Skip to content

Pattern Guidelines

Quality, Acceptance, and Review Standards for First Foundation Patterns

Purpose of This Page

This page defines the guidelines used to evaluate, accept, and maintain First Foundation patterns.

The guidelines exist to ensure that patterns are:

  • structurally sound
  • analytically rigorous
  • comparable across contexts
  • resistant to ideological misuse
  • appropriate for their declared maturity level

This page does not define pattern theory, structure, or application workflows.

Role in the Architecture

Pattern Guidelines function as a System-level control.

They govern:

  • when a pattern may enter the Pattern Library
  • how its maturity level is determined
  • when it must be revised, promoted, or demoted
  • how quality is enforced over time

They operate alongside:

Pattern Maturity Levels

Patterns are evaluated against the following maturity levels:

Proto-Pattern

  • Emerging or exploratory structure
  • Evidence is partial or indirect
  • Mechanism may be hypothesized but not fully demonstrated
  • Not safe for formal assessment use

Full Pattern

  • Structural mechanism is clearly defined
  • Failure modes and tradeoffs are documented
  • Applicable across multiple contexts
  • Safe for formal assessment use

Anti-Pattern

  • Structural failure is well-observed
  • Mechanism reliably produces harm or instability
  • Recurs across institutions or eras
  • Safe for formal assessment use

Meta-Pattern

  • Operates across multiple institutions
  • Shapes or amplifies other patterns
  • Not reducible to a single design choice
  • Often persists across Turnings or phases

General Acceptance Criteria

All patterns, regardless of maturity, must meet the following baseline criteria:

  • Clear separation between mechanism and illustration
  • Explicit scope and non-goals
  • No ideological or policy advocacy
  • No moral judgment of actors
  • No predictive claims presented as certainty
  • Language remains structural and analytical

Patterns failing these criteria must not be published as Full Patterns.

Proto-Pattern Review Criteria

A Proto-Pattern may be accepted when:

  • The observed structure appears in multiple instances
  • There is a plausible hypothesized mechanism
  • Open questions are explicitly documented
  • Limitations are clearly stated

Promotion requires:

  • additional evidence
  • clarified mechanism
  • resolution of key uncertainties

Full Pattern Acceptance Criteria

A pattern may be promoted to Full Pattern when:

  • The structural mechanism is explicit and stable
  • Incentives and power dynamics are clearly described
  • Failure modes and tradeoffs are documented
  • The pattern applies beyond a single case
  • Narrative examples are illustrative only

Full Patterns must withstand scrutiny across different analytical modes.

Anti-Pattern Acceptance Criteria

An Anti-Pattern may be accepted when:

  • The structural failure recurs reliably
  • The mechanism of failure is clear
  • Harm or instability is a predictable outcome
  • The pattern is not reducible to individual misconduct

Anti-Patterns must avoid moralizing language and focus on design failure.

Meta-Pattern Acceptance Criteria

A Meta-Pattern may be accepted when:

  • It operates across multiple pattern types
  • It amplifies or suppresses other patterns
  • It persists across institutions or phases
  • It cannot be captured as a single design decision

Meta-Patterns must be clearly distinguished from abstractions or metaphors.

Revision and Maintenance

Patterns are subject to ongoing review.

A pattern should be revised when:

  • new evidence refines the mechanism
  • scope boundaries change
  • interactions with other patterns become clearer

A pattern should be demoted when:

  • evidence weakens
  • the mechanism proves context-specific
  • misuse risk becomes unacceptable

Deprecated patterns may be archived but should not be deleted.

Bias and Misuse Safeguards

To prevent misuse:

  • Narrative examples must not drive conclusions
  • Emotional or moral framing must be avoided
  • Patterns must not be framed as solutions or prescriptions
  • Analysts must justify pattern selection independently of narrative appeal

These safeguards apply to authors and reviewers alike.

Relationship to Analytical Modes

Pattern Guidelines are mode-agnostic.

However:

  • Evidence thresholds are higher for Forensics
  • Caution is required during Scan
  • Static completeness matters most in Assessment

Mode-specific constraints are enforced by methodology, not by patterns themselves.

Governance and Authority

Final authority over pattern acceptance and revision resides with the First Foundation governance process, as defined in architectural governance documents.

Patterns are not crowdsourced without review.

Status

This page defines Pattern Guidelines v1.0.

It applies to all existing and future First Foundation patterns.