FPF Reference

    G.Core:2 - Problem

    Preface node heading:g-core-2-problem:78477

    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

    Without one governing definition for Part‑G‑wide invariants, Part G drifts in at least six recurring ways:

    1. Shadow governing spec refs emerge: downstream patterns restate CN‑Spec / CG‑Spec constraints, accidentally creating “local specs” that can diverge from the canonical governing spec refs.
    2. Crossing discipline becomes inconsistent: “crossing events” and “crossing visibility” are described differently across G.x, causing ambiguity about what must be pinned (UTS/Path/policy‑ids/editions) and what triggers refresh/regression.
    3. Guard semantics drift: tri‑state eligibility and “unknown handling” can be reinterpreted in local prose, producing hidden fourth statuses or implicit coercions.
    4. Hidden scalarization appears: partial orders are silently collapsed into scalars, or totalization is introduced implicitly through “helpful” numeric summaries.
    5. Suite/kit/pack mixing blurs governing-definition assignment: downstream patterns drift into “governing” what should remain governed by the suite boundary (A.6.7 and A.19.CHR), kit surfaces (each G.x), or shipping (G.10).
    6. Refactoring breaks public IDs: CC items and trigger labels become hard to evolve because removing duplicates risks breaking external references.

    Part G requires a single place where these invariants and refactoring disciplines live, while keeping Part G patterns modular and method/discipline specifics explicitly separated.

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