Constraint-Governed Unfolding Structure
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: A.22 specialization of
U.StructureStatus: Stable Normativity: Normative unless explicitly marked informative
Use this when a team has a P2S flow card, a P2W carry-through note, an abductive prompt path, an improvement cycle, a narrative ordering, a typing-grounding trace, or a README first-entry seed, and the visible form helps but also misleads. It looks like a route, loop, chain, table, graph, or story, while the useful engineering question is not "which sequence should everyone follow?" but "which admitted records, current structures, typed positions, relation instances, constraints, and guards make each continuation admissible or inadmissible?"
Relations
Content
Use This When
Use this when a team has a P2S flow card, a P2W carry-through note, an abductive prompt path, an improvement cycle, a narrative ordering, a typing-grounding trace, or a README first-entry seed, and the visible form helps but also misleads. It looks like a route, loop, chain, table, graph, or story, while the useful engineering question is not "which sequence should everyone follow?" but "which admitted records, current structures, typed positions, relation instances, constraints, and guards make each continuation admissible or inadmissible?"
When that is the live question, select one ConstraintGovernedUnfoldingStructure: the exact A.22 U.Structure whose independently identified constituents, selected obtaining relation occurrences, applied constraints, and named use frame support more than one continuation. Typed position locators, guards, preserved and lost structure, admissible next-form kinds, and stop or return conditions make that selected organization usable without adding an ambient context field or a parallel card ontology.
Use CGUS only after the candidate structure has more than one typed position and the relations or constraints among those positions affect admissible continuations. A single recommendation, diagram, slogan, pattern list, or document section is not enough.
What changes in practice. Do not begin by completing a route-shaped template. First decide whether the visible artifact is still a provisional episteme or whether one selected structure passes the A.22 admission test. For an admitted structure, recover the exact constituents, obtaining relation occurrences, constraints, current alternatives, and reconsideration conditions before displaying one traversal; at the first unresolved discriminator, predicate, occurrence, or needed neighboring contribution, stop and name that missing value. Admission recognizes the selected structure and its currently admissible continuations; evidence sufficiency, assurance, gate passage, authorization, and performed Work remain separate questions under the patterns that define or constrain those claims.
Problem Frame
FPF often needs to explain how several admitted records, current structures, typed positions, and relations jointly constrain several admissible next forms without turning that explanation into a workflow. A problem card, G.2 source pack, architecture concern, candidate set, evaluation result, cue publication, and current U.Structure can participate through exact relations in pattern-use recommendations, candidate structures, rival hypotheses, evidence work, repair proposals, reader-facing narratives, or structure-use reconsideration conditions. The point is the recoverable constraint structure, including relation signatures, guards, preserved structures, C.33 loss notes, neighboring stronger claims, and their reconsideration conditions, not a one-input-one-output conversion.
These structures can be architecture-facing, reasoning-facing, narrative-facing, improvement-facing, typing-grounding-facing, evidence-facing, currentness-facing, or first-use-facing. They share one structural need: typed positions are connected by relations and constrained together, so admissible continuations are recoverable only while the relevant structures, C.33 adequacy notes, guards, exits, needed relation definitions or claim rules, and reconsideration boundaries remain visible.
Problem
The problem is that a constraint-governed unfolding structure becomes unrecoverable when one route-shaped or loop-shaped description stands in for it.
First, the structure's typed positions, exact relations, constraints, preserved structures, C.33 adequacy notes, stop boundary, and needed definitions, tests, methods, or claim rules disappear behind decorative prose. Words such as "flow", "move", "unfold", "loop", or "route" remain, but no reader can recover what constrains a continuation.
Second, one demonstration of the structure becomes a fake workflow. A teaching sequence, diagram, README entry, prompt example, or happy path is treated as the order of real project work. Method, work plan, performed work, evidence, gate, decision, publication, and architecture claims then become unsupported inferences from displayed order.
Forces
Solution
Select ConstraintGovernedUnfoldingStructure as an A.22 profile of one selected U.Structure. Its exact independently identified constituents, selected obtaining relation occurrences, applied constraint claims, and named selection-use frame satisfy the four A.22 identity discriminators. selectedCGUSRef designates that selected organization being unfolded, not a topic label, container, record, or declared-use phrase. Typed position locators, relation signatures, guards, preserved and lost structure, admissible next-form kinds, and stop or return conditions make that selected organization usable; they do not create a parallel context or card ontology.
A constraint-governed unfolding structure states which continuations are admissible from the current selected organization and why. It makes no displayed-order claim about real work and fixes no cardinality of starting records, starting structures, or later results. It may branch, merge, cycle through subject relations, remain partially ordered, or leave alternatives live at once. A route, graph, table, narrative, prompt path, or seminar sequence may help a reader inspect it, but form and adjacency establish neither the structure nor any relation occurrence.
A narrower pattern such as E.18.3 may recognize the same selected U.Structure under an additional transformation-flow membership condition. Do not manufacture a generic CGUS object plus a second narrower structure from reciprocal references. The current EntityOfConcern is the one selected structure whose exact A.22 discriminators and applicable narrower predicate are satisfied.
First useful structure result
Start with the smallest recovery aid that answers the working question:
This is a recovery aid, not a new record kind and not an identity tuple with extra fields. The constituent, obtaining-occurrence, constraint, and named-use-frame rows are exactly the four-part A.22 identity basis; selectedCGUSRef designates the resulting selected structure. The remaining rows expose how that structure is being used and when to reconsider it. A row does not create its constituent, make its relation obtain, admit its constraint, or establish a neighboring definition, test, method, or claim.
For an admitted filled position, use the reference shape
The locator resolves one constituent already selected into the structure. It is not a U.Relation, a new U-kind, or a replacement for the constituent's identity. An unfilled or merely proposed position remains claim content in a provisional demonstration; it does not become an admitted position by occupying a table row. No pattern locator becomes part of that position or of the A.22 structure identity. When neighboring content is material, state its concrete contribution and cite the pattern id—for example, [A.6.REL](/generated/patterns/A.6.REL) supplies the obtaining-relation test, [G.11](/generated/patterns/G.11) supplies the currentness test, or [C.29](/generated/patterns/C.29) constrains the mathematical claim. Identify an exact claim-bearing episteme, ClaimGraph, or edition only when that identity changes interpretation, comparison, conflict, migration, publication, or reuse. A reconsideration condition opens a question; it does not send the structure to a receiver.
Every selected relation occurrence keeps its direct participant meanings, obtaining predicate, applicability, occurrence identity, and exact predicate-definition source. A relation signature helps recover that declaration; an edge label or adjacency row is insufficient. A guard can constrain admissibility only through its exact current claim or obtaining relation. A stop or reconsideration sentence is a use boundary unless an independently admitted relation occurrence and exact obtaining assertion exist for it.
Accepted starting records and starting structures remain different constituents. A record may describe, publish, evaluate, or recommend use of a structure without becoming that structure. A selected recommendation, intended realization, imperative sentence, or filled form establishes neither an obtaining relation nor Method, U.MethodDescription, U.WorkPlan, dated U.Work, or actual U.Transformation.
Admission test
A readable chain is not sufficient. Admit the CGUS use only when all applicable coordinates below are recoverable:
Branches and joins that are current remain visible. A subject-relation feedback cycle may be current without making selected membership cyclic. One displayed slice may be linear because attention needs one path; the selected structure remains graph-shaped when its exact relations are graph-shaped.
When transformation-flow vocabulary is current, decide among three ontically different cases before admitting the demonstration:
A CGUS description or slice may present any admitted case, but its graph shape does not select the TFS, SubflowRef, or network. Every independently selected network member retains its own boundary, Work, actual transformations, valuations, and local composite flow-position locator.
Provisional descriptions, structure descriptions, and demonstrative slices
Keep three epistemic uses separate from the selected structure. Each is an ordinary C.2.1 episteme identified by its exact <ClaimContent, EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme> triple. The labels below describe the current use; they add no ambient context field or second episteme identity.
Before admission — provisional unfolding demonstration. Its exact EntityOfConcern is the actual subject-domain object, question, or proposed continuation set, never a not-yet-admitted CGUS. Its ClaimContent may name visible candidate positions, proposed relations, possible continuations, presentation form, every unresolved admission coordinate, and the exact condition under which those coordinates would be resolved. Those claims guide discovery but create no constituent, admitted position, structure identity, relation occurrence, Method, plan, Work, or transformation. At least one unresolved coordinate remains explicit while the demonstration is provisional. When every coordinate is recovered, constitute a separate description or slice about the admitted CGUS; do not retype the provisional episteme.
After admission — whole-structure description. Its exact EntityOfConcern is the admitted CGUS. Its ClaimContent may describe positions, branches, joins, cycles, partial orders, exact relation occurrences, constraints, admissible next forms, preserved structure, relevant C.33 losses, declared use, and return condition without selecting one traversal. Diagram form, table layout, carrier, and publication location do not identify the episteme or the structure. Changed claim content, EntityOfConcern, or effective reference scheme identifies another episteme; a changed form, carrier, viewpoint qualification, publication occurrence, or model-use qualification does not by itself.
After admission — demonstrative unfolding slice. Its exact EntityOfConcern is the admitted CGUS, while its ClaimContent selects one traversal or ordering for a declared demonstration use. The slice cites only already admitted position locators and exact relation-reference epistemes or obtaining occurrence refs; it records relevant omissions and alternatives. It neither retypes a provisional explanation nor creates the selected structure. It may cite the earlier provisional episteme only through an exact source, derivation, or viewing-construction claim supplied by the relevant source or representation pattern; mere file history is not such a relation. If later inspection invalidates CGUS admission, withdraw the slice claim while retaining any still-truthful provisional explanation under its narrower declared use.
Viewpoint, claim scope, empirical grounding, model-use structure, publication occurrence, form, carrier, and historical edition continuity remain optional neighboring uses under their direct patterns. Add one only when the current receiving use needs it. None enters the C.2.1 identity triple or structure identity, and neither a viewpoint nor a grounding holon is intrinsic merely because the episteme is a description.
Use this compact recovery shape for the slice's ClaimContent when needed:
The loop-compression claim and presentation-ordering claim answer different questions and remain separately revisable. Neither is presumed to be a U.MethodDescription. One has that dependent membership only if A.3.2 independently finds one admitted U.Method as its exact EntityOfConcern and a substantive way-of-doing claim. Imperative grammar, ordering, intended realization, repeatability, recipe appearance, or inclusion in the slice is not enough. The local use and presentation-form vocabularies are Plain closed choices for this recovery aid, not U-kinds, carriers, or identity discriminators.
The one-TFS and network locator families are mutually exclusive. A one-TFS slice has the complete <transformationFlowStructureRef, pathSliceId, DesignRunTag> family and no network locator. A network slice has one networkDemonstrationLocator and none of those three top-level values. A generic CGUS slice may have neither family. No partial or mixed family is admissible.
For a network demonstration, retain this locator content by value:
The locator does not admit structure. Resolve every member path hop through exact direct members. A FlowPositionRef names the final TFS. An ExposedFlowPositionRef must repeat the same network, complete member path, and leaf position; otherwise omit the mapping. The included locator must be the same exact admitted position already present in the slice and the E.18.3 structure, not a copied raw-position list.
Resolve every selected cross-flow row first through the exact current E.18.NET record edition for this same network and require exactly one match on occurrence plus complete ordered endpoint-binding identity. Then resolve the cited E.18.3 relation-reference episteme separately. The row and episteme must agree on exact occurrence, relation kind, predicate-definition source, signature, participant order, endpoint members, positions, and bindings. A record row, raw occurrence ref, edge label, unresolved locator, or diagram adjacency alone is not admitted.
The complete one-TFS locator may recur only in a member-local row for one leaf position. A network slice has no global FlowValuation, pathSliceId, or DesignRunTag; every valuation, slice, tag, Work reference, actual transformation reference, and boundary remains local to one exact member or leaf-TFS binding. Network membership paths are finite and acyclic, while exact cross-flow feedback relations may form cycles when their admitted relation definitions permit them.
Every selected cross-flow relation remains the exact occurrence admitted by its relation definition, participant meanings, obtaining predicate, applicability, and occurrence-identity rule; do not substitute universal creates, produces, uses, input, output, result, handoff, or transfer edges. A C.32.CONWAY result can contribute at most one exact transformer-role-system/transformed-holon architecture-correspondence occurrence as one qualified network row after its direct occurrence and endpoint bindings are recovered; it is never the whole network. A source phrase or source graph enters only through an exact source-to-use claim or relation. A bounded model-use structure appears only when the receiving assertion or use explicitly selects that already identified structure for one independently obtaining crossing; shared wording, adjacency, or the crossing display creates neither.
Positive case. A four-level build-the-builder demonstration follows a finite member path to one already admitted leaf position, maps it to the same included CGUS/E.18.3 position, cites one exact admitted cross-flow relation-reference episteme, and keeps the path slice and tag in one leaf-local row. Near miss. A graph supplies raw positions or an edge label, mixes locator families, duplicates positions, or assigns one tag to the network; keep it provisional or return the exact missing member, relation, position, or binding.
Plain move and displayed continuations
Move is not a universal U-kind, record, or relation. In a display, move remains Plain wording and must resolve to the exact current object: a proposed PlanItem, pattern-use recommendation, admitted CGUS continuation, dated performed U.Work, actual U.Transformation, or another independently established occurrence. Proposed or chosen work remains distinct from performed Work; no shared move identity connects them.
This is display content in the slice's ClaimGraph, not a universal row type. expectedResultClaimRef is always recoverable for a result-bearing display but creates no result or result relation. A nested selection claim may return a candidate, finding, or recommendation to the display; it neither becomes the enclosing continuation nor performs it.
A displayed continuation may show a relevant pattern only when its content supplies a needed definition, constraint, test, or method; it also shows the practical-use question, relevant Solution claim, expected result claim, current condition, alternatives, and return when those values matter. It uses exactly one public-template or project-candidate basis and does not merge the two. Its source-practice continuation is cited only through an exact source-to-use relation. If the needed contribution is unresolved, stop that continuation and open a separate nested pattern-selection claim; the returned candidate, finding, or recommendation neither becomes the enclosing continuation nor performs it. Applicability finding, recommendation, WorkPlan, and Work remain separate and appear only when those values already exist. A filled row, an imperative verb, or selection wording performs nothing.
If a display says next move: prepare the realization plan, first identify whether the current object is an admitted CGUS continuation toward a possible U.WorkPlan, an already current PlanItem, or actual plan-authoring Work. The phrase establishes none of them. Open A.15.2 for the plan and A.15.1 for dated Work only when their own conditions are satisfied.
Pre-execution slot-filling scaffold
A provisional demonstration can hold attention on candidate positions before execution and before CGUS admission. First name the visible positions. Then recover the exact constituents, kinds, relation declarations and occurrences, constraints, invariants, guards, preserved structure, C.33 notes, next-form kinds, and stop or return conditions that would satisfy 4.2. Keep every unresolved coordinate in the provisional episteme's ClaimContent.
Minimal first use. Show candidate positions candidate, evaluate, and repair; state that the relation and guard making repair conditional on an evaluation result are still proposed; and show both accept candidate and repair candidate as possible continuations. This helps the team hold a branch in attention. It remains a provisional description until the exact constituents, direct relation occurrence, guard, preserved structure, and use boundary are recoverable.
After admission, create a separate demonstrative-slice episteme and map only recovered material to exact position locators and relation refs. Neither the provisional nor admitted presentation asserts project Work order or authorizes Work.
Local mantra, filled use, and naming boundary
A local mantra is Plain compact recall wording for applying one pattern Solution. For A.22.CGUS use:
Objects — obtaining relations — constraints — next form; otherwise stop and return.
The formula helps answer one working decision: does the current selected organization admit this continuation, or must the practitioner stop and recover a missing neighboring claim, definition, constraint, test, or method? Its terms map as follows:
Filled architecture use. The working decision is whether prepare realization plan may remain visible after a cooling-architecture choice. CoolingStructure-v2, exact composite project Work CoolingUpgrade-2026, ArchitectureDecisionRelation@Project#AD-17 under C.32.PAD, and ArchitectureUnfoldingStructureUse@Project#AU-17 under C.32.P2S are independently recovered. The selected relation occurrences are the exact decision and unfolding-structure-use relations; the applied constraints are ThermalMarginConstraint and ServiceAccessConstraint. The admissible next-form kind is U.WorkPlan, so next move is only Plain wording for the admitted CGUS continuation prepare realization plan. If the exact C.32.P2S use relation does not obtain—for example because its exact composite Work participant is absent—stop the CGUS continuation and use the C.32.P2S test; do not infer project locality from @Project, create a plan from the display, or report performed Work. If a plan later exists, A.15.2 defines its kind and admission conditions; if dated realization Work occurs, A.15.1 defines its Work distinctions.
The mantra is neither U.Method, U.MethodDescription, U.WorkPlan, performed U.Work, CGUS, nor a demonstrative slice. Imperative grammar does not admit a kind or execute anything. A displayed traversal is a separate C.2.1 episteme only after the CGUS is admitted. A cross-pattern long-memory aid may point to a distant result, but each intermediate object and relation retains its independently established kind and relation; it is outside this local-mantra rule unless one A.22.CGUS decision is the current use.
In public explanation, demonstrative walkthrough may remain Plain wording for a post-admission slice. Mantra names the recall formula above, not that slice, and mantra move creates no demonstrated-row kind. Established local words such as mnemonic, watchword, or heuristic may remain when they truthfully tell that pattern's readers what the aid does; a memorable acronym, title, or retrieval cue is not thereby a mantra.
If a seminar or another source uses those expressions differently, keep these decisions separate:
F.17identifies each exact local sense under its reference scheme and exact source basis; no carrier or remembered wording creates the sense.F.18settles a local or public name only when that naming use is current; a NameCard is unnecessary for ordinary Plain wording and never creates the governed value.F.9may establish one exact Bridge between two sense cells with its direction, predicate, applicability, and loss. The Bridge establishes neither governed-value identity nor permission to use it. In particular, the recall-formula sense of mantra and the demonstrative-slice sense of walkthrough are not one value merely because an earlier seminar used the first word for the second.- A separate C.2.1 assertion states the proposed receiving use, direction, correspondence rule, tolerated loss, and polarity. A.10 governs below-threshold reliance; B.3 opens only for a current assurance claim or material-reliance threshold.
- The source episteme, publication occurrence, publication form, and carrier remain different objects. Dictionary evidence can support lexical interpretation; it cannot establish the Bridge, use claim, structure, relation occurrence, publication, Method, plan, or Work.
- Changed local sense reopens that sense basis; changed Bridge endpoint or predicate reopens the Bridge; changed receiving use or tolerated loss reopens the C.2.1 use claim; changed evidence or threshold reopens only reliance. Changed wording reopens none of the selected structure's four A.22 discriminators unless the actual selected organization also changed.
This naming boundary preserves three useful distinctions without a local card ontology: the selected CGUS is world-side structure; a demonstrative walkthrough is a claim-bearing episteme about one traversal; and a mantra is Plain recall wording for one decision. Changes to wording reopen only the naming or source-use claim unless the selected structure's four A.22 discriminators actually change.
Neighboring stronger claims and reconsideration
CGUS is limited to the unfolding structure. It does not absorb stronger claims.
Use the word refresh only when a currentness, telemetry, edition, decay, or slice-local refresh claim is actually current. Otherwise use plain reconsider, stop, split, or repair wording and name the concrete unresolved question.
Each second-column entry names content that may supply the needed definition, constraint, membership test, evidence rule, assurance rule, or method. It is not an owner, actor, receiver, destination, or part of the CGUS identity. State the stronger claim and concrete contribution first, then cite the pattern id. Identify an exact claim-bearing episteme, ClaimGraph, or edition only when that identity changes interpretation, comparison, conflict, migration, publication, or reuse.
Dependent uses of neighboring claims
Some CGUS uses cite adjacent method, plan, work, evidence, architecture, description, or publication objects. A.22.CGUS defines no generic linkage record for them. Select an adjacent relation occurrence into the CGUS only after an exact relation definition supplies the relation kind, participant meanings, obtaining predicate, applicability, and occurrence identity, and separate current facts establish that the occurrence obtains. A pattern id locates the content that supplies a needed contribution; it is not a compulsory field.
For method and work, keep one admitted U.Method, any already identified C.2.1 episteme, A.3.2 U.MethodDescription membership when its exact EntityOfConcern is that Method and its ClaimContent crosses the substantive way-of-doing threshold, U.WorkPlan, readiness claim, dated U.Work, actual U.Transformation, work-to-change claim, A.15.PROD production or inception claim, evidence, assurance, and gate result separate. A.3.4 independently identifies every actual transformation from its changed referent, extent or ordering boundary, conditions, actual change facts, and continuity rule. Intended realization use, a plan seed, imperative grammar, placement in a CGUS, shared Work, or adjacency admits none of these objects and establishes no transformation composition. Open A.15.PROD production, identity-inception, or completion only for the exact current claim; do not infer production or holonhood for every transformation. If only one adjacent claim is current, cite that exact object or occurrence rather than constructing a multi-stage linkage.
For architecture use, apply the ArchitectureUnfoldingStructureUse@Project predicate defined by C.32.P2S only when it obtains. @Project is a compatibility and retrieval cue only. Every asserted occurrence includes the exact composite U.Work as a participant and the direct relation that connects that Work to this unfolding-structure use. C.32.PAD defines ArchitectureDecisionRelation@Project and its exact composite-Work participation. A.22.CGUS neither infers nor defines either project-work relation.
If the current claim is grounded architecture, a structural view, architecture description, decision, ADR-like projection, measurement, evaluation, planned or performed realization Work, or actual structure, state that exact claim and cite the concrete definition, constraint, test, or method used. Identify an exact claim-bearing episteme or edition only when its identity changes the receiving use. P2S selected and expected structures remain claim content until their world-side obtaining basis is independently recovered; realization Work and actual structures remain world-side and are not created by a decision, description, model, table, or intended realization.
This keeps A.22.CGUS thin: it defines the selected constraint-governed-structure use and its safe next-use boundary, while A.15, A.3.4, A.15.PROD, C.30, C.32, evidence, gate, publication, source-use, evaluation, and domain patterns supply the concrete definitions, constraints, tests, methods, evidence rules, and assurance rules for adjacent objects and relations.
Promoted Core Family Cue Examples
The FPF core may promote a few short family cues when a cue helps readers recover a familiar pattern contribution and a common blocked overread. This is an example device, not a maintained list of all CGUS families.
For example, UF.P2S can be useful when an architecture-facing question moves from problem pressure to candidate, selected, expected, or actual structures. The cue points the reader toward C.32.P2S and warns that a P2S card is not itself the architecture decision, architecture description, ADR, or realization work.
For example, UF.IMP can be useful when an object version, evaluation frame, candidate repairs, and re-evaluation are current. The cue points toward E.23 and warns that a retry loop or prompt loop is not quality improvement by shape.
For example, UF.REFRESH can be useful when a G.11 source-currentness relation, telemetry, evidence decay, or edition shift is current. The cue points toward G.11 and warns that a stale reference set is not current authority.
If no promoted cue helps, omit the cue. Do not invent a core UF.* cue merely to make a CGUS use look formally settled. DPFs and project-local frameworks may carry their own local cue examples when useful, but each claim still requires its concrete definition, constraint, test, method, evidence rule, or assurance rule. Identify exact claim-bearing content only when that identity changes the use; local maps and pattern bodies remain retrieval loci, not compulsory structure fields.
Replay and change localization
Replay one CGUS use from its exact four-part A.22 identity basis, filled position locators, relation declarations, current selected relation occurrences, constraints, invariants, guards, preserved structures, C.33 adequacy notes, admissible next-form kinds, and use boundaries. For each selected continuation, recover the occurrences and guards that admit it, then state every stronger claim and cite the concrete contribution it uses. Identify exact claim-bearing content only when its identity changes the result. A demonstrative slice is replayable only as one claim-bearing presentation of that selected structure; it neither reidentifies the structure nor performs the continuation.
Localize a change before reopening wider work. A changed relation instance reopens that reference and its dependent guards or continuations. Changed omitted structure reopens the affected C.33 adequacy note and any slice relying on it. A changed presentation changes the demonstrative slice without changing the CGUS unless it reveals missing or false structure. A freshness, edition, telemetry, or decay change is handled by its exact G.11 relation. A changed method, work, evidence, architecture, publication, or formal claim uses the pattern that supplies the relevant definition, constraint, test, method, evidence rule, or assurance rule. Rebuild the wider CGUS only when its structure identity, position set, relation structure, constraints, or declared use boundary has changed.
Worked Slices
Architecture P2S slice. A team starts with architecture-relevant problem pressure. The selected unfolding structure may include independently identified problem-side epistemes, unknown-structure and candidate-structure claims, selected structures, architecture characteristics, one exact ArchitectureDecisionRelation@Project occurrence defined by C.32.PAD, one exact ArchitectureUnfoldingStructureUse@Project occurrence defined by C.32.P2S, actual-structure feedback relations, and reconsideration conditions. The P2S card can describe those objects and relations, but it creates none of them. Unknown, candidate, selected, or expected structures remain epistemic claim content until their world-side obtaining basis is independently recovered; planned or performed realization Work remains with the A.15 family, and actual structure remains under A.22 and the exact relation definitions used.
Abductive search slice. An inquiry starts from an abductive prompt and a cue set selected for the search. The unfolding structure may relate rival hypotheses, plausibility constraints, hypothesis-generation positions, evidence-return relations, and downstream tests. The structure is not evidence; evidence appears only when an evidence pattern defines or constrains the claim.
Improvement-loop slice. A pattern version has an evaluation frame and current evaluation result. The unfolding structure may relate E.22 CandidateImprovementProposalRow@Context values, protected tradeoffs, scale-qualified E.23 ExpectedEvaluationResultChange@Context predictions, one ImprovementLoopDecisionValue, and re-evaluation. The loop is not improvement by shape; E.23 governs repeated improvement only after the object version, evaluation frame, proposal rows, expected result changes, loop decision, and stop or return boundaries are recoverable.
First-entry seed slice. A README entry says "develop or review architecture." That line may seed an entry unfolding among problem-side records, candidate first subject-qualified records, bounded results or blockers, and next readable outputs. The README line is a seed description, not the project's unfolding structure and not a universal FPF route.
Field-filled scaffold slice. A team has a visible card sequence problem pressure -> candidate options -> evaluate -> repair. At first this is an ordinary C.2.1 episteme whose EntityOfConcern is the cooling-design question and whose ClaimContent states proposed positions and continuations plus the unresolved A.22 coordinates. After the exact basis below is recoverable, the team may select one CGUS and separately create a demonstrative slice over it:
The visible chain helps planning because each filled locator makes the current constituent recoverable. It neither makes the project follow that order nor creates a WorkPlan, Work occurrence, relation, decision, or CGUS by table completion. The block becomes an admitted CGUS basis only after every listed relation declaration resolves, every selected occurrence independently obtains, and the A.22 constraints and use frame are current; otherwise the completely filled display remains a provisional episteme and identifies the exact missing relation definition, current occurrence, stronger claim, or concrete contribution.
Local relation repair slice. Later EvaluationResult@thermal-margin-v2 becomes the current result for the same cooling candidate. Keep the candidate set, structure positions, service-access constraint, maintainable-cooling-path invariant, and reconsideration boundaries. Replace only the referenced CandidateEvaluatedByResult relation instance, then re-evaluate RepairAdmissionGuard against its exact constraint assertion and defining ClaimGraph. If the new result does not satisfy the guard, remove repair candidate from the admissible next forms and update the demonstrative slice that showed that branch; the unrelated accept candidate continuation remains live. A changed result therefore repairs one relation and its dependent guard before it changes a wider graph.
Schema-completion proxy failure. A team counts filled CGUS fields and adds weakly used references until the completion count rises. Update effort then grows, practitioners stop repairing changed relation instances, and wrong next-form choices increase. The count describes field population only; it does not establish recoverability, currentness, or practical value. Remove references without a receiving use, evaluate whether practitioners recover the correct live alternatives and smallest repair, and use [E.13](/generated/patterns/E.13) when field completion is substituting for those outcomes.
Reference-currentness slice. A SoTA pack relies on telemetry and admitted publication editions that can decay. CGUS may relate the current reference set, edition-shift relations, decay triggers, possible deprecation or reship records, and a reconsideration boundary. The structure is not the currentness claim; the currentness assertions and defining or constraining ClaimGraph located through [G.11](/generated/patterns/G.11) remain separate.
Physical-modeling slice. A team models a physical system or another governed EntityOfConcern whose behavior depends on component relations, conservation-like constraints, operating modes, calibration data, and analysis goals. CGUS may relate the model structure, admitted measured data, mode-change relations, compiler boundary, solver boundary, surrogate-substitution relation, and returns to calibration or model-discovery work. In a digital-twin case, the physical entity, digital model, measured-data history, simulation outputs, services, and bidirectional correspondence relations keep their exact kinds and relations. A simulation run, generated code, exchange package, AI-assisted model edit, calibration result, and digital-twin publication remain separate results. Acausal modeling is useful here because it shows that relations and constraints can be stated before a calculation direction is chosen; [C.29](/generated/patterns/C.29), [G.11](/generated/patterns/G.11), [E.23](/generated/patterns/E.23), evidence patterns, and domain DPF patterns supply the stronger mathematical, currentness, evaluation, evidence, or domain-validity rules when those claims are made.
Formal-expression boundary slice. A team expresses part of the cooling CGUS as a DCR graph or constraint-solver model to check whether the repair candidate branch is reachable under RepairAdmissionGuard. The expression preserves selected positions, dependency relations, and the guard. It loses neighboring subject assertions, their reconsideration conditions, C.33 adequacy notes, and any relation not encoded in the chosen formalism. Record that preservation and loss under [C.29](/generated/patterns/C.29), use the output only for the declared reachability question, and reconsider the selected CGUS before selecting the next form. Satisfiability or reachability does not establish that the expression is the CGUS, prescribe performed-work order, prove architecture adequacy, or authorize work.
Method-to-work boundary slice. A selected CGUS may include exact already-obtaining relations among one admitted U.Method, an independently identified C.2.1 episteme, U.WorkPlan, readiness claim, dated U.Work, actual U.Transformation, production or inception claim, evidence, assurance, and gate result. Intended realization, a plan seed, display order, imperative grammar, or a relation to expected structure does not make the episteme a U.MethodDescription: A.3.2 membership requires that the episteme's exact EntityOfConcern be one admitted Method and that its ClaimContent contain at least one substantive way-of-doing claim. The structure selects only relations and assertions whose defining or constraining ClaimGraph sources are located through A.3, A.15, A.3.4, A.15.PROD, A.10, B.3, A.20, or A.21 as applicable; it authorizes and performs nothing.
Bias-Annotation
Conformance Checklist
Common Anti-Patterns And Repairs
Consequences
CGUS gives FPF a way to preserve route-shaped usefulness without turning route-shaped artifacts into workflows. A practitioner can see admitted starting records, current starting structures, constraints, possible next forms, alternatives, and return conditions while still knowing which direct pattern defines or constrains method, work, evidence, gate, decision, architecture, publication, refresh, or mathematical use.
The cost is extra kind discipline. CGUS admission depends on named typed positions, exact relation references, cross-position constraints, preserved structures, C.33 adequacy notes where the presentation omits relevant structure, non-admissible overreads, neighboring stronger claims, and their reconsideration conditions. If that is too heavy, the right result is a compact provisional demonstration description; an admitted demonstrative slice becomes available only after the wider CGUS exists.
Rationale
The selected design is a thin A.22 specialization of U.Structure because the recurring object is real but not a new root ontology. Constraint-based process modeling, case-management practice, artifact-centric modeling, acausal modeling, architecture-description practice, and FPF's own pattern use all separate a constraint-bearing structure from a performed trace, work order, view, publication, solver run, or example path. FPF adopts that separation as a constraint-governed unfolding structure and refuses to import one universal process calculus.
Physical modeling makes the same distinction concrete. In acausal modeling, component relations, quantities conserved across connections, and mode conditions can be declared before the model is compiled and solved in one chosen direction. The FPF import is only the general architecture of the move: structure and constraints first; derived calculation, demonstration, calibration, publication, or work use later under the patterns that define or constrain those claims.
CGUS is deliberately close to A.22. It is one selected U.Structure with the four A.22 identity discriminators and a constraint-governed unfolding use. It has no ambient context field. Descriptions, views, graph renderings, route cards, README entries, demonstrations, and examples help humans use it; they do not become it.
SoTA-Echoing
As of 2026-08-04, OCPQ supplies the current research comparator for typed multi-object constraint queries, while Dyad 3.2 supplies the current engineering comparator for reusable relation-first components separated from analyses and their produced solution objects and artifacts. Modelica 3.7 remains historical lineage for acausal declarative modeling. The older CMMN, Declare, DCR, and artifact-centric rows likewise provide lineage and known distinctions, not present-day authority by age or official status. These sources changed 4.2 by requiring graph-shaped and many-to-many recovery, 4.3 by separating a demonstration from the wider structure, and the physical-modeling slice by separating reusable relations from analysis and execution. Reopen these adoptions when a newer object-centric constraint method changes the treatment of objects or relations, when the modeling languages change component-relation or analysis separation, or when use evidence shows that the imported distinction no longer prevents chain or execution-artifact overread.
Relations
Specializes: the A.22 use of one selected U.Structure when exact constituents, selected obtaining relation occurrences, applied constraints, and a named selection-use frame support constraint-governed unfolding through typed position locators, preserved and lost structure, admissible next-form kinds, neighboring stronger claims, and their reconsideration conditions.
Specialized by: E.18.3 when the same selected structure satisfies its transformation-flow unfolding membership condition and reuses exact E.18 positions and relation references; and by local A.22 applications in E.18.1, C.32.P2S, B.5.2, E.23, C.13, B.3.5, and C.3 only when their own selected constituents, obtaining relations, constraints, and use frames are recoverable. A.6.3.NAR is a consumer rather than another structure specialization: it may order an independently selected structure into a narrative and state preservation, loss, use, and return without selecting or admitting that structure.
Coordinates with: E.18 for the complete one-TFS locator triple, E.18.NET for one selected E.18.NET-conforming TFS network and member paths, E.11 for public practical-use card expansions, ordinary walkthroughs, and admitted CGUS-demonstrative walkthroughs, E.10.MOVE and C.2.P.DR for lexical and declarative-representation repair, C.18, C.19, and G.5 for archive, front, live-pool, and selected-set claims, G.11 for currentness and refresh claims, and E.17 for publication of provisional descriptions or admitted demonstrative slices.
Does not replace: A.3.1, A.3.2, A.15, A.10, B.3, A.20, A.21, C.30, C.32.PAD, C.32.ADR, C.29, G.11, or any pattern that supplies a needed definition, constraint, test, method, evidence rule, or assurance rule for a stronger claim.
A.22.CGUS:End
Last Updated: 2026-08-05 — upstream FPF commit 3dbce514 (github.com/ailev/FPF)