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:9538

    What this page is

    This is generated FPF reference text from the specification preface or supporting sections. It helps interpret FPF; it is not FPF Reference product documentation.

    Methodology

    Use it to understand how the specification wants to be read, then return to a route, pattern, or work packet for active work. Cite generated IDs only when the wording changes the task decision.

    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 or 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 or semantic claim; if exactness is critical or disputed, use verbatim.

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

    Last Updated: 2026-06-17 — upstream FPF commit 646b0b9b (github.com/ailev/FPF)