FPF Reference

    Basis and coverage of a recovery judgement

    Preface node heading:basis-and-coverage-of-a-recovery-judgement:101287

    What this page is

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

    Methodology

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

    Content

    State whether the judgement rests on an expert walkthrough, an actual reading, or a formal-model estimate, using the distinctions in C.2.8:4.5. An expert can judge recoverability from the public text for the intended reader. An actual response establishes what that reader recovered under those reading conditions. A formal-model estimate retains its stated observer, selected structure and model conditions under C.2.8:4.6.

    Use expert reading for a bounded wording judgement when it resolves the question from the permitted public inputs and no actual response is required. Obtain actual public-only recovery when:

    • the intended conclusion claims that a reader actually recovered the instruction;
    • plausible reconstructions still differ in an action-changing participant, operation, result or condition, and the reader's response can change the repair or use decision;
    • it remains materially uncertain whether the publication supplies the needed instruction or the evaluator supplies it from private knowledge or test-only explanation; or
    • demonstrated misses undermine the sufficiency of the earlier expert reading for the affected instruction family.

    A visible wording defect can be repaired directly. Select any reading still needed for the repaired text and intended conclusion. Give a cold reader the publication, its stated prerequisites and task inputs, withholding private rationale and suggested answers. Preserve the initial recovery before supplying further explanation; qualify subsequent source returns or help under C.2.8:4.3.

    Limit a recovery conclusion to the natural text units and relations examined under its actual evidence basis. A whole-publication conclusion needs coverage of the whole publication, including relations needed to read its parts together. Successful application probes cover their tested uses; they leave unexamined text outside that result. A whole expert reading combined with local actual readings retains that mixed basis. Reuse a result for the same or explicitly unaffected text, recovery question, reader preparation, access, assistance and budget when those conditions still apply. A local revalidation by a reader familiar with the earlier wording retains that qualification.

    State a material limit in the receiving judgement or result already needed by the work. When a required reading is unavailable, identify the missing basis and leave only the dependent conclusion open. Correct recovery of what the text asserts and the subject-matter warrant or practical adequacy of that assertion remain separate questions under C.2.8.

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