#Domain Principle Framework Package-Adequacy Evaluation CharacteristicSpace

E.4.DPF.DA · Stable · Evaluation (E) · Normative unless marked informative. · 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.

Type: Evaluation (E) Status: Stable Normativity: Normative unless marked informative.

Use this pattern when a framework author, reviewer, steward, or AI agent must decide whether one Domain Principle Framework or Local Practice Framework package is good enough for one declared domain or local use.

#Relations

#Content

#Problem frame

Use this pattern when a framework author, reviewer, steward, or AI agent must decide whether one Domain Principle Framework or Local Practice Framework package is good enough for one declared domain or local use.

Primary EntityOfConcern: one exact authored framework episteme edition checked for one declared package use. Name the visible publication form, presentation carrier, access-facing presentation carrier, or access route being inspected without turning it into the framework edition or package architecture. The first useful result is one aggregate C.2.1 result episteme with all D1–D12 claims, its local status, and the smallest repair or explicit no-proposal disposition. The Solution gives the additional assurance detail only when a receiving use relies on it.

Use E.4.DPF.DA, rather than E.2.DA, for ordinary DPF package evaluation. E.2.DA asks whether FPF-level objects realize the FPF Pillars for broad FPF use; a DPF package must serve one declared domain or local use frame while depending on FPF Core without redefining it. Recover that frame through effective ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, reader, intended use, qualification window, and only when interpretation depends on it an independently selected BoundedModelUseStructure. Add a non-use boundary only for a named competing use or plausible observed confusion. Use E.2.DA when the package changes or claims FPF-level Pillar adequacy.

Use E.21 for the quality of individual DPF pattern bodies. Use this pattern for the package as a whole: domain scope, source basis, Core dependency, the framework publication form borne by its selected carrier, pattern-set coverage, relation and edition records, local publication, evaluation route, refresh route, and adoption utility.

#Problem

DPF packages will often be produced quickly from source material, prompts, external literature, local practice, or generated candidates. Some are good enough as seeds; some can answer a domain question for an AI agent; some have publication carriers ready for public use; some are only source summaries wearing pattern headings.

Without a DPF-specific adequacy evaluation, teams tend to use one of three wrong substitutes:

• they apply E.2.DA and ask whether the package is "FPF-like in general", even though the package is meant for one domain;
• they average E.21 scores of individual patterns and miss package-level failures such as missing source packs, broken dependency direction, poor first entry, or stale edition records;
• they inspect section presence and conclude that an all-in-one carrier, map, or seed package is adequate because it has patterns, a table of contents, a readme, a preface, maps, and sources.

The result is adoption risk. A reader may get a fluent local framework that does not state its domain boundary, does not preserve rival source traditions, duplicates FPF Core ontology, hides relation functions, has no refresh route, or cannot tell a practitioner what typical problem is live, which known failure mode to avoid, and which SoTA solution move to try first.

#Forces

#Solution

Start here with one ordinary assessment route:

1. Pin the exact authored framework episteme edition and declared package use, then name the effective ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, working reader, intended use, qualification window, evidence basis, floor, and any independently grounded non-use boundary that changes the result.
2. Run PFM1, PFM1a, and PFM2–PFM12 where applicable and give each one a pass, fail, or not-applicable-with-reason disposition.
3. Judge every D1–D12 coordinate with one ordinal value, short rationale, exact evidence locus, and smallest repair or explicit no-proposal disposition.
4. Constitute one aggregate C.2.1 result episteme carrying those coordinate claims, protected trade-offs, the local DPFPackageAdequacyStatus, and the first repair or no-proposal disposition.
5. State the next usable action, stop or repair, and reopen condition, then name any separate receiving use such as E.19 admission or refresh, assurance, publication, F.10 status use, or E.23 repair. Add a non-use statement only when a plausible reader has an independently grounded reason to confuse those uses.

The first useful result is that aggregate episteme and its local status for the declared use. Stop with seedOnly or repairBeforeDPFUse when the package or evidence does not support the declared floor; the route still produces a useful bounded result and next repair.

For a new or substantially revised DPF, add four focused questions:

• For this current framework edition, do the selected pattern sets and relied-on external results actually work together in one first use and one representative case across problem families well enough to make good on the public field promise? Record the answer as D12DomainProblemFamilyCoverageAdequacy; a pattern count or evidence that an earlier review occurred is not evidence.
• Where the sources describe practice architecture, does the package preserve both genuine first-then flow and genuine simultaneous bounded contribution? Use a completed C.32.MWA result as evidence when several structures need reconciliation; do not repeat that Method's actions here. Use an E.23.CDI result only when capability development changes the package claim.
• For the named first use, are all required patterns from this DPF present? For every relied-on external result, are its identity, direct kind, supplying product and edition or current state, receiving use, discovery route, material currentness or availability, and externality explicit? For each important source-backed claim, can a reviewer find the source and tell whether the evidence supports, suggests, or only motivates it?
• When the declared use includes a public presentation carrier, does that carrier bear the framework publication form defined by E.11.PFP while keeping its DPF-specific body and references under E.4.DPF? Keep PFM1 responsible for practitioner entry and navigation; use PFM12 only for the remaining common-form and edition-projection questions. Form conformance does not prove field coverage or package adequacy.

These questions test the package and its evidence. They do not prescribe another Method to perform or turn use of a Method result into an edition dependency.

Assurance and object boundary after the ordinary route. Evaluate one exact authored framework episteme edition for one declared package use through a DPF-specific adequacy characteristic space. The evaluation is derived from the shape of E.2.DA, but it is not the FPF Pillar evaluation. It asks whether the selected framework edition, together with its separate package architecture, pattern set, source basis, architecture decisions, relation records, edition dependencies, publication and access uses, quality evidence, and refresh route, realizes FPF-grounded domain value for one declared use frame.

Keep the evaluation objects separate:

1. the exact authored framework episteme edition of concern, identified under C.2.1;
2. its package architecture, E.4.PFAD architecture decisions, E.4.PFR relation records and edition dependencies, selected pattern set, source-use results, publication units and occurrences, publication forms, presentation carriers, access-facing presentation carriers, access routes, and actual access or use relations;
3. the effective U.ReferenceScheme, A.2.6 ClaimScope, working reader, intended use, qualification window, any independently grounded non-use boundary, and an optional independently selected BoundedModelUseStructure only when its organization changes interpretation;
4. this E.4.DPF.DA characteristic space and evaluation specification;
5. one exact semantic package-adequacy-evaluation U.Method;
6. an ordinary evaluator action left outside Work admission; or, when dated assessment U.Work is asserted, references to the exact actual evaluator System recovered through A.13 and one independently valid A.15.1 Work account; only when the result expressly represents precise assignment-bound attribution, references to the same obtaining A.13 assignment and applicable F.6 relation occurrences; and, independently, an A.6.1 application only when the assessment uses one exact operation declared by a separately admitted Mechanism and the receiving claim depends on its bindings;
7. twelve ordinal coordinate-result claims about the same exact framework edition;
8. one aggregate C.2.1 result episteme carrying those claims, the local package-adequacy status, protected trade-offs, first repair or no-proposal disposition, reopen condition, and any grounded non-use boundary;
9. witnesses and A.10 evidence-use relations, plus an optional evaluation record that packages references without performing the assessment or granting authority; and
10. any F.10 status use, E.19 admission or refresh decision, assurance, publication, later improvement Work, and changed framework edition.

Use this compact input/action/result separation:

DPFPackageAdequacyEvaluationConfiguration:
  FrameworkEpistemeEditionOfConcernRef: <one exact authored U.Episteme>
  DeclaredVisiblePackageFormOrUse: <plain description of the exact visible form or use being evaluated; not a U-kind>
  PackageArchitectureRefs:
  FPFCoreEditionRef:
  DependencyAndEditionRefs:
  SourceBasisRefs:
  PFADDecisionRefs:
  PatternSetRefs:
  RelationRecordRefs:
  SelectedPublicationUnitRefs:
  PublicationOccurrenceRefs:
  PublicationFormRefs:
  PresentationCarrierRefs: <exact U.PresentationCarrier refs that bear the selected publication forms>
  AccessFacingPresentationCarrierRefs: <exact U.PresentationCarrier refs that bear access-facing forms>
  AccessRouteRefs: <services, endpoints, retrieval or search routes, or assistant integrations>
  ActualAccessOrUseRelationRefs:
  QualityEvidenceRefs:
  RefreshRefs:
  EffectiveReferenceScheme:
  ClaimScope:
  WorkingReaderOrOperatorScope:
  IntendedUse:
  NonUseBoundary?: <only for a named competing use or plausible observed confusion that changes this result>
  QualificationWindow:
  ModelUseStructureRef?: <only when one selected BoundedModelUseStructure changes interpretation>
  DPFPackageAdequacyCharacteristicSpaceRef: <exact A.19 characteristic space>
  DPFPackageAdequacyEvaluationSpecificationRef: <this E.4.DPF.DA edition>
  SemanticDPFPackageAdequacyEvaluationMethodRef: <exact U.Method>
  EvaluationEvidenceBasis:
  DeclaredFloor:
  EvaluationConfigurationRef:
  OrdinaryEvaluatorActionDescription?: <for a judgement or action left outside Work admission>
  MechanismOperationApplicationRef?: <one exact A.6.1 application only when the assessment
    actually uses an operation declared by a separately admitted U.Mechanism and the receiving
    claim depends on its actual input and result bindings>
  AssessmentWorkAdmission?: <omit for an ordinary judgement or action not admitted as U.Work;
    when present, cite the exact A.13 actual-performer basis and independently valid A.15.1 Work account rather than redeclaring them; add assignment-bound attribution references only when this result expressly represents that attribution>
    AssessmentWorkAccountRef: <one independently valid A.15.1 Work account>
    AssessmentWorkRef: <the dated U.Work used by this result>
    EvaluatorSystemRef: <the exact actual evaluator U.System already recovered through A.13>
    PerformedUnderAssignmentRefs?: <the applicable obtaining F.6 relation occurrences through the same A.13 assignment, only when this result expressly represents precise assignment-bound attribution; omit otherwise; missing or failed F.6 leaves the Work account intact>
DPFPackageAdequacyResultEpisteme:
  EntityOfConcern: <same exact FrameworkEpistemeEditionOfConcernRef>
  EffectiveReferenceScheme:
  ClaimGraph:
    ClaimScope:
    WorkingReaderOrOperatorScope:
    IntendedUse:
    NonUseBoundary?: <same conditional boundary when present>
    QualificationWindow:
    CoordinateResultClaims: <all D1..D12 values, rationales, evidence loci, repairs/no-proposals>
    ProtectedTradeoffSet:
    DPFPackageAdequacyStatus: <local result value>
    FirstRepairOrNoProposalDisposition:
    ReopenCondition:
  AssessmentAccountRef:
  ResultWitnessRefs:
  ResultEvidenceUseRefs:
DPFPackageAdequacyEvaluationRecord: <optional packaging of configuration, assessment account,
  result, witnesses/evidence use, reopen refs, and any grounded non-use boundary>

These names are local record and claim shapes, not new U-kinds. DeclaredVisiblePackageFormOrUse is open plain wording for the exact form or use being checked; it neither types nor identifies the framework or package. The separately typed reference fields keep publication units, forms, U.PresentationCarrier values, access routes, and actual access or use relations distinct. If the visible material has no independently admitted single package entity, do not make a file set or list into one: keep the exact framework episteme edition as EntityOfConcern and cite its package architecture, records, contents, publication and access relations, forms, carriers, and routes separately in the configuration and evidence basis. A file boundary, manifest, directory, table order, publication, carrier, callable service, or endpoint establishes neither package architecture nor membership.

The characteristic table and this specification describe how to evaluate; the semantic Method, evaluator action, dated Work, A.6.1 application, and result keep their own identities. A practitioner may make an ordinary package-adequacy judgement without classifying it as U.Work or asserting an A.6.1 application. Such an application exists here only when one exact operation declared by a separately admitted Mechanism is actually used and the receiving claim depends on its bindings; Work admission neither creates nor requires it. If the account instead claims dated assessment Work, recover the exact actual evaluator System through A.13 and cite one independently valid A.15.1 Work account. Only when the result expressly represents precise assignment-bound attribution does it also cite the same obtaining A.13 assignment and applicable F.6 relation occurrences. F.6 identifies neither assignment nor performer, and missing or failed F.6 leaves the Work intact. The evaluator System acts. A local evaluator system-role classification is an optional neighboring claim. The local account exposes assignment or F.6 references only for that attribution branch. Constitute the coordinate claims and aggregate result under §4.3, and establish each later receiving use through its own relation under §4.5.

Each coordinate value is an ordinal content-evaluation quality ascription about the same exact framework episteme edition under the declared ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, use, and qualification window. It is not a U.Measure, measurement output, average, vote, maturity stage, or status use. The aggregate result episteme has its own C.2.1 identity; empirical grounding, witness presence, evidence use, publication, and evaluator identity remain neighboring relations or objects rather than identity slots.

#Ordinal scale

Default floor is 4 for public, teaching, enterprise, operational, or reliance-bearing DPF use. A fast seed or exploratory prompt output may use floor 3 only when its limits, missing evidence, next repair, and reopen condition are explicit.

#Required coordinates

Every E.4.DPF.DA result includes every coordinate below, including a result for a seed: assign the value that the seed earns. A bounded diagnostic may borrow selected questions while stating its limited scope; it does not claim an E.4.DPF.DA result or local status.

In this pattern, known failure modes means beginner mistakes and experienced-practitioner failures caused by stale, local-only, or non-SoTA practice. Do not narrow the check to novice errors only.

#Result row shape

The aggregate E.4.DPF.DA result episteme carries twelve coordinate-result claims and may present them with this table shape:

For values 1..4, explain why the lower adjacent value would understate the evidence and the higher adjacent value would overstate it. For 0, explain why 1 would overstate the evidence and what would raise the value or reopen it. For 5, explain why 4 would understate the evidence and what would lower the value or reopen it.

Each row is one ordinal content-evaluation quality ascription about the same exact framework episteme edition and keeps recoverable the effective ReferenceScheme, characteristic, scale value, evaluation rule or probe, ClaimScope/use/window, assessment account and any asserted Mechanism-operation application, short rationale, evidence locus, and repair or no-proposal. A prose verdict, checklist-count result, table without evidence loci, average of E.21 pattern values, favorable status label, or table detached from an aggregate C.2.1 result episteme is only assessment material. None is a U.Measure, measurement output, performed assessment, admission, or authority.

#DPF-wide package-form checks

Run this subpass when the declared use depends on an all-in-one DPF publication carrier, selected-host set, card set, skill-pack or index carrier, returned response artifact, MCP or other service route, retrieval or search route, assistant integration, or another reader-facing form. Inspect the exact publication form and U.PresentationCarrier that bears it, and inspect any service or route separately; do not substitute editable sources, a manifest, or a successful build run. These checks do not replace the twelve coordinates; they supply package-level evidence mainly for D1, D2, D4, D5, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, and D12.

When the declared package use includes accepted-source integration or continuity with a predecessor publication, use a current E.4.PFIP conclusion as evidence for the affected coordinates. Keep the PFIP conclusion and the package-adequacy result separate: the first reports publication integration or continuity, and the second judges package adequacy for the declared use.

PFM1 owns practitioner entry, navigation, and the order in which readers meet the ToC, Readme, and Preface. PFM1a owns the product-native key/form declaration, the explicit examples-not-coverage boundary, and the content judgement that a mantra materially improves each selected cross-pattern card while a plausible direct example remains sufficient without one. PFM12 owns only the remaining common-form and edition-projection agreement. If one observation bears on PFM1, PFM7, or PFM12, record it once, point every affected disposition to the same evidence and repair, and lower an affected coordinate only once for that defect. Give the checks different dispositions only when they discriminate different defects with different repair actions.

A failure in this subpass lowers the affected coordinate even when individual pattern bodies pass E.21. Repair the package carrier, relation record, first-entry route, dependency record, or support-map placement; do not copy the package-form proof into pattern bodies.

#Evidence basis and where to check it

Use these sources and patterns instead of expanding this pattern into a package bureaucracy:

When a coordinate is below floor, return a finding or repair proposal. When a coordinate is at 4 and improvement is requested, search for a substantive non-dominated improvement. Do not raise a value by adding proof apparatus, more maps, more citations, or quality-status prose unless the package becomes easier to use, more source-grounded, more accurately bounded, or more refreshable.

#Local result status and receiving-use boundary

DPFPackageAdequacyStatus is a local admissible-use claim carried by the aggregate result episteme. It reports the package-adequacy evaluation result for the declared scope. A receiving process may use it for an F.10 status use, E.19 admission or refresh decision, assurance, publication, work authorization, or improvement Work only through that use's own exact relation and decision rule.

#Archetypal Grounding

Tell: A personal-development DPF is generated in one short run. It may have useful principles and pattern seeds. The evaluator can make an ordinary package-adequacy judgement without asserting U.Work. If a dated evaluation is instead admitted as Work, recover the exact actual evaluator System through A.13 and cite one independently valid A.15.1 Work account. Add the same obtaining A.13 assignment and applicable F.6 relation occurrences only when this result expressly represents precise assignment-bound attribution; F.6 identifies neither assignment nor performer, and missing or failed F.6 leaves the Work intact. Separately cite an A.6.1 application only if the evaluation actually uses one exact operation declared by a separately admitted Mechanism and the result depends on its bindings; Work admission does not supply that application. The aggregate C.2.1 result can then state local status seedOnly, with high coordinate claims for first-entry utility and low claims for source currentness, heterogeneous probes, relation records, or refresh. The prompt output, evaluator action, any Work, any attribution, any Mechanism-operation application, result episteme, and local status remain distinct. That status is an honest package-use result and next repair route; it does not itself admit the package.

Show: A domain DPF all-in-one publication carrier contains domain patterns, a source-use map, a Core-bridge map, relation records, and heterogeneous acceptance cases for several user situations. E.4.DPF.DA asks whether those cases actually force the pattern set to solve different domain problems, whether source rows changed pattern obligations, whether maps are reachable during work, and whether the package's local evaluation pattern can feed E.22 and E.23 without becoming a hidden Core dependency.

Show: A proposed systems-management DPF promises help with service launch, cross-team coordination, incident response, and feedback-based improvement. D12 checks whether the selected pattern sets and their actual relations serve all four problem families, whether one service-launch case needs patterns from more than one set, what remains omitted, and where later authors return to the sources. One source describes a genuine first-then incident flow; another describes monitoring, coordination, and resource provision contributing at the same time. The evaluation preserves both readings. A completed C.32.MWA result may supply that evidence, but the evaluator neither repeats the Method's actions nor treats use of its result as an edition dependency. The named first use must include every required pattern from this DPF. For each relied-on external result, the assessment names its actual kind and supplying product, the receiving use and discovery route, material currentness or availability, and the fact that it remains external. PFM11 then checks whether the carrier tells readers what it exposes and omits. PFM1 checks practitioner entry and navigation; PFM12 checks only the remaining common-form and edition-projection agreement. A shared observation and repair are recorded once. None of these form checks substitutes for D12.

Show: A hydroponic-cucumber DPF has excellent crop-control sources but no relation records and no first-entry carrier. E.21 may find that individual crop patterns are good, but D5PackageFormLayeringAndRelationAdequacy and D2DidacticEntryAndAdoptionAdequacy stay below floor until relation records and first-use routes exist.

Near miss: A DPF all-in-one publication carrier has a huge map before the pattern bodies. The map is correct but cold readers do not know when to open it. D2 and D5 fall unless pattern relations, low-value repair actions, or first-entry text route readers into the map from a real work trigger.

Near miss: A DPF has polished readme and Preface prose, but neither says what selected domain structure the publication/access expression exposes, what it deliberately coarsens or abstracts, or where a reader returns for fuller source and pattern detail. If the carrier is based on an architecture description, view, model, or graph, it also hides the fact that the intermediate source already selected and coarsened structure on the route source structures -> architecture -> architecture description or view -> publication/access expression. D1, D2, D5, D7, D8, and D11 fall because the carrier may be pleasant but its structure-capture claim is not inspectable.

#Whole-account calibration: missing condition, false relation, and expert recovery

A constructed observation-planning profile offers three contributions: P observes current representative performance, U examines adaptation to unfamiliar work, and D examines delayed performance under recorded practice and support conditions. They answer different questions. A qualified earlier observation may supply an input to another question, but the three contributions are not mandatory stages.

The promised first use is to select a supported observation set under the actual common resource condition, explain how the contributions relate, and find a direct return for a narrower question. Each activity requires seven observer-hours that cannot be shared. Individual and pair feasibility is stipulated. The task denominator comes from that promised planning result, including the common resource limit; it is not the list of headings in the profile account.

Three accounts present the same substantive headings and direct source returns. A is compact but omits the common resource limit. B supplies the eighteen-hour limit and explains its whole-combination consequence. C is more expansive but retains A's omission. The useful comparison concerns what the reader can decide from the available account.

In preserved prepared-agent responses, separate cold readers of A, B, and C returned these first and changed-condition results without an intervening corrective hint. They contributed arithmetic and ordinary logic from their own preparation and found the public source returns. A/C readers did not fail to understand a supplied relation: the decisive common fact was absent. The bounded result therefore supports the omission diagnosis, useful direct entries, and changed-condition planning. It supplies no human learning, reading-time, or cognitive-load comparison.

A separate contrast holds the facts fixed: eighteen available hours, seven non-shareable hours per activity, and individual and pair feasibility. Two defective accounts now state that feasible pairs suffice to promise all three. This is a false relation rather than a missing fact. The adequate B account stays unchanged.

Fresh prepared readers rejected the false conclusion and returned 21 > 18 and 14 ≤ 18, explicitly supplying the correcting inference from prior knowledge. Their numerical answers match the adequate-account reader's answer, but the material contributions differ: B supplies the valid whole-set relation; the defective accounts supply a relation their readers must correct. Inspecting the answer alone would hide that defect. The reader's source-use explanation, checked against the actual account, makes it visible. This is expert recovery despite a false explanation, not evidence that the explanation is adequate for a less-prepared audience.

Use this calibration with the existing questions by value:

• D2 asks whether the reader can reach the promised first result from the public account and its usable returns.
• D7 asks whether the account changes the actual planning decision or yields the precise missing input or repair.
• D8 asks what the changed condition and contrasting failures reveal within the tested breadth.
• D12 asks whether the selected contributions really work together for the public promise, including common constraints and important omissions.

These are bounded diagnostic contributions, not a complete D1–D12 evaluation or a local package status. A complete evaluation still follows this pattern's specification. The example neither adds a coordinate nor fixes a universal number of accounts, tasks, or readers. Its professional reference use requires a usable explanation of the combination; it does not require the framework to become an instructional course or depend on the particular domain profile used to illustrate it.

#Bias-Annotation

Scope: Limited to evaluating one exact FPF-grounded DPF or LPF edition for one declared package use. It is not a whole-FPF evaluation, a universal product score, an admission decision, or a publication template.

The first recurring drift is whole-FPF overreach: a DPF package is judged as if it had to cover every domain. Declare one domain or local setting and evaluate adequacy for that setting.

The second recurring drift is local excellence laundering: good-looking patterns, a polished monolith, or generated fluency hides missing source, relation, edition, and refresh structures. Evaluate the package coordinates, not only pattern bodies.

The third recurring drift is quality-proof leakage: evaluation results, review status, or package-architecture development evidence are copied into user-facing pattern prose. Move that evidence to this evaluation's result, E.21, E.19, E.11, I.2, or the applicable publication-evidence locus, and keep the user-facing move, boundary, and architectural reasons needed to understand, select, combine, or adapt the pattern in its body.

The fourth recurring drift is invisible carrier narration: the package is presented as a transparent list of principles, so nobody asks which domain structures were selected, coarsened, abstracted, omitted, or already transformed through source structures -> architecture -> architecture description or view -> publication/access expression before the publication carrier was written. Make the Readme, Preface, or access front provide a short carrier structure-account and check it through PFM11.

The fifth recurring drift is assurance by duplication: the evaluation copies the action sequence of C.32.MWA or E.23.CDI and treats completion as package proof. Use the completed result only where it bears on a named coordinate, then run the package's own probes.

#Conformance Checklist

#Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

#Consequences

The pattern adds one package-level evaluation on top of individual pattern checks. The cost is worthwhile when DPF packages become reusable across domains, enterprises, AI-agent prompt packs, teaching materials, or local practice frameworks.

It also prevents a common false choice. A DPF seed can be useful without pretending to be public-ready, and a public-ready package can remain domain-bounded without pretending to be FPF Core. D12 adds one field-coverage judgement and PFM12 one incremental publication-form check. Neither starts a second evaluation pass, copies another Method's steps, or charges a PFM1 observation twice.

#Rationale

FPF needed E.2.DA because a local edit can improve one pattern while harming the whole language. DPF packages need the analogous but narrower instrument: a package can have good patterns while failing as a domain framework. Domain source grounding, relation architecture, first-entry adoption, package publication, and refresh are package-level effects.

The coordinate set mirrors the spirit of the FPF Pillars but changes the adequacy question. FPF asks whether the whole framework remains broadly first-principle and cross-domain. A DPF asks whether one bounded domain or local framework is strong enough for its declared use while preserving dependency on FPF Core and a route back to its domain sources. D12 makes that field-scale question explicit; the sequence-versus-simultaneity architecture probe prevents a source diagram or chapter order from supplying the answer by appearance.

#SoTA-Echoing

The comparisons below apply the single canonical SoTA contract in E.8:11 to package evaluation. Source status, date, and prevalence remain replay information and cannot raise an adequacy result.

Currentness checks remain separate from adequacy values. G.11 reopens only the affected comparison, coordinate, case, or boundary when changed evidence can alter the answer; a new edition, current catalogue entry, maintained tool, or recent paper alone changes no value.

#Relations

• Builds on: A.19.ECS for evaluation characteristic-space construction.
• Specializes by object: E.2.DA supplies the adjacent form for complete multi-coordinate adequacy evaluation, but this pattern changes the evaluated object from FPF-level object to DPF package edition.
• Coordinates with: E.4 for framework family; the exact E.4.DPF authoring U.Method and MethodDescription; E.4.PFAD for architecture decisions; E.4.PFR for relation records and edition dependencies; and the separate package architecture. Their coordination list and document order identify neither the authoring Method nor the evaluation Method.
• Coordinates with: C.2.1 for framework and result episteme identity and the effective ReferenceScheme; A.2.6 for ClaimScope; A.1.1 and A.22 only for an interpretation-changing selected model-use structure; A.3.1 and A.3.2 for the semantic evaluation Method and its description; A.13 for the exact actual evaluator and A.15.1 for one independently valid Work account when dated assessment Work is asserted; A.2.1 and F.6 only when the result expressly represents precise assignment-bound attribution through that same obtaining A.13 assignment; A.6.1 only for an actual application of an operation declared by a separately admitted Mechanism and its bindings; A.10 for evidence use; and G.2 and G.11 for source packs, source currentness, and refresh.
• Coordinates with: E.21, E.19, E.22, and E.23 for individual pattern quality, admission review, evaluation framing, and repeated improvement.
• Uses: F.19 for precise plain-language checks and ordinary wording repair; E.10 for cues and unresolved meaning routes.
• Coordinates with: E.24.PUB for publication occurrence, form, and presentation carrier; E.11.PFP for the common framework publication form; E.4.PFIP only for a separate accepted-source integration or predecessor-continuity conclusion; and E.11, E.17, F.18, C.33, C.34, and C.35 for first entry, publication or access use, naming, preservation, correspondence, and generated- or discovered-result admission to an intended architecture use.
• Coordinates with: B.1.5, A.22, A.22.CGUS, and C.30.AD for the sequence-versus-simultaneity architecture probe; use a completed C.32.MWA result when several practice structures need reconciliation and an E.23.CDI result only when capability development changes a named coordinate.
• Coordinates with: E.2.DA only when a DPF package change claims FPF-level Pillar adequacy or proposes Core amendment effects.

#E.4.DPF.DA:End

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