#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. The visible package may be a DPF seed, selected pattern host set, all-in-one publication carrier, card set, skill pack, MCP-backed access service, source-pack-backed pattern family, enterprise local practice framework edition, or a mixed form. The evaluation configuration separately pins the package architecture, selected pattern set, source basis, architecture decisions, relation records, edition dependencies, publication occurrences/forms/carriers, access carriers and uses, quality evidence, and refresh route used for that package claim. The characteristic space/specification, semantic evaluation Method, evaluator assignment, dated assessment Work/application, eleven coordinate claims, aggregate result episteme, witnesses/evidence use, optional record, local status, external admission/status use, and later repair remain different objects. The first useful result is the aggregate C.2.1 result episteme; its coordinate table is one presentation of the claims, not the evaluation object or performed assessment.

Do not use E.2.DA directly as the ordinary DPF package evaluation. E.2.DA asks whether FPF-level objects realize the FPF Pillars for broad FPF use. A DPF package has a narrower burden: it 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, use, non-use, qualification window, and only when interpretation depends on it an independently selected BoundedModelUseStructure. Use E.2.DA only when the DPF 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, DPF-wide publication-carrier form, 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 are public-ready publication carriers; 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 know 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, non-use boundary, qualification window, evidence basis, and floor.
2. Run PFM1–PFM11 where applicable and give each one a pass, fail, or not-applicable-with-reason disposition.
3. Judge every D1–D11 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 result's non-use and reopen condition, then name any separately governed receiving route to E.19 admission or refresh, assurance, publication, F.10 status use, or E.23 repair. None follows merely from a favorable value or filled table.

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.

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 separately governed package architecture, pattern set, source basis, architecture decisions, relation records, edition dependencies, publication/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 occurrences, publication forms, presentation carriers, access carriers, and access uses;
3. the effective U.ReferenceScheme, A.2.6 ClaimScope, working reader, intended use, non-use boundary, qualification window, and 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. the evaluator U.System, obtaining U.RoleAssignment, dated assessment U.Work, enacted Method, and exact A.6.1 application/bindings;
7. eleven 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, non-use, and reopen condition;
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/application/result separation:

DPFPackageAdequacyEvaluationConfiguration:
  FrameworkEpistemeEditionOfConcernRef: <one exact authored U.Episteme>
  PackageKindClaim: <domain-principle-framework | local-practice-framework | seed |
    selected-host-set | all-in-one-publication-carrier | card-set | skill-pack |
    mcp-backed-access-service | source-pack-backed-pattern-family |
    enterprise-local-practice-framework-edition | mixed>
  PackageArchitectureRefs:
  FPFCoreEditionRef:
  DependencyAndEditionRefs:
  SourceBasisRefs:
  PFADDecisionRefs:
  PatternSetRefs:
  RelationRecordRefs:
  PublicationOccurrenceRefs:
  PublicationFormRefs:
  PresentationCarrierRefs:
  AccessCarrierRefs:
  AccessUseRefs:
  QualityEvidenceRefs:
  RefreshRefs:
  EffectiveReferenceScheme:
  ClaimScope:
  WorkingReaderOrOperatorScope:
  IntendedUse:
  NonUseBoundary:
  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:

DPFPackageAdequacyAssessmentApplication:
  AssessmentWorkRef: <dated U.Work>
  EvaluatorSystemRef: <exact U.System>
  EvaluatorRoleAssignmentRef: <exact obtaining U.RoleAssignment>
  EnactedMethodRef: <same semantic evaluation Method>
  A6_1ApplicationAndBindingRefs: <exact application, configuration and checked-object inputs,
    coordinate-result outputs, and aggregate-result output>
  EvaluationConfigurationRef:

DPFPackageAdequacyResultEpisteme:
  EntityOfConcern: <same exact FrameworkEpistemeEditionOfConcernRef>
  EffectiveReferenceScheme:
  ClaimGraph:
    ClaimScope:
    WorkingReaderOrOperatorScope:
    IntendedUse:
    NonUseBoundary:
    QualificationWindow:
    CoordinateResultClaims: <all D1..D11 values, rationales, evidence loci, repairs/no-proposals>
    ProtectedTradeoffSet:
    DPFPackageAdequacyStatus: <local result value>
    FirstRepairOrNoProposalDisposition:
    ReopenCondition:
  AssessmentApplicationRef:
  ResultWitnessRefs:
  ResultEvidenceUseRefs:
DPFPackageAdequacyEvaluationRecord: <optional packaging of configuration, application/work,
  result, witnesses/evidence use, non-use, and reopen refs only>

These names are local record and claim shapes, not new U-kinds. PackageKindClaim classifies the declared evaluation use; it does not identify the framework or package. If the visible package 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, publications, forms, carriers, and access uses separately in the configuration and evidence basis. A file boundary, manifest, directory, table order, publication, carrier, or callable endpoint establishes neither package architecture nor membership.

The characteristic table and this specification describe how to evaluate; neither is the semantic Method, assessment Work, application, or result. Dated evaluator Work enacts the exact Method and uses this specification through its A.6.1 application/bindings. A favorable table row, witness, optional record, or local status supplies no Work, value, admission, assurance, or authority by itself.

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 non-use, missing evidence, and next repair are explicit.

#Required coordinates

Every E.4.DPF.DA run evaluates every coordinate below. Do not drop a coordinate because the package is "only a seed"; assign the value that the seed earns.

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 eleven coordinate-result claims and may present them with this table shape:

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 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 for any all-in-one DPF publication carrier, selected-host-set, card set, skill pack, MCP-backed access service, or package publication or access carrier. These checks do not replace the eleven coordinates; they supply package-level evidence mainly for D1, D2, D4, D5, D7, D8, D9, D10, and D11.

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 neighbouring owners

Use these owners 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; it is not an F.10 status use, E.19 admission or refresh decision, assurance result, publication state, work authorization, or improvement Work. A receiving process may use it only through its 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. Dated evaluation Work applies the package-adequacy Method and the aggregate C.2.1 result can 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, table, Work, result episteme, and local status remain distinct. That status is not failure or admission; it is an honest package-use result and next repair route.

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/E.23 without becoming a hidden Core dependency.

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.

#Bias-Annotation

The first drift is whole-FPF overreach: a DPF package is judged as if it had to cover every domain. Repair by declaring one domain or local context and evaluating adequacy for that context.

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

The third drift is quality proof leakage: evaluation results, review status, or package architecture evidence are copied into user-facing pattern prose. Repair by moving quality evidence to this evaluation, E.21, E.19, E.11, I.2, or publication evidence loci, and keep only the user-facing move or boundary in pattern bodies.

The fourth 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. Repair by making the readme, Preface, or access front door provide a short carrier structure-account and checking it through PFM11.

#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.

#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 source-return to its domain traditions.

#SoTA-Echoing

Source-currentness front. Apply the five decisions above only within the source role and qualification basis below. When the named smallest change occurs, use G.11 to reopen only the affected coordinates, case, boundary, or proxy rule and return the changed source role to G.2; a newer date alone does not reopen the package.

#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 separately governed package architecture. Their coordination list and document order identify neither the authoring Method nor the evaluation Method.
• Coordinates with: C.2.1 for exact framework/result episteme identity and effective ReferenceScheme; A.2.6 for ClaimScope; A.1.1/A.22 only for an interpretation-changing selected model-use structure; A.3.1/A.3.2 for semantic evaluation Method/description; A.15.1, A.6.1, A.2, and A.2.1 for evaluator, role assignment, dated assessment Work and application/bindings; A.10 for evidence use; and G.2/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.
• Coordinates with: E.24.PUB for publication occurrence, form, and presentation carrier; and E.11, E.17, F.18, C.33, C.34, and C.35 for first entry, publication/access use, naming, preservation, correspondence, and produced-carrier admission.
• Exits to: E.2.DA when a DPF package change claims FPF-level Pillar adequacy or proposes Core amendment effects.

#E.4.DPF.DA:End

Last Updated: 2026-08-04 — upstream FPF commit 67092138 (github.com/ailev/FPF)