Require Forces Authenticity in Patterns

Every Pattern's ## Forces section names at least two competing demands or constraints in genuine tension. Each Force is a noun phrase with one or two sentences describing what the Force wants and why it resists the other Forces. A Force that nobody would disagree with — an obvious good, a uniformly-desired property — is not a Force; it is a value, and the Pattern's Forces section must name genuine opposing pulls instead.

Why

The commitment makes Forces the Pattern's explanatory engine. A Pattern without Forces reads as "here is a problem; here is what to do about it" — advice without a reason for its shape. A Pattern with Forces reads as "here is a problem whose difficulty comes from these competing demands; the Solution is the move that resolves or brokers the tension." The Forces are what make the Solution non-obvious: if only one demand were in play, the right move would be clear; the pattern arises because multiple demands pull against each other, and experienced practitioners recognize the move that handles the pull without sacrificing either side.

Forces distinguish Patterns from checklists. A checklist says "do X, then Y, then Z"; a Pattern says "in this situation, with these competing demands, apply this move, accepting these tradeoffs." The checklist advice is applicable wherever the situation arises; the Pattern advice is applicable wherever the Forces are in tension. A Pattern whose Forces are weak collapses into a checklist — the advice becomes applicable anywhere, and the Pattern stops distinguishing itself from "just do the right thing."

The unopposed-value failure mode is the common one. An author drafting a Pattern reaches for "clarity" or "discoverability" or "coherence" as a Force — but clarity is a value nobody would oppose, not a demand that resists another demand. A real Force pairs would be "clarity for readers" vs. "compression for authoring economy," or "discoverability for new contributors" vs. "precision for established ones." The opposing pair names a genuine tradeoff; the unpaired value reads as "we like this property," which every Pattern could claim.

The rule targets the two-Force minimum specifically. A Pattern with a single genuine Force is a Pattern whose Solution should be the natural consequence of that Force, with no tension to resolve — which is not a Pattern, it is a direct derivation. Two or more Forces produce the tension the Solution resolves. Three or four Forces are common; more than that usually indicates the Forces have not been consolidated to their core pairs, and the Pattern's Solution is harder to articulate.

Alternatives Considered

Allow single-force Patterns. Permit Patterns whose Forces section names one demand (which the Solution then serves). Rejected because a single-force Pattern is a direct derivation rather than a Pattern — the Solution follows from the Force without any tension to broker. The Alexandrian tradition the Pattern form inherits specifically identifies the "resolution of competing Forces" as the Pattern's distinguishing move; single-force Patterns lose that property and become advice.

Allow unopposed values as Forces. Let Forces include uniformly-desired properties (clarity, consistency, quality) alongside or instead of genuine tensions. Rejected because unopposed values flatten the section into a catalog of "what we want" rather than "what pulls against what." The Solution then becomes "do the thing that gives us what we want" — advice that could apply to any Pattern. Authentic Forces are what make the Solution non-obvious and the Pattern worth naming.

Relax the rule to "Forces SHOULD be tensioned." Keep the authenticity bar as a guideline rather than a requirement. Rejected because optional authenticity in practice produces unopposed-value Forces as the default path of least resistance. The rule exists to force the authoring moment where the author asks "what actually resists what here?" — the moment that sharpens the Pattern. Guideline-level framing lets authors skip the moment and produce Patterns whose Forces read as wish-lists.

What Would Change It

The commitment would be revisited under one condition.

Pattern practitioners find the authenticity bar so high that subtle patterns go uncaptured. If the project consistently produces situations where the real pattern's Forces are present but resist two-sentence articulation — where the tension is real but expressing it authentically requires a longer elaboration than the Forces section admits — the rule would block legitimate Patterns from being captured. The revisit would soften the rule toward "Forces MUST be tensioned but MAY be elaborated at body length," loosening the Forces section's expected brevity rather than the authenticity standard. Current Patterns have captured authentic Forces in the tight two-section-sentence style; the rule is sustainable.

Relations