullAlong(Axis_A1), actionInvitationSense = AIS.PhysicalAffordance, couplingFrame = GripClass_G1 × ClearanceProfile_CP3, detector = PerceptionStack_PS4, normalForm = ActionOption, articulationHint = option-explicit, Γ_time = Window_W1, witnesses = {DepthFrame_883, ContactModelRun_17} )

#Show (Episteme case)

Draft: “This problem asks for a better question.”

Repair A — epistemic probe line

actionInvitation( site = ProblemFramingEpisode_PF3, siteClassification = { ProblemFramingEpisode_PF3: Description episteme }, invitedEnactor = ResearchTeam_A, candidateAction = Enact(MethodDescriptionRef = ContrastiveQuestioning_Q2), actionInvitationSense = AIS.EpistemicProbe, couplingFrame = ExemplarPack_EP3 × OpenIssueSet_O2, detector = Reviewer_A1, normalForm = OptionSet, articulationHint = sketched, representationSubstrate = hybrid, witnesses = {EpisodeNotes_3, CounterexampleCard_2} )

Repair B — closure-advance line

Draft: “The draft is ready for formalization.”

actionInvitation( site = DraftHypothesis_H7, siteClassification = { DraftHypothesis_H7: Description episteme }, invitedEnactor = AuthorCollective_C1, candidateAction = Formalize_DescEp_SpecDesc(TypedInvariantSet_V1), actionInvitationSense = AIS.ClosureAdvance, couplingFrame = AmbiguityMemo_8 × ClaimScope_G1, detector = ReviewPanel_R4, normalForm = ActionOption, articulationHint = option-explicit, representationSubstrate = symbolic-local, witnesses = {AmbiguityMemo_8, ReviewCommentSet_5} )

#Bias-Annotation

Lenses tested: Gov, Arch, Ontology and episteme, Prag, Did. Scope: Universal for overloaded affordance-like and action-first language in FPF-governed wording.

• Gov bias: this pattern may tempt authors to smuggle decisions into invitation language. Mitigation: explicit A.6.B claim classification and obligation barrier.
• Arch bias: this pattern prefers one stable relation family over loose action talk. Mitigation: allow Plain exploratory prose before Tech prose or normative publication.
• Ontology and episteme bias: this pattern insists on separating invitation from evaluation, capability, commitment, and work. Mitigation: explicit bridge stances and mixed-sentence split rules.
• Prag bias: it favors enactor, site, and action explicitness, which raises authoring cost. Mitigation: small starter set, normal-form discipline, and copyable rewrites.
• Did bias: repeated rewrites make the pattern teachable, but may over-formalize early cues. Mitigation: CuePack and local articulationHint keep early stages admissible without pretending closure.

#Conformance Checklist (CC-A.6.A)

A text or pattern conforms to A.6.A iff:

1. CC-A.6.A-1 — Explicit post-threshold relation family and explicit sense. Every in-scope post-threshold action-first use resolves to one declared actionInvitation(...) instance and one declared ActionInvitationSense; earlier cue-like content stays under A.16.1 or B.4.1 instead of being forced into A.6.A prematurely.

2. CC-A.6.A-2 — Explicit site and site-facet relation binding. The site tuple is explicit; when ambiguous or mixed, the site classification over the EntityOfConcern and Description-episteme boundary is explicit, and publication or carrier participation is stated separately when live.

3. CC-A.6.A-3 — Explicit invited enactor. The invited enactor tuple is explicit.

4. CC-A.6.A-4 — Enactor discipline. When the invited enactor is meant as the actual would-be enactor, it resolves to a U.System or role assignment with system holder.

5. CC-A.6.A-5 — Explicit candidate action. The candidate action tuple is explicit and reviewable.

6. CC-A.6.A-6 — Explicit coupling frame. The coupling frame is explicit.

7. CC-A.6.A-7 — Detector and viewpoint separation. When both matter, detector and viewpoint are not silently collapsed.

8. CC-A.6.A-8 — Lawful normal form. The invitation is published as CuePack, ActionOption, OptionSet, or PolicyHook, with corresponding discipline observed.

9. CC-A.6.A-9 — Articulation-hint discipline. If omission changes meaning, articulationHint is explicit and is not treated as F or as an acceptance state.

10. CC-A.6.A-10 — No invitation-as-obligation. An invitation is not silently published as a duty or gate.

11. CC-A.6.A-11 — No invitation-as-work. An invitation is not silently published as a work occurrence.

12. CC-A.6.A-12 — No capability collapse. A situated invitation is not silently rewritten as a general capability claim.

13. CC-A.6.A-13 — No site-participant-property collapse. Affordance language is not published as a monadic site-participant property when enactor, site, and coupling frame matter.

14. CC-A.6.A-14 — No hidden scalarisation. OptionSet publication does not introduce a hidden comparator value or ranking without an explicit comparator or policy.

15. CC-A.6.A-15 — No silent sense rewrite. Sense changes use the declared change lexicon.

16. CC-A.6.A-16 — No silent relation-family switch. Moving from invitation to quality ascription, capability, commitment, or work uses changeRelationKind(...) or an explicit split.

17. CC-A.6.A-17 — Bridge accountability. Cross-tradition parallels publish bridge stance and loss notes.

18. CC-A.6.A-18 — Boundary-claim hook when needed. If the repaired invitation is used for admissibility, commitments, publication, or automation, downstream L-, A-, D-, or E-classified hooks are explicit.

19. CC-A.6.A-19 — Lexical firewall. Bare action-first trigger tokens are absent from Tech prose and normative prose except as quoted metalinguistic discussion.

20. CC-A.6.A-20 — actionInvitation relation specification skeleton is published. The family-specific RelationKind token resolves to a relation specification skeleton with SlotSpecs, enactor and site discipline, qualifier expectations, repair sequences, witness discipline, admissible change classes, and cross-context policy.

21. CC-A.6.A-21 — Candidate-Set Note is used when ambiguity is live. If the site classification, publication or carrier participation, enactor classification, relation family, or sense selection is non-obvious, the text records a short Candidate-Set Note before decision-bearing use.

#Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

#Consequences

Benefits. This pattern gives FPF an admissible post-threshold repair record family for action-first discourse. It lets embodied, ecological, latent, interface, and control cues be published without pretending they are already commitments, capabilities, characteristics, scales, or work.

It also complements C.16.Q cleanly: C.16.Q repairs evaluative ambiguity, while A.6.A repairs action-inviting ambiguity.

Trade-offs and mitigations. The pattern adds authoring overhead and can feel heavy in early exploration.

Mitigation: allow bare action-first language in Plain exploratory notes, but require repair before it enters Tech prose, normative prose, boundary, automation, assurance, or publication use.

#Rationale

A.6.A makes one strategic move:

Affordance-like and action-first language is not treated as a monadic property and not treated as a hidden duty. It is treated as a family of action invitations whose members differ by site, enactor, candidate action, coupling frame, substrate, and admissible publication form.

This bridge interpretation is intentionally neutral: in ecological settings the site is not treated as a literal speaker or norm-giver. "Invitation" is the stable publishable FPF lens for situated opportunity-to-act talk, not a claim that all source traditions use that word or share one ontology.

This gives FPF an admissible treatment for:

• ecological and embodied affordances,
• interface and operator prompts,
• epistemic "probe this", "formalize this", and "reframe this" moves,
• latent policy cues in learned systems,
• control opportunities in closed loops,

without forcing them into one false universal vocabulary.

It also keeps the larger architecture clean:

• C.16.Q governs evaluative repairs,
• A.6.A governs action-invitation repairs,
• A.6.B governs boundary claim classification,
• A.15 governs enactment and work,
• A.16 governs articulation and closure progression and admissible moves,
• C.2.3 remains the sole governing pattern for formality characteristic F.

#SoTA-Echoing

Recent philosophical and ecological work treats affordances as action-relevant possibilities perceived in engagement and, in some accounts, as invitations for action, rather than as viewpoint-free monadic site-participant properties. A.6.A adopts that relational, action-first stance, adapts it by forcing explicit siteTuple, invitedEnactorTuple, and couplingFrame publication, and rejects silent collapse into monadic site-participant labels. (Frontiers, Springer)

Recent empirical review work on affordance perception emphasises attunement and recalibration in person-plus-environment systems rather than fixed, context-free labels. A.6.A adopts the need for enactor- and situation-specific publication, adapts it into CuePack, ActionOption, and OptionSet normal forms, and rejects any assumption that an affordance phrase is already an admissible characteristic, scale, or universally portable invariant. (Springer)

Current active-inference work frames generative models in action-perception loops and, in many cases, action-oriented models that are for adaptive interaction rather than only detached description. A.6.A adopts the action-oriented emphasis and the separation between model-side cueing and enacted action; it adapts this by making detector and invitedEnactor explicit and by forbidding latent policy cues from counting as work, commitment, or explicit rationale by default. (UCL Discovery)

Current robotics work increasingly uses affordances as intermediate representations between perception-language representations and concrete action, including compact keypoint or staged affordance plans. A.6.A adopts this as evidence that affordance publication can be an admissible intermediate publication form; it adapts it into ActionOption, OptionSet, and PolicyHook, and rejects silent promotion of such representations into deontic obligation, proof of correctness, or objective value. (Robotics: Science and Systems)

Coverage note. This section already covers the claim-bearing relational and action-oriented stance. Operator-facing interface practice should also cite explicit operator-interaction, operator-alarm, and incident-response source lines so that its evidence path is as direct as the current ecology, active-inference, and robotics branch.

#Relations

• Specialises: A.6.P as an RPR pattern for overloaded affordance-like and action-first language.
• Builds on: A.3 and A.7 for enactor discipline and EntityOfConcern and Description-episteme plus publication and carrier separation; A.15 for keeping invitation distinct from enactment; A.6.B for boundary claim classification; E.17 and E.18 for viewpoint publication.
• Works alongside: C.16.Q for evaluative language; the two are siblings, not substitutes.
• Coordinates with: C.2.2a, A.16, A.16.1, A.16.2, and B.4.1 for language-state chart positions, admissible moves before post-threshold repair, and retreat when a published invitation must be reopened; use A.16.0 only when lineage, branch, loss, or responsibility-transfer history itself must be published as an explicit trajectory account; B.5.2.0 for probe-question cases that are still prompt-shaped; C.2.LS, C.2.4, C.2.5, C.2.6, and C.2.7 for language-state facet governance.
• Must not replace: C.2.3 as the single governing pattern for F.
• Recommends publication via: E.10, F.17, and F.18 when actionInvitation tokens, starter senses, and red-flag rewrites become shared vocabulary.

#Language-space refactor note

This pattern is scoped to action-invitation repair and endpoint continuation, not to the whole early cue family. Early action-guiding cue content may remain in A.16.1 as cue-pack content, a RoutedCueSet, or another typed cue-preserving upstream publication before it stabilizes into actionInvitation(...).

#Canonical downstream relation

actionInvitation(...) should be classified through A.6.B and connected to A.15 when work enactment is live toward gates, commitments, methods, or work. Operator-facing starter senses such as AIS.AlertInterventionCue or AIS.OperatorInterventionCue should not be buried under generic AIS.InterfaceAffordance when human factors and policy hooks substantively differ.

#Governance boundary

Bridge stances, articulation-state governing patterns, authority-reference fields, and language-state facet characteristics are referenced by this pattern but remain governed by F.9.1, A.16, C.2.LS, C.2.4, C.2.5, C.2.6, and C.2.7.

#A.6.A:End

---

Last Updated: 2026-06-17 — this section last modified in upstream FPF commit 205de763 (github.com/ailev/FPF)