FPF Reference

    A.6.P:4.5 — Lexical guardrails (ban umbrella metaphors as meaning‑surrogates)

    Preface node heading:a-6-p-4-5-lexical-guardrails-ban-umbrella-metaphors-as-meaning-surrogates:13375

    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 RPR‑pattern SHALL define red‑flag umbrella tokens for its ambiguity cluster, and SHALL provide canonical rewrite forms.

    Normative base rules (A.6.P-level):

    • In Tech or normative prose, umbrella predicates (e.g., “same”, “synced”, “linked”, “connected”, “anchored or grounded”) MUST NOT substitute for an unnamed RelationKind token.
    • “bind” and “binding” is reserved for name binding (Identifier → SlotKind or slot-instance) and MUST NOT be used as a synonym for declaring or changing a relation instance. Use the change‑class lexicon instead.
    • Pattern-defined carve‑outs MAY exist (reserved primitives elsewhere), but they remain review triggers to ensure the reserved sense is intended (as in A.6.6’s anchor* carve‑out rule).

    Recommended publication move (no extra authoring apparatus implied). For stable ambiguity clusters, publish the red‑flag token list and canonical rewrites as a LEX‑BUNDLE entry (PTG=Guarded) and, when the cluster introduces new RelationKind tokens or stable facet head phrases, include them in the relevant UTS rows (F.17). This keeps rewrite discipline shareable outside the A.6 cluster.

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