FPF Reference

    Improvement-Oriented Quality Evaluation Question Framing

    E.22 · Stable · Part E - The FPF Constitution and Authoring Guides

    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.

    Status: Core.

    Use E.22 when someone is about to ask for a quality evaluation, quality review, returned-finding absorption, improvement proposal, or follow-up hypothesis over an object version named by value, and the question needs to say what kind of evaluation is wanted before the evaluator starts.

    Relations

    E.22builds onEvaluation CharacteristicSpace Construction
    E.22builds onFPF Pattern-Quality Evaluation CharacteristicSpace
    E.22builds onDRR Decision-Adequacy Evaluation CharacteristicSpace
    E.22builds onFPF Pillar-Adequacy Evaluation CharacteristicSpace
    E.22coordinates withQuality Improvement Loop Method
    E.22coordinates withPattern Quality Gates: Review and Refresh Profiles
    E.22coordinates withUnified Lexical Rules for FPF
    E.22coordinates withQ-Bundle: Authoring "-ilities" as Structured Quality Bundles
    E.22coordinates withCharacterising Generative Novelty and Value
    E.22coordinates withExplore-Exploit Live-Pool Governor
    E.22coordinates withMulti‑Method Dispatcher & MethodFamily Registry
    E.22coordinates withParity / Benchmark Harness
    E.22coordinates withTelemetry-Driven Refresh & Decay Orchestrator
    E.22explicit referenceFPF Pattern-Quality Evaluation CharacteristicSpace
    E.22explicit referenceDRR Decision-Adequacy Evaluation CharacteristicSpace
    E.22explicit referenceFPF Pillar-Adequacy Evaluation CharacteristicSpace
    E.22explicit referenceEvaluation CharacteristicSpace Construction
    E.22explicit referenceQ-Bundle: Authoring "-ilities" as Structured Quality Bundles
    E.22explicit referenceRelation-Declaration Slot Discipline - SlotKind, ValueKind, RefKind, and participant-designation discipline
    E.22explicit referenceU.Method: Reusable Way of Doing with Explicit Applicability
    E.22explicit referenceU.MethodDescription: Description Episteme for a Way of Doing
    E.22explicit referenceThe Agential Role & Agency Spectrum
    E.22explicit referenceU.Work: Dated Performed Work Occurrence
    E.22explicit referenceSystemRoleAssignment and Performed-Work Attribution Check
    E.22explicit referenceCharacterising Generative Novelty and Value
    E.22explicit referenceOpen-Ended Search Archive and Front Stewardship
    E.22explicit referenceExplore-Exploit Live-Pool Governor
    E.22explicit referenceMulti‑Method Dispatcher & MethodFamily Registry
    E.22explicit referenceParity / Benchmark Harness
    E.22explicit referenceTelemetry-Driven Refresh & Decay Orchestrator
    E.22explicit referenceMulti‑View Publication Kit
    E.22explicit referenceOntic Description and Publication Discipline
    E.22explicit referenceU.Mechanism - Reusable Law-Governed Operation Declaration
    E.22explicit referencePragmatic Utility and Value Alignment
    E.22explicit referenceCharacteristicSpace & Dynamics Hook (A.CHR‑SPACE)
    E.22explicit referenceUnified Comparison Mechanism (CPM)
    E.22explicit referenceUnified Scope Mechanism (USM): Context Slices & Scopes
    E.22explicit referenceSystem-Role Kinds and Assignments
    E.22explicit referenceU.SystemRoleAssignment - Contextual System-Role Assignment
    E.22explicit referenceU.Episteme: Constitution, Empirical Grounding, and Edition Relations
    E.22explicit referenceEpisteme Evidence-Use and Status-Use Relations
    E.22explicit referenceEvidence Graph Referring (C-4)
    E.22explicit referenceUnified Lexical Rules for FPF
    E.22explicit referenceRecovering What “Role” Means in the Current Claim
    E.22explicit referenceRelational Precision Restoration — Recovering Direct Relations from Under-Specified Claims
    E.22explicit referenceEpistemic Precision Restoration
    E.22explicit referenceLocal-First Unification Naming Protocol
    E.22explicit referenceMeasurement & Metrics Characterization (MM‑CHR)
    E.22explicit referenceA.CHR-NORM — Canonical “Characteristic” & rename (Dimension/Axis → Characteristic)
    E.22explicit referenceA.CSLC-KERNEL — Minimal CSLC in Kernel (Characteristic/Scale/Level/Coordinate)
    E.22explicit referenceDecision Theory (Decsn-CAL)
    E.22explicit referenceAgentic Tool-Use and Call Planning (C.Agent-Tools-CAL)
    E.22explicit referenceSystem-Role–Method–Work Alignment
    E.22explicit referenceConstraint Validity for Transformation Steps
    E.22explicit referenceGate Decisions from Independent Check Results
    E.22explicit referenceTrust and Assurance Calculus

    Content

    Problem frame

    Use E.22 when someone is about to ask for a quality evaluation, quality review, returned-finding absorption, improvement proposal, or follow-up hypothesis over an object version named by value, and the question needs to say what kind of evaluation is wanted before the evaluator starts.

    E.22 frames the question. It does not evaluate the object. evaluationPatternLocator identifies the FPF pattern description containing the evaluation predicate or constraint; an optional semanticEvaluationMethodRef names the separately identified U.Method used for that evaluation. A characteristic-space specification, Q-Bundle description, rubric description, review-profile description, evidence-basis description, and result-form description constrain or describe that evaluation. None of those specifications performs the evaluation or substitutes for the subject assertion or semantic Method. For example, E.21, E.9.DA, or E.2.DA may supply the predicate for evaluating one FPF object, while A.19.ECS and C.25 supply supporting quality-model descriptions. E.19 instead defines an admission or refresh review-gate and findings profile. Use E.19 as evaluationPatternLocator only when its review result is itself the object under evaluation; otherwise its later gate check remains distinct from the quality evaluation.

    Not this pattern when the question is already scoped and one direct evaluation is enough. Run the object-under-improvement evaluation directly. Use E.23 when repeated improvement across passes is needed.

    First useful move: write a QualityEvaluationQuestionFrame for one object version and a QualityEvaluationUseDeclaration. Name the selected CharacteristicSpace, the by-value predicate and any admitted comparator, one U.ClaimScope, and the work or decision that will consume the result. Keep the evaluation pattern and optional semantic Method separate from the quality-model, evidence-basis, and result-form descriptions. State an evaluator eligibility, independence, capability, or planned condition only when it changes the question or admissibility of the result; name one intended evaluator only when that identity is itself part of the question. Then state the purpose, floor or improvement aim, and protected trade-offs.

    Here move is Plain wording for writing the frame. It is not a shared Move identity, selected repair, WorkPlan, performed U.Work, or actual U.Transformation; if dated framing work itself matters, A.15.1 governs that separate occurrence.

    What goes wrong if missed: "review this" can mean too many different things. A floor check may be mistaken for exceptional improvement, a review may suggest work without naming a changed evaluation result, absorption may count closed rows without re-evaluating the changed object, or a follow-up suggestion may be overread as a decision, work plan, gate, evidence, assurance, or release.

    What this buys in practice: requester and evaluator start with the same object version, selected characteristic space, criterion or comparator, evaluation scope, consuming use, evaluation purpose, value source, protected trade-offs, evidence basis, and result form. A small floor question can stay small, while a request for proposals or trade-off analysis returns the additional information needed for a later improvement decision.

    Primary EntityOfConcern in plain terms: the framed quality-evaluation question for one object version.

    A below-floor value, finding, improvement aim, or need for evaluation is not by itself an actual Problem. If the consuming use relies on an actual Problem, cite one current C.22.PFR ProblematicForRelation occurrence with its direct participants and temporal identity; the frame, evaluation, result, and evidence may support a claim about it but neither create nor split it.

    Problem

    Quality evaluations fail when the evaluator has to infer the question. The same object can be checked for floor adequacy, improved toward exceptional expression, compared across trade-offs, mined for open questions, or evaluated after finding absorption. Those purposes produce different findings.

    An unframed question hides the object under improvement, the evaluation that supplies values, and the allowed shape of returned work.

    Forces

    ForceTension
    Cheap readiness vs ambitious improvementA floor evaluation should be short; exceptional improvement needs richer proposals.
    Explicit purpose vs reviewer discoveryThe request names the purpose, while the reviewer can still report important unasked questions.
    Evaluation vs follow-up actionA useful evaluation may suggest a follow-up, but the suggestion remains a hypothesis until the pattern that defines or constrains the claim, relation, or boundary is applied.
    Multi-coordinate gain vs Goodhart riskRaising one visible value can damage usability, affordability, locality, source preservation, or corpus ecology; use E.13 when the visible value or metric is being treated as the intended value itself.
    Proposal portfolio vs selected resultSeveral candidate improvements may be useful without becoming a selected set, pool policy, front insertion, parity, or refresh result.

    Solution

    E.22 gives one compact declaration for improvement-oriented quality evaluation questions. It keeps the question from replacing the evaluation and keeps the evaluation result from becoming a decision or work product beyond its authority.

    Local names and kind settlement

    The framing episteme, evaluation method, descriptions used by that method, any question-changing evaluator condition, dated evaluation Work, actual operation application, evidence use, and result occupy different positions. QualityEvaluationUseDeclaration keeps the applicable evaluation bindings together without turning a plan, declaration, or named candidate into a current performer or occurrence.

    The remaining local support names ending in @Context are compatibility and retrieval names only. The suffix supplies no context entity, scope, participant, relation, or identity component; every episteme follows C.2.1 identity, every set is identified by its stated extensional rule, and every neighboring Work, decision, evidence, viewpoint, grounding, or result relation remains under its direct governor.

    Local nameKind and use in this pattern
    QualityEvaluationQuestionFrameU.Episteme whose EntityOfConcern is the exact object version under evaluation; its ClaimGraph carries the requested quality-evaluation question about that version and its exact use bindings.
    QualityEvaluationUseDeclarationU.Episteme whose EntityOfConcern is the same object version. It describes how evaluation of that version is intended to be performed and interpreted, referring separately to the evaluation pattern, optional semantic Method, selected characteristic space, predicate and any comparator, ClaimScope, quality-model descriptions, expected evidence basis, result form, and qualification window. It may state an evaluator eligibility, independence, capability, or planned condition when that condition changes the question or admissibility of the result; it may name an intended evaluator only when that identity is part of the question. It contains no actual performer, assignment, or Work occurrence.
    ObjectVersionUnderQualityEvaluationExact U.Entity version being evaluated, paired with its exact U.Kind.
    EvaluationCharacteristicSpaceSelectionOne exact U.CharacteristicSpace selected for this evaluation use. Its specification description is a separate episteme and does not become the space.
    EvaluationCriterionSelectionThe exact by-value CharacteristicSpacePredicate, exact admitted ComparatorSpecRef, or both, required by the governing evaluation pattern and, when declared, its separately identified semantic evaluation Method. At least one is present.
    EvaluationClaimScopeOne exact set-valued U.ClaimScope governing the evaluation claim. It is not a context label, selected structure, window, or evidence set.
    QualityEvaluationResultConsumingUseThe exact directly governed intended-work, dated-work, or decision object that is expected to consume the evaluation result, paired with its exact kind and use description. It does not authorize or perform that use.
    QualityEvaluationPurposeSelectionRequested evaluation purpose or distinguishable combination of purposes.
    DeclaredQualityFloorMinimum acceptable coordinate or status floor when the frame declares a floor claim.
    DesiredImprovementAimRequested substantive change beyond the floor when improvement beyond the floor is requested.
    ExpectedEvaluationEvidenceBasis@ContextU.Episteme whose EntityOfConcern is the exact object version under evaluation. It describes expected evidence-use positions and the missingness rule for the exact method, space, criterion, scope, and qualification window. It can be identified before a use declaration cites it and is not the evidence values later found.
    TradeoffProtectionSet@ContextA local U.Set value whose members are exact characteristic or coordinate references paired with their kinds. Its identity is extensional for the exact question-frame edition, not for a context label.
    EvaluationQualificationWindowEdition, source-currentness, comparison-set, time, or declared-use window in which the requested result is intended to be current. The actual evaluation application later binds its exact point or interval.
    ExpectedQualityEvaluationResultFormDescriptionU.Episteme describing the result-row form declared by the governing evaluation pattern. It is not an actual result.
    QualityReviewFindingRowActionable evaluation finding that identifies the observed issue, affected evaluation property, correction direction, and closure test.
    CandidateImprovementProposalRow@ContextE.22 proposal episteme with an exact correction target, expected substantive evaluation effect, trade-offs, kind-restoration disposition, outside-claim return when needed, and closure test.
    CandidateImprovementOutsideClaimReference@ContextBounded local ClaimGraph node form inside one proposal row. It identifies the outside governed value, relation signature, or boundary description and the exact FPF pattern identity that governs the return. It is not an episteme, relation, or independently referenceable entity.
    KindRestorationCheckConditionally present check when a changed FPF-governed expression can alter the object, kind, relation, slot or use position, claim kind, admissible use, or scope.
    CandidateImprovementProposalPortfolio@ContextA local U.Set value whose members are CandidateImprovementProposalRow@Context epistemes for one question frame. Membership, not a document serialization, determines the portfolio.
    ImprovementFollowUpHypothesis@ContextU.Episteme whose EntityOfConcern is the exact object version expected to change. It claims that one named next operation or method application is expected to address one finding and produce a stated evaluation effect under a stated test condition. A stop disposition, return, selected plan, performed Work, or actual Transformation is not such a hypothesis.
    QualityEvaluationUseDeclaration <: U.Episteme:
  entityOfConcernRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the exact object version under evaluation
  entityOfConcernKindRef: U.KindRef, referencing the exact kind of that object version
  claimGraph: U.ClaimGraph by value
  referenceScheme: U.ReferenceScheme by value
  editionId
  evaluatorConditionRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing an eligibility, independence, capability, or planned condition only when it changes the evaluation question or admissibility of the result
  intendedEvaluatorSystemRef?: U.EntityRef, referencing one admitted U.System only when that exact identity is itself part of the declared question; it asserts neither assignment nor performance
  evaluationPatternLocator: U.EntityRef, locating the exact FPF pattern description that contains the defining or constraining ClaimGraph
  semanticEvaluationMethodRef?: U.MethodRef, referencing the separately identified U.Method used for the evaluation
  selectedEvaluationCharacteristicSpaceRef: U.EntityRef, referencing one exact U.CharacteristicSpace
  selectedEvaluationPredicate?: CharacteristicSpacePredicate by value
  selectedComparatorSpecRef?: ComparatorSpecRef
  evaluationClaimScopeRef: U.EntityRef, referencing one exact U.ClaimScope
  evaluationQualificationWindowDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one EvaluationQualificationWindow description
  evaluationCharacteristicSpaceSpecDescriptionRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one A.19.ECS specification description
  evaluationQBundleDescriptionRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one C.25 Q-Bundle description
  evaluationRubricDescriptionRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one evaluation-rubric description
  evaluationReviewProfileDescriptionRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one evaluation-review-profile description
  expectedEvaluationEvidenceBasisRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one ExpectedEvaluationEvidenceBasis@Context
  expectedEvaluationResultFormDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one ExpectedQualityEvaluationResultFormDescription

ExpectedEvaluationEvidenceBasis@Context <: U.Episteme:
  entityOfConcernRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the exact object version whose evaluation needs the expected evidence
  entityOfConcernKindRef: U.KindRef, referencing the exact kind of that object version
  claimGraph: U.ClaimGraph by value
  referenceScheme: U.ReferenceScheme by value
  editionId
  evaluationPatternLocator: U.EntityRef, locating the same exact FPF evaluation pattern description
  selectedEvaluationCharacteristicSpaceRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the same exact U.CharacteristicSpace
  selectedEvaluationPredicate?: CharacteristicSpacePredicate by value
  selectedComparatorSpecRef?: ComparatorSpecRef
  evaluationClaimScopeRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the same exact U.ClaimScope
  expectedEvidencePositionDescriptionRefs[1..*]: U.EpistemeRef, each referencing one evidence-position description
  expectedEvidenceRelationKindRefs[1..*]: U.KindRef, each referencing one expected evidence-relation kind
  missingEvidenceDispositionRuleRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one exact episteme that states the missing-evidence disposition rule under its subject pattern
  qualificationWindowDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one EvaluationQualificationWindow description

    Every field above with a *Ref suffix stores the stated A.6.5 RefKind; resolving it yields the referent kind named after referencing. The use declaration and expected evidence basis carry the same exact object version, governing evaluation pattern, selected characteristic space, criterion binding, ClaimScope, and qualification window. The expected basis does not point back to the declaration: it can be constituted from those exact values, expected evidence positions and relation kinds, and missingness rule; the declaration is then constituted with a reference to that completed basis. This preserves the acyclic construction.

    At least one of selectedEvaluationPredicate and selectedComparatorSpecRef is present; both may be present. A label such as review, quality, or current context supplies neither. A.19 defines the predicate by value. Use A.19.CPM or the exact direct consumer rule for comparator admission; identify any actual comparison application separately. Selecting the predicate or comparator does not by itself establish the evaluation scope, evidence, time, Work, or result.

    evaluatorConditionRef states only a condition that changes the evaluation question or admissibility of its result. intendedEvaluatorSystemRef is present only when the declared question depends on that exact intended System; neither field establishes assignment or performance. The actual evaluator System, every obtaining assignment, and dated evaluation Work belong to the separately identified evaluation application or result account. Keep any local evaluator system-role classification separate and route unresolved role wording through [E.10.ROLE](/generated/patterns/E.10.ROLE). evaluationPatternLocator locates the pattern that defines or constrains the evaluation; it is not the Method, performer, Work, or result. Claim Method or MethodDescription identity only after A.3.1 and A.3.2 admit it. Characteristic-space, Q-Bundle, rubric, profile, evidence-basis, and result-form references identify separate descriptions.

    None of these declaration fields is dated evaluation Work or an evaluation result. A pre-evaluation frame contains no actual-Work identifiers. An ordinary result that asserts no actual Work needs none. If a compact projection does assert dated evaluation Work, recover every exact actual performer through A.13 and follow A.15.1 for independent Work admission; performer, Method, time, containing System, Work identity, and the result relation remain recoverable. Add assignment and F.6 refs only when the projection or receiving use expressly represents precise assignment-bound attribution; missing or failed F.6 leaves the Work intact. Keep any durable result episteme, evidence use, provenance, currentness, viewpoint, grounding, and Work-to-result or decision-use relation under their own patterns. A frame, declaration, description, assignment, dashboard, or carrier establishes none of them.

    Two carriers may publish the same edition of either episteme. A QualityEvaluationUseDeclaration changes edition when its object version, claim graph, reference scheme, question-changing evaluator condition or intended-evaluator identity, evaluation pattern, semantic Method, selected characteristic space, predicate and comparator, ClaimScope, qualification window, quality-model descriptions, expected evidence-basis edition, or result-form description changes. Replacing one qualified actual evaluator with another does not change the declaration unless the declared condition or claim changes. An ExpectedEvaluationEvidenceBasis@Context changes edition when its object version, claim graph, reference scheme, evaluation pattern, selected space, predicate and comparator, ClaimScope, expected evidence positions or relation kinds, missingness rule, or qualification window changes. Carrier, context label, viewpoint, grounding record, or support serialization alone changes neither episteme. TradeoffProtectionSet@Context and CandidateImprovementProposalPortfolio@Context are set values, not records; an episteme may describe or publish either set without becoming the set.

    Quality evaluation purposes

    Purpose valueUse whenExpected result
    floorEvaluationThe question is whether the object reaches a declared floor.Values below floor, first repair, architecture hold, refresh, new-frame assignment, or admissible stop.
    exceptionalImprovementEvaluationThe floor is reached and the requester wants non-dominated improvement toward exceptional expression.Per-coordinate proposal or no-candidate disposition.
    paretoTradeoffEvaluationA candidate change may improve some values while worsening protected qualities.Trade-off account and non-dominated comparison.
    candidateImprovementProposalEvaluationThe requester needs candidate-change proposals before changing the object or generating variants.Proposal row or bounded proposal portfolio with an expected effect on the later evaluation result.
    openQuestionDiscoveryEvaluationThe requester wants important unasked questions surfaced.Question classified as existing-coordinate issue, candidate future coordinate, or outside-evaluation issue.
    absorptionEvaluationReturned findings or suggestions have been applied or rejected.Quality-impact account over the changed object.

    Purposes can be combined, but the result keeps them distinguishable. A floor result does not answer exceptional improvement. Absorption count does not establish a changed evaluation result. A proposal is not a selected work item.

    Question frame

    An improvement aim is not a command to make every coordinate exceptional. A 5 is assigned only by the named evaluation after the changed object earns it. The frame may ask for substantive non-dominated proposals that could move named coordinates toward exceptional expression, while admitting no proposal or stay at current value when every plausible change would add apparatus, proof prose, boundary catalogues, or process evidence while damaging protected qualities. That no-proposal result needs checked review locations and evidence-basis references; it is not a cheap refusal to improve.

    QualityEvaluationQuestionFrame <: U.Episteme:
  entityOfConcernRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the exact object version under evaluation
  entityOfConcernKindRef: U.KindRef, referencing the exact kind of that object version
  claimGraph: U.ClaimGraph by value
  referenceScheme: U.ReferenceScheme by value
  editionId
  qualityEvaluationUseDeclarationRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one QualityEvaluationUseDeclaration about the same object version
  selectedEvaluationCharacteristicSpaceRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the same exact U.CharacteristicSpace
  selectedEvaluationPredicate?: CharacteristicSpacePredicate by value
  selectedComparatorSpecRef?: ComparatorSpecRef
  evaluationClaimScopeRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the same exact U.ClaimScope
  resultConsumingUseRef: U.EntityRef, referencing one exact directly governed intended-work, dated-work, or decision object
  resultConsumingUseKindRef: U.KindRef, referencing its exact kind
  resultConsumingUseDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, describing how that work or decision will use the evaluation result
  evaluationPurposeSelection: QualityEvaluationPurposeSelectionValue
  declaredQualityFloorDescriptionRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one declared-quality-floor description
  desiredImprovementAimDescriptionRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one desired-improvement-aim description
  tradeoffProtectionSet: TradeoffProtectionSet@Context by value
  evaluationQualificationWindowDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one EvaluationQualificationWindow description
  nonUseBoundaryDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one non-use-boundary description

    The frame's exact object version, characteristic space, predicate/comparator binding, ClaimScope, and qualification window equal those of its use declaration and expected evidence basis. These bindings make the question replayable; they do not reidentify the space, predicate, comparator, scope, method, or consuming object. A changed binding creates a changed frame edition and requires a newly evaluated result.

    resultConsumingUseRef is not a generic use placeholder. Before occurrence it may resolve to one A.15.2 U.WorkPlan that names the particular intended Work, or to the exact decision question or decision-governing object under its direct pattern. It may resolve to U.Work only when that dated Work already obtains under A.15.1. The frame neither creates the consuming Work or decision nor authorizes it.

    The shortest floor frame names the object version, one QualityEvaluationUseDeclaration, the exact selected characteristic space, applicable predicate and/or comparator, ClaimScope, result-consuming work or decision, purpose floorEvaluation, and the declared floor. The declaration may cite defaults supplied by the governing evaluation pattern for its quality-model descriptions, evidence basis, result form, and qualification window, but defaults do not replace the exact selected space, criterion, scope, or consumer. If the question depends on another edition, source state, comparison set, time window, or declared use, state that window explicitly. For one FPF pattern version under E.21, compactness never permits omitted coordinates, missing ShortRationale, absent PrecisionRestorationProfile, scope narrowing, or a blocker-only substitute result.

    Connect the question, grounds and supported conclusion. State what the evaluation must establish about the object for the declared consuming use. In the expected evidence basis, identify the judgement that connects the selected criterion to the relevant content: for example, whether a Method's conditions permit the proposed action, whether a computation yields the stated result, or whether a source supports the claim made from it. A direct presence or identity check is sufficient when presence or identity is the property being asked about.

    When receiving the result, read its rationale and observations for that connection. Determine whether they support the requested conclusion under the declared criterion, scope and qualification. Retain supported findings and identify the exact missing judgement or inference before claiming more. Obtain that answer through the applicable evaluation, reusing current supported parts and keeping the answer in its existing result. Apply the same connection to an already-scoped direct evaluation; no new QualityEvaluationQuestionFrame is needed.

    These instructions use the frame's existing claimGraph, the declaration's expectedEvaluationEvidenceBasisRef and the declared consuming use. The expected evidence basis describes what must be answered; the obtained grounds belong in the evaluation result.

    The frame does not authorize post-hoc scope replacement. If the requested floor is landing-input, corpus-facing, Stable, release, external-review, or another stated use, the evaluator measures that use. If a different use becomes interesting, open a new QualityEvaluationQuestionFrame; do not report the current request as passed under an easier scope.

    The frame and declaration state the evaluation's intended use. An intended evaluator or planned condition makes neither a current assignment nor Work obtain. When dated evaluation Work is asserted, recover the exact evaluator through A.13 and let A.15.1 independently admit the Work; keep evidence use, typed result binding or direct result relation, and optional result episteme separate. Add F.6 only when the evaluation account expressly consumes precise assignment-bound attribution. An expected result-form description is not the result, and the consuming work or decision does not become current merely because the frame names it.

    Finding and proposal rows

    An actionable finding first identifies where an issue was observed, which exact entity would change, the affected evaluation characteristic or coordinate, the current evaluation result for that characteristic or coordinate when known, the proposed correction, and the closure test. A proposal adds a typed expected evaluation effect, protected trade-offs, and any outside claim together with the subject-pattern locator needed to check that claim independently.

    CandidateImprovementProposalRow@Context <: U.Episteme:
  entityOfConcernRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the exact object version under improvement
  entityOfConcernKindRef: U.KindRef, referencing the exact kind of that object version
  claimGraph: U.ClaimGraph by value
  referenceScheme: U.ReferenceScheme by value
  editionId
  qualityEvaluationQuestionFrameRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one QualityEvaluationQuestionFrame about the same object version
  evaluationClaimScopeRef: U.EntityRef, referencing that frame's exact U.ClaimScope
  reviewLocationDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one description of the observed location in the reviewed object
  correctionTargetRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the exact entity proposed to change
  correctionTargetKindRef: U.KindRef, referencing the exact kind of the correction target
  affectedEvaluationCharacteristicOrCoordinateRef: U.EntityRef, referencing one governed characteristic or evaluation coordinate
  affectedEvaluationCharacteristicOrCoordinateKindRef: U.KindRef, referencing its exact kind
  currentAffectedEvaluationResultRef?: U.EntityRef, referencing the current result value for that characteristic or coordinate
  currentAffectedEvaluationResultKindRef?: U.KindRef, referencing the exact kind of that result value
  expectedSubstantiveEvaluationEffect: ProposalEvaluationEffectValue
  proposedCorrectionDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one correction description
  kindRestorationCheckDisposition: ProposalKindRestorationCheckDispositionValue
  kindRestorationCheckRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one KindRestorationCheck result
  expectedTradeoffRefs[]: U.EpistemeRef, each referencing one expected-trade-off description
  outsideClaimReferences[]?: CandidateImprovementOutsideClaimReference@Context by value
  closureTestRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one closure-test description

CandidateImprovementOutsideClaimReference@Context in CandidateImprovementProposalRow@Context.claimGraph:
  outsideClaimOrBoundaryDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one description of the outside claim or boundary
  outsideValueRef?: U.EntityRef, referencing the exact outside governed value
  outsideValueKindRef?: U.KindRef, referencing the exact kind of that outside value
  outsideRelationSignatureRef?: U.EntityRef, referencing the exact U.Signature of the outside relation
  subjectPatternLocator: U.EntityRef, locating the exact FPF subject-pattern description; the evaluation claim separately cites the defining ClaimGraph
  reconsiderationConditionDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one description of the condition that activates renewed use of that subject pattern
    ImprovementFollowUpHypothesis@Context <: U.Episteme:
  entityOfConcernRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the exact object version expected to change
  entityOfConcernKindRef: U.KindRef, referencing the exact kind of that object version
  claimGraph: U.ClaimGraph by value
  referenceScheme: U.ReferenceScheme by value
  editionId
  qualityEvaluationQuestionFrameRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one QualityEvaluationQuestionFrame about the same object version
  evaluationClaimScopeRef: U.EntityRef, referencing that frame's exact U.ClaimScope
  qualityReviewFindingDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one episteme that describes the exact QualityReviewFindingRow
  proposedNextOperationDescriptionRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one operation description
  proposedNextMethodRef?: U.MethodRef, referencing one U.Method
  expectedEvaluationEffectDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one expected-evaluation-effect description
  testConditionDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one test-condition description

    Exactly one of proposedNextOperationDescriptionRef and proposedNextMethodRef is present. The question frame, proposal row, and follow-up hypothesis preserve the same exact object-version EntityOfConcern and ClaimScope unless a proposal explicitly opens a new frame for a different version or scope. QualityEvaluationQuestionFrame changes edition when the object version, use declaration, selected space, predicate/comparator binding, ClaimScope, consuming work or decision, purpose, floor or aim, trade-off set, qualification window, non-use boundary, claim graph, or reference scheme changes. A proposal row changes edition when its frame, ClaimScope, correction target, affected evaluation coordinate, current result reference, proposed correction, expected effect, trade-offs, outside-claim nodes, closure test, claim graph, or reference scheme changes. A follow-up hypothesis changes edition when its frame, ClaimScope, finding description, proposed operation or method, expected effect, test condition, claim graph, or reference scheme changes. A context label, carrier, viewpoint, grounding record, or serialization change alone changes none of these epistemes.

    ProposalEvaluationEffectValue is the closed local value set repairFloor | raiseTowardExceptional | preventProtectedQualityLoss | classifyOutsideEvaluation | preserveCurrentValue. It identifies the coarse substantive evaluation effect expected from this proposal. It does not duplicate the coordinate-qualified prediction later carried by E.23 ExpectedEvaluationResultChange@Context and does not assert an actual changed result.

    ProposalKindRestorationCheckDispositionValue is triggered | notTriggered | ordinaryProse | alreadySatisfied | blocker. The triggered and blocker states include kindRestorationCheckRef; the other values leave it absent. Current affected-evaluation result ref and kind are both present or both absent; when present, the exact result resolves through the direct evaluation pattern's typed result relation or A.6.1 application binding, and any durable result episteme remains separately governed. The proposal row neither produces nor reidentifies that result. The exact kind recovers whether the named evaluation returned a scale value, status, or another admitted result for that characteristic or coordinate. Outside value ref and kind are paired, and outsideRelationSignatureRef is present when the outside value is a relation. CandidateImprovementOutsideClaimReference@Context is a bounded local ClaimGraph node form, not a U-kind, episteme, relation, or relation-reference episteme. It is constructed inside one proposal row without a back-reference to that row; its node identity is determined by the containing proposal edition and ClaimGraph position.

    reviewLocationDescriptionRef describes where the issue was observed in the reviewed object. correctionTargetRef identifies the exact entity that would change. They are not interchangeable positions. The row is a faithful typed proposal form of QualityReviewFindingRow and one possible member of a CandidateImprovementProposalPortfolio@Context set. It remains a proposal episteme, not a selected repair, plan, work occurrence, actual Transformation, result binding, or proof of improvement.

    For wording, naming, and precision-restoration proposals, proposedCorrectionDescriptionRef states the correction and its intended content effect. Apply [F.19](/generated/patterns/F.19) for the ordinary repair and local revalidation. When the changed FPF-governed expression can alter meaning, KindRestorationCheck states the live object, kind, relation, slot or use position, claim kind, admissible use, and scope before and after the change. If the proposed repair cannot preserve those values and no accepted decision justifies changing them, the row remains blocking.

    Absorption impact values

    Absorption impactMeaning
    coordinateImprovedA named coordinate or status has stronger content evidence after the change.
    floorOnlyClosureA below-floor defect was repaired enough for the floor but not exceptional expression.
    unchangedBecauseAlreadySatisfiedThe suggestion was already satisfied by value, with the exact review locations and the evaluation property they already satisfy named by value.
    tradeoffIntroducedA repair raised one property and damaged another.
    qualityLossDetectedThe applied or proposed change lowers a value or protected quality.
    outsideObjectUnderImprovementEvaluationThe suggestion belongs under another exact evaluation or pattern.
    notAdmissibleForDeclaredUseThe suggestion is rejected for the declared purpose and boundary.

    The absorption result states the changed evaluation result under the object-under-improvement evaluation, not a count of accepted rows.

    OEE and NQD proposal portfolios

    When the object is a candidate, archive or front member, selected set, parity report, refresh report, or declared transformation result, use E.22 to frame the quality question and return proposal rows. Use C.17 for candidate characteristics, C.18 for archive and front relations, C.19 for pool policy, G.5 for selected-set result declaration, G.9 for parity, and G.11 for currentness and refresh. When audience availability is current, use E.17 for a source-backed publication face and return to source and E.24.PUB for the publication occurrence, form, carrier, audience, bounded use, and availability.

    Worked slices

    Floor evaluation. A reviewer is asked whether one pattern is ready for ordinary use. The frame names the pattern version, E.21 characteristic space and floor predicate, the evaluation ClaimScope, the decision that will consume the result, E.21 as the evaluation pattern, purpose floorEvaluation, the declared floor, and the expected E.21 result form. If independence or capability changes admissibility, the declaration states that condition without naming a future performer. The direct E.21 evaluation returns a complete coordinate table with ShortRationale and EvaluationEvidenceBasis, not a narrative "looks fine" and not the frame itself. If replay or reliance asserts dated evaluation Work, recover the exact evaluator through A.13 and admit the Work independently through A.15.1, then name the typed result relation or A.6.1 binding. Add F.6 only when the replay also expressly consumes precise assignment-bound attribution.

    Exceptional improvement. A pattern already passes the floor. The frame asks for substantive non-dominated improvements for named coordinates while protecting usability and related-pattern fit. The result returns proposal rows for content improvements such as missing worked cases, source-currentness carry-through, mature-comparator discharge, deletion of displaced apparatus, or relation cleanup, plus checked no-candidate dispositions for coordinates where no non-dominated content move remains. It does not ask the evaluator to make every coordinate 5.

    Absorption. External review returns many suggestions. The frame asks for absorptionEvaluation. The result says which changes improved coordinates, which were already satisfied, which introduced trade-offs, and which belong outside the evaluation.

    Proposal portfolio. A candidate improvement campaign needs alternatives before editing. The frame asks for candidateImprovementProposalEvaluation. The result returns bounded proposal rows; selection or generation stays with the pattern that defines or constrains that claim and is not decided by the evaluation frame.

    Physical-system proposal. A vibration evaluation of PumpAssembly@Prototype-3 selects the vibration CharacteristicSpace, RMS-vibration predicate and any comparator, one evaluation ClaimScope over the declared operating-point slices, and the design decision that will consume the result. Here the account includes dated test-bench evaluation Work, so the account first recovers the exact evaluator through A.13 and A.15.1 independently identifies the Work, Method, time, and containing System. If this test-bench account also needs the exact assignment under which the evaluator acted, add F.6 through the same obtaining A.13 assignment; missing or failed F.6 leaves the Work and result route intact. An exact application of the declared vibration-evaluation operation returns the finding of excessive RMS vibration at one operating point under its result declaration. The result binding connects that application to the finding. The frame, subject-pattern reference, assignment, expected evidence basis, and result-form description remain separate. The proposal's reviewLocationDescriptionRef points to that evaluation row. Its correctionTargetRef points to ImpellerBladeGeometryDescription@v3, the design episteme that would change; the measurement row is not the correction target. The affected coordinate is RMS vibration. The coarse proposal effect is raiseTowardExceptional, kindRestorationCheckDisposition=notTriggered, and the trade-off set includes efficiency and manufacturability. If the proposal is selected for a repeated loop, E.23 adds a scale-qualified ExpectedEvaluationResultChange@Context. Manufacturing a new impeller remains dated Work under A.15.1 rather than an E.22 result.

    Bias annotation

    This pattern biases FPF toward asking the quality question by value. The bias is useful because unframed review requests often produce plausible but wrong answers.

    The bias is bounded. E.22 does not supply quality values, run repeated improvement, publish selected sets, decide work, or certify project claims.

    Conformance checklist

    CheckPassing condition
    CC-E22-1Name the exact object version, selected CharacteristicSpace, exact predicate and/or admitted comparator, one U.ClaimScope, and the exact work or decision that will consume the result.
    CC-E22-2State purpose, declared floor or improvement aim, protected trade-offs, qualification window, and expected result form.
    CC-E22-3Keep the object-under-improvement evaluation as the source of values and the coordinate set to be evaluated. A description, dashboard, or frame cannot substitute for the selected space, predicate/comparator, actual evaluation, or result.
    CC-E22-4Represent actionable returned work as typed finding or CandidateImprovementProposalRow@Context values with expected substantive evaluation effect, closure test, and the conditionally present KindRestorationCheck. An outside claim cites its subject pattern; E.22 frames the improvement question and does not restate that ontology.
    CC-E22-5For absorption, report quality impact on the changed object, not only applied and not-applied dispositions.
    CC-E22-6State a compact declarative non-use boundary only when an independently grounded reading by a plausible intended reader would turn the result into a different claim or authority. Keep the result on the evaluation question and name only the specific outside claim plus the pattern that defines or constrains it when one is needed; precision-restoration or phrase-apparatus issues belong to the named evaluation profile and F.19, not to a local boundary catalogue.
    CC-E22-7State what became worse when a proposed or applied improvement raises visible values.
    CC-E22-8Use E.23 for repeated improvement after one framed evaluation returns findings or proposals.
    CC-E22-8aDo not frame 5, all-5, or 5-defensible as the work target. Frame below-floor repair separately from optional exceptional-improvement proposals. The optional proposal target is substantive content change, not score proof; allow checked no proposal or stay at current value only when further change would be dominated by apparatus growth, proof theatre, or protected-quality loss.
    CC-E22-9Preserve the object-under-improvement evaluation's required scope, evidence basis, complete coordinate set, rationales, and result form. For an E.21 result, include its compact PrecisionRestorationProfile under E.21:4.3a; checked evidence and coordinate-specific payloads retain their governing requirements.
    CC-E22-10Keep the question frame separate from actual evaluation. An evaluator condition appears in the use declaration only when it changes the question or result admissibility; an intended evaluator identity appears only when identity is itself declared. For actual dated Work, recover the evaluator through A.13 and admit the Work independently through A.15.1. Assignment occurrence and F.6 refs are optional and appear only when the record or receiving use expressly represents precise assignment-bound attribution; their absence or failure does not revoke Work. Keep the application, result relation, result episteme, pattern locator, Method, any independently admitted method description, quality model, evidence-basis and result-form descriptions, evidence use, and result-consuming work or decision distinct.
    CC-E22-11A low value, finding, failed floor, or improvement aim does not establish an actual Problem. Any actual Problem relied on by the consuming use resolves to one current C.22.PFR occurrence with its direct participants and temporal identity.

    Common anti-patterns and repairs

    Anti-patternRepair
    "Review this" prompt. The evaluator infers purpose.Add a QualityEvaluationQuestionFrame with exact object version, space, criterion, ClaimScope, consumer, purpose, and boundary.
    Context-labelled frame. Project, domain, dashboard, cadence, or context label supplies identity or evaluation scope.Identify the frame by its C.2.1 claim content and exact EntityOfConcern; bind the exact U.ClaimScope and other use values separately.
    Floor pass sold as excellence. Readiness is mistaken for exceptional improvement.State exceptionalImprovementEvaluation if wanted.
    Frame replaces result. The question frame names a purpose but returns prose, a two-column value table, or proposal rows without the named evaluation's result form.Complete the missing evaluation judgements and return the named evaluation's declared coordinates, evidence basis, rationales, payload fields, and typed result binding or direct result relation, reusing supported parts under E.22:4.3. If the result asserts dated Work, recover the evaluator through A.13 and apply A.15.1 independently; add F.6 only for an expressly represented precise assignment-bound attribution. If it asserts an A.6.1 application, name the operation bindings. Do not infer any of them from the frame.
    Description performs evaluation. A method description, characteristic-space specification, expected evidence basis, assignment occurrence, or result-form description is treated as evaluation Work or its result.Keep each description and assignment separate. Identify the direct evaluation result; when dated Work is asserted, recover the evaluator System through A.13, apply A.15.1 independently and add F.6 only when the receiving account expressly consumes precise assignment-bound attribution. Keep evidence use and result under their direct patterns.
    Scope laundering. The frame asks one use, but the result answers an easier, local-only, diagnostic, or evaluator-selected use.Obtain the missing judgements under the requested U.ClaimScope, reusing any supported parts that answer it under E.22:4.3. Preserve a result for another use at its actual scope; frame that other use separately if it is now wanted.
    Applied-count absorption. Closure count replaces re-evaluation of the changed object.Re-evaluate the changed object and classify impact.
    Goodharted improvement. Visible values rise while protected qualities worsen, or a 5 target makes the evaluator add apparatus instead of improving content.Frame the expected evaluation effect as a substantive content change, add trade-off protection, reject dominated changes, apply E.13 when a visible value replaces the intended value, and admit no proposal only when checked positions show that no worthwhile content improvement remains.
    Recommendation as decision. A follow-up hypothesis is treated as chosen work.Open the exact decision, work, publication, parity, refresh, evidence, or assurance pattern if that claim is needed.
    Finding as actual Problem. A low coordinate, finding, or floor miss is treated as a Problem occurrence.Keep the evaluation result epistemic; cite C.22.PFR only when its actual-condition and criterion-applicability participants make one ProblematicFor occurrence obtain.
    Lexical repair request. A finding says only "replace this word" or "avoid that wording."State the intended content effect and apply F.19. Add the before/after KindRestorationCheck when the changed expression can alter FPF-governed meaning; leave an unjustified meaning change blocking.

    Consequences

    ConsequenceBenefitCost
    Review requests become typed.Evaluators answer the intended quality question.A complete request names the object and evaluation.
    Exceptional improvement becomes explicit.Reviews can propose non-dominated improvements rather than stopping at floor defects.Each proposal names its protected trade-offs.
    Absorption becomes quality-aware.Follow-up says what improved or worsened.Row discharge alone is not enough.

    Rationale

    There is no neutral generic request when a quality result is wanted. The useful artifact is the framed question: object version, selected characteristic space, predicate and any comparator, one evaluation ClaimScope, consuming work or decision, evaluation pattern, any separately identified semantic Method, purpose, expected evidence basis, expected result form, and boundary. When needed, it also states a question-changing evaluator condition or intended-evaluator identity. The frame makes those bindings inspectable without becoming the pattern, Method, assignment, descriptions, dated evaluation Work, evidence use, result, decision, or project authority.

    SoTA-Echoing

    Practice questionExact source and statusSelected payload and domain limitSource-use decision, changed E.22 locus, qualification, and reopen
    A rubric-level evaluation needs its own reliability check rather than trust in one aggregate judge verdict.Tianjun Pan et al., RubricEval: A Rubric-Level Meta-Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Judges in Instruction Following, arXiv:2603.25133 (2026), and Hongli Zhou et al., Toward Robust LLM-Based Judges: Taxonomic Bias Evaluation and Debiasing Optimization, arXiv:2603.08091 (2026), are current preprints for automated LLM judging.Pan et al. show that fine-grained rubric judging can remain inaccurate and variable; Zhou et al. test a taxonomy of twelve bias types across generative and discriminative judges. These works concern LLM judges and instruction-following benchmarks; they do not validate an FPF evaluation or generalize their numeric results to physical, medical, or organizational evaluation.Adapt — reason: use rubric-level variability and the twelve-bias taxonomy only to require reliability evidence when an automated LLM judge is selected; neither payload supports a general judge verdict. Changed loci: QualityEvaluationUseDeclaration, ExpectedEvaluationEvidenceBasis@Context, and the Floor evaluation and Exceptional improvement slices. Qualification/currentness as of 2026-08-19: the exact cited 2026 preprints apply only to their automated-judge and instruction-following settings. Reopen: a later benchmark or replication changes either payload, or an E.22 use adds, removes, or materially changes its LLM-judge branch.
    Actionable formative feedback distinguishes the desired condition, current performance, and a move that can close the gap.D. Royce Sadler, Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems, Instructional Science 18, 119-144 (1989), DOI 10.1007/BF00117714; John Hattie and Helen Timperley, The Power of Feedback, Review of Educational Research 77(1), 81-112 (2007), DOI 10.3102/003465430298487. Both are retained historical education lineages.Sadler supplies the comparison between a quality standard and current work plus action by the learner; Hattie and Timperley synthesize goal, current progress, and next-step feedback questions. Their classroom evidence does not establish FPF kinds, project authority, or the quality of a proposed repair.Adapt — reason: use the standard/current-gap/action and goal/progress/next-step structures to keep aim, present result, and possible repair distinct; classroom evidence does not validate FPF evaluation. Changed loci: floor and aim bindings in the question frame, proposal/no-proposal result boundaries, and the Absorption slice. Qualification/currentness: these sources remain education lineage for the stated feedback structure, not a current-best cross-domain validation claim. Reopen: current formative-feedback evidence overturns that structure, or E.22 stops using it to change proposal, no-proposal, or absorption action.
    Measurement questions should be derived from an explicit purpose rather than selected first and rationalized later.Victor Basili, Gianluigi Caldiera, and H. Dieter Rombach, The Goal Question Metric Approach, in Encyclopedia of Software Engineering (1994), retained historical lineage; Victor Basili et al., Linking Software Development and Business Strategy Through Measurement, Computer 43(4), 57-65 (2010), DOI 10.1109/MC.2010.108, a later software-organization extension.GQM contributes the purpose-to-question-to-measure direction; GQM+Strategies makes the link to higher-level goals and rationale explicit. Both are software-measurement methods and do not supply E.22's holonic ontology, evaluation values, or cross-domain quality model.Adapt — reason: retain purpose-to-question-to-measure and the explicit strategy/rationale link because they prevent measure-first framing; do not transfer the software method as E.22's ontology or quality model. Changed loci: QualityEvaluationPurposeSelection, the binding order in QualityEvaluationQuestionFrame, and the Physical-system proposal slice. Qualification/currentness: GQM is historical lineage and the 2010 source is a later software-organization extension; both support only this direction of derivation. Reopen: later measurement practice invalidates purpose-first derivation, or E.22 begins selecting evidence or measures before its purpose and question.
    Multi-coordinate improvement needs set-valued alternatives and explicit trade-offs rather than one scalar winner.Xi Lin et al., Quality-Diversity Optimization as Multi-Objective Optimization, arXiv:2602.00478 (2026), current preprint; Haoxiang Qin et al., A survey on Quality-Diversity optimization: Approaches, applications, and challenges, Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 100:102240 (2026), DOI 10.1016/j.swevo.2025.102240, current survey.Lin et al. reformulate QD as a large multi-objective problem and use set-based scalarization; Qin et al. survey high-performing collections over descriptor spaces. These algorithmic results do not assign FPF archive, front, publication, or selection authority.Adapt — reason: use set-valued alternatives and explicit descriptor/coordinate trade-offs, not the QD algorithms or any implied authority, because one scalar winner can hide protected-quality loss. Changed loci: paretoTradeoffEvaluation, TradeoffProtectionSet@Context, CandidateImprovementProposalPortfolio@Context, and the Proposal portfolio and Physical-system proposal slices. Qualification/currentness as of 2026-08-19: the exact cited 2026 preprint and survey apply to QD/MOO optimization. Reopen: current QD/MOO evidence changes the case for set-valued trade-offs, or E.22 begins asserting archive, front, publication, or selection authority.
    Optimizing a measure can damage the intended value through several different mechanisms.Charles Goodhart, Problems of Monetary Management: The U.K. Experience (1975), retained historical monetary-control lineage; Donald T. Campbell, Assessing the Impact of Planned Social Change, Occasional Paper 8 (1976), retained social-indicator lineage; David Manheim and Scott Garrabrant, Categorizing Variants of Goodhart's Law, arXiv:1803.04585 (2018), later taxonomy; Jongwoon Choi, Gary Hecht, and William Tayler, Lost in Translation: The Effects of Incentive Compensation on Strategy Surrogation, The Accounting Review 87(4), 1135-1164 (2012), peer-reviewed experimental evidence.Goodhart concerns control that changes an observed regularity; Campbell concerns corruption pressure on social indicators; Manheim and Garrabrant distinguish several overoptimization mechanisms; Choi et al. show managers treating a measure as the strategic construct. None says that every metric is invalid or supplies the intended value automatically.Adapt — reason: use the distinct proxy-failure mechanisms and observed strategy surrogation to ask what worsened and protect the intended value; reject the inference that every metric is invalid. Changed loci: CC-E22-7, CC-E22-8a, the Goodharted improvement repair, and the E.13 relation. Qualification/currentness: the monetary and social-indicator sources are lineage; the taxonomy and experiment support only the named mechanisms, not a universal anti-measure rule. Reopen: evidence overturns a mechanism used here, or E.13's intended-value and protected-quality test changes.
    Automated-judge mitigation is model-dependent and can itself require a declared guarantee or evidence profile.Sadman Kabir Soumik, Judging the Judges: A Systematic Evaluation of Bias Mitigation Strategies in LLM-as-a-Judge Pipelines, arXiv:2604.23178 (2026), current preprint; Benjamin Feuer, Lucas Rosenblatt, and Oussama Elachqar, Towards Provably Unbiased LLM Judges via Bias-Bounded Evaluation, arXiv:2603.05485 (2026), current preprint.Soumik compares nine mitigations and reports model-dependent effects across four bias types; Feuer et al. define average bias-boundedness for specified judge settings. These results are benchmark- and model-bound and do not make any LLM judge generally unbiased.Adapt — reason: use model dependence and the bounded-guarantee form to require a declared reliability evidence profile and qualification, not to call an LLM judge generally unbiased. Changed loci: ExpectedEvaluationEvidenceBasis@Context, EvaluationQualificationWindow, CC-E22-9, and the Exceptional improvement slice. Qualification/currentness as of 2026-08-19: the exact cited 2026 preprints remain benchmark-, model-, and judge-setting-bound. Reopen: later evaluation establishes materially different mitigation transfer or guarantee conditions, or E.22 changes the evidence profile required for an automated judge.
    OEE and NQD can use proposal-shaped quality pressure without collapsing proposal, candidate retention, and selection.Xi Lin et al., Quality-Diversity Optimization as Multi-Objective Optimization, arXiv:2602.00478 (2026), current preprint; Haoxiang Qin et al., A survey on Quality-Diversity optimization: Approaches, applications, and challenges, Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 100:102240 (2026), DOI 10.1016/j.swevo.2025.102240, current survey.The shared comparison question is how to preserve several high-performing alternatives across declared coordinates or descriptors. The sources do not say that an evaluation proposal is already a generated candidate, archive insertion, front update, or selected result.Adapt — reason: use the collection-over-coordinates payload only to keep an E.22 proposal portfolio distinct from candidate generation, retention, and selection; it supplies no OEE/NQD authority. Changed loci: CandidateImprovementProposalRow@Context, E.22:4.6, the Proposal portfolio slice, and the C.17–C.19/G.5 relation boundary. Qualification/currentness as of 2026-08-19: the same exact 2026 QD sources apply here only as a bounded OEE/NQD proposal-framing comparison. Reopen: current QD evidence changes the collection/selection distinction, or the direct C.17–C.19 or G.5 consumer boundary changes.

    Relations

    PatternRelation
    E.21Supplies pattern-quality values and the complete pattern-quality coordinate set.
    E.9.DASupplies DRR decision-adequacy values and the complete decision-adequacy coordinate set.
    E.2.DASupplies FPF Pillar-adequacy values.
    E.19Supplies admission or refresh review profiles when that is the evaluation.
    E.23Governs repeated improvement after framed evaluations return findings or proposal rows.
    E.13Governs pragmatic utility and proxy-to-value alignment when framed values, visible measures, proposal counts, or all-5 posture are being used as the intended improvement value.
    A.19, A.19.ECS, A.19.CPM, A.2.6Govern the selected CharacteristicSpace, its construction description, predicate/comparator semantics and actual comparison application, and exact U.ClaimScope; E.22 binds their values for one question but does not redefine them.
    A.13, A.15.1, A.2, A.2.1, F.6, A.6.1, C.2.1Define or constrain the exact evaluator, independently admitted evaluation Work, optional local classification and precise assignment-bound attribution, any operation application and result binding, and any durable result episteme. Assignment and F.6 refs are included only when the record or receiving use expressly represents attribution. The direct evaluation pattern defines its typed result relation; E.22 mints no generic evaluation-result or Work-result relation. An ordinary frame may stop at an intended evaluator or planned condition without asserting actual Work.
    A.2.4, A.10, G.11Govern actual evidence use, provenance, and currentness separately from the expected evidence-basis description.
    C.22.PFRGoverns an actual Problem occurrence when the consuming use relies on one; evaluation need, finding, or floor failure alone establishes none.
    E.10, E.10.ROLE, A.6.P, C.2.P, F.18Repair load-bearing wording and names introduced by frames or findings. E.10.ROLE resolves an ambiguous source role before E.22 cites a local system-role kind, assignment occurrence, relation participant, or ordinary non-system meaning.
    C.16, A.17, A.18, C.25Govern characteristics, scales, measurements, and quality bundles.
    C.17, C.18, C.19, G.5, G.9Govern OEE and NQD candidate, archive and front, pool, selected-set, and parity claims; G.11 governs currentness.
    C.11, C.24, A.15, A.20, A.21, A.10, B.3When a quality result is reused beyond evaluation, C.11 governs choice among an available OptionSet; C.24 governs call planning after the action or option is fixed; A.15 governs system-role–Method–Work alignment; A.20 governs internal-constraint validity for its stated transformation-flow subjects and cases; A.21 governs gate decisions; A.10 governs evidence use, provenance, and bounded reliance; B.3 governs an actual named assurance claim. A release claim needs the pattern that defines that claim.

    E.22:End

    Last Updated: 2026-09-10 — upstream FPF commit a87d0ef4 (github.com/ailev/FPF)