Без заголовка

Four points at the end—well said! I’d add one more: it suffers from the same issue as LLMs, which is reproducibility—despite all the complexity and rigorous definitions of “first”, “objective facts”, and reusable terminology, you’ll never get two identical descriptions of the same system from the same person. Without LLMs, those 1.2 MB of FPF would never be produced; with them, you could easily balloon to 100 GB of a “theory of everything.” That makes any practical application of such a framework impossible.

Show me a better alternative to Scrum (and many exist) derived from these principles. Even if one could be deduced, its explainability wouldn’t be sufficient to determine whether a single practice fits/improves a specific project, no matter what the definition of improvement/fit is. In the end, for all its layered abstractions, this is pure reductionism—and we already know how that story ends.