First Principles Framework (FPF)
An "Operating System for Thought" — a transdisciplinary architecture for reasoning, written in human- and machine-readable pseudo-code. FPF turns raw intelligence (human or machine) into organisationally usable reasoning: explicit bounded contexts, auditable artefacts, multi-view descriptions, and disciplined hand-offs between specialised actors.
Use cases
Use FPF whenever you need to think more rigorously than the situation's default.
- Decompose a messy, cross-domain problem into parts that can be reasoned about independently
- Make a high-stakes decision with incomplete evidence — and know what evidence is still missing
- Get a mixed team to reason together without vocabulary collisions or hidden assumptions
- Audit whether a conclusion is well-founded or just plausible
- Transfer an insight across domains without losing precision or introducing category errors
- Structure a proposal that must survive scrutiny from multiple expert perspectives
- Generate alternatives systematically instead of anchoring on the first idea
- Define what "better" means before comparing options
How to navigate
The use cases above help decide WHETHER to invoke FPF. The router below decides WHERE to go once invoked.
Step 1 — Match the thinking need to a starting point
| What you need to do | Start here |
|---|---|
| Decompose a complex whole into bounded parts | 04 Kernel → A.1 Holons, A.1.1 Bounded Contexts, A.14 Mereology |
| Assign roles and responsibilities | 04 Kernel → A.2 Roles, A.15 Role-Method-Work Alignment |
| Set boundaries on what statements mean | 05 Signature Stack → classify as definitions, gates, duties, or evidence |
| Prevent category errors (role vs. function, method vs. work) | 06 Constitutional Principles → A.7 Strict Distinction |
| Evaluate confidence in a claim or artifact | 07 Part B → B.3 Trust & Assurance; 08 Part C → C.2 F-G-R scoring |
| Compose parts into wholes preserving properties | 07 Part B → B.1 Gamma algebra; 08 Part C → C.13 Compose-CAL |
| Reason through a problem systematically | 07 Part B → B.5 Reasoning Cycle, B.5.2 Abductive Loop |
| Generate alternatives / explore solution space | 08 Part C → C.18 NQD Open-Ended Search, C.19 Explore-Exploit |
| Measure and compare options rigorously | 06 A.V → A.17-A.19 Characteristics & CSLC; 08 Part C → C.16 MM-CHR |
| Score knowledge quality (formality, scope, reliability) | 08 Part C → C.2 KD-CAL, C.2.2 Reliability, C.2.3 Formality |
| Resolve conflicts across stakeholders or values | 09 Part D → Ethics & Conflict |
| Unify vocabulary across teams or domains | 13 F.I Context of Meaning → 14-15 UTS tables → 20 Lexical Debt |
| Document for multiple audiences | 11 E-I Constitution → E.17 Multi-View Publication Kit |
| Survey a discipline and build a reusable toolkit | 16 Part G → SoTA Packs, TraditionCards, OperatorCards |
| Trace provenance of a claim | 06 A.V → A.10 Evidence Graph; 16 Part G → G.6 Provenance Ledger |
For complex problems, follow paths across multiple sections — the router shows where to start, not where to stop.
Step 2 — Read the _index.md, then the sub-section
- Open the
_index.mdof the target section folder — it lists all sub-sections with line counts and descriptions. - Read only the specific sub-section file you need.
- Do NOT load entire sections. Pick the narrowest file that serves the user's question.
Step 3 — Apply in plain language
Use plain language for the user. Introduce FPF-internal names (U.Holon, Gamma, F-G-R) only when they add precision the user needs.
Step 4 — Compose findings across sections
When a problem draws from multiple sections:
- State each pattern's contribution in one line (e.g., "Bounded Contexts gives us the parts; Trust Calculus scores our confidence in each").
- If patterns from different sections appear to conflict, check for category errors via A.7 Strict Distinction — the conflict is usually a level confusion (role vs. function, method vs. work), not a real contradiction.
- Synthesize in natural order: decomposition first (what are the parts?), then evaluation (how confident are we?), then resolution (what do we do about gaps?).
- Do not just list FPF patterns — weave them into a coherent answer to the user's actual question.
Starter prompt (example — adapt to the user's actual role and need)
You have the FPF specification loaded. Help me structure my project / problem / programme. Use plain language for an engineer-manager. Propose: (1) bounded contexts / specialisations, (2) decision criteria, (3) key alternatives, (4) hand-offs, and (5) missing evidence or tests before commitment. Introduce internal FPF names only when they add precision.
Section INDEX
Structural reference. Each entry is a folder — read its _index.md first, then pick the sub-section.
| # | Section | Sub | When to use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Title page | 0 | Authorship, version date, top-level identity. |
| 02 | Table of Content | 0 | Navigate the spec, locate a pattern, trace inter-section dependencies. |
| 03 | Preface | 17 | Onboard: reading paths by role, FPF philosophy, purpose and non-goals. |
| 04 | Part A — Kernel | 19 | Decompose and assign: holons, bounded contexts, roles, transformers, method/work separation. |
| 05 | A.IV.A — Signatures | 18 | Set boundaries: classify statements as definitions, gates, duties, or evidence. |
| 06 | A.V — Principles | 29 | Prevent confusion: category errors, measuring, comparing, evidence graphs. |
| 07 | Part B — Reasoning | 24 | Compose and evaluate: aggregation (Gamma), trust scores, emergence, reasoning cycles. |
| 08 | Part C — Extensions | 30 | Score and search: epistemic quality (F-G-R), kinds, measurement, open-ended search. |
| 09 | Part D — Ethics | 1 | Resolve conflicts: ethical trade-offs, bias auditing, safety overrides. |
| 10 | Part E — Constitution | 0 | Entry point for Part E subsections. |
| 11 | E-I — Constitution | 29 | Govern and publish: 11 Pillars, guard-rails, multi-view publication (MVPK). |
| 12 | Part F — Unification | 0 | Entry point for Part F subsections. |
| 13 | F.I — Meaning | 19 | Align vocabulary: semantic drift, homonym collisions, Alignment Bridges. |
| 14 | UTS Layout A | 0 | Map concepts across standards (BPMN, PROV-O, ITIL). |
| 15 | UTS Layout B | 1 | Map concepts across disciplines (operations, physics, math). |
| 16 | Part G — SoTA Kit | 15 | Harvest disciplines: SoTA Packs, TraditionCards, OperatorCards, benchmarks. |
| 17 | Part H — Glossary | 0 | Look up terms: canonical definitions, four-register naming, cross-references. |
| 18 | Part I — Annexes | 0 | Walkthroughs, change log, external standards mappings. |
| 19 | Part J — Indexes | 0 | Concept-to-pattern, pattern-to-example, principle-trace indexes. |
| 20 | Part K — Lexical Debt | 2 | Fix terminology: mandatory replacements and migration debt. |