FPF Reference

    Plausible-reader guards and cold-reader recovery

    Preface node heading:plausible-reader-guards-and-cold-reader-recovery:101274

    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

    Use two reader tests for different decisions.

    • The plausible intended reader has the knowledge and task presupposed by the text. Use this reader to decide whether a foil, guard, warning, or contrast deserves mention. Do not substitute an adversarial reader who can imagine any false inference, or the author who already knows the answer.
    • The cold intended reader lacks the author's private context and unpublished notes. Use this reader after the rewrite: they can recover the object, predicate, participants, relevant kind or ordinary status, relation, action-changing detail, and next useful action.

    Recover the instruction from the publication, its stated prerequisites and the knowledge presupposed for its intended reader. An application-test scenario may supply task-specific inputs, such as workload or available resources. Distinguish those inputs from explanations of the instruction supplied only for the test. If only the test scenario explains the action denoted by B2, successful application demonstrates use of that supplied explanation; the publication's wording question remains unanswered. Name or reference the action in the publication, then check recovery without the test-only explanation.

    Retain a negative alternative, denied consequence, warning, or non-use statement only when the exact rejected reading has an independent local ground; a plausible intended reader could take that reading here, including an evidenced type mistake; and the distinction changes truth, understanding, selection, safety, stop, reliance, or action. An earlier or source claim, an observed recurring mistake, a serious competing position, a visible representation feature, or an applicable safety risk can supply the ground. The guard itself cannot.

    Even a grounded guard should be the smallest clear correction. When actor allocation is the useful content, state it positively: “On receiving new evidence, the reader decides whether to reopen checking or revision.” When currentness is the useful content, state the direct use: “This guide conveys the seminar of 1 February 2026; check current rules against the current FPF edition.” Keep material negation, documented anti-patterns, fair disputes, and safety stops when their polarity or boundary is itself the claim.

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