Frame Change

Version

v4 · 2026-08-30 · History

Prime #

1372

Origin domain

Cross Domain Synthesis

Subdomain

representational change → Cross Domain Synthesis

Related primes

Transformation, Frame of Reference

Core Idea

Frame change substitutes the organizing system that assigns coordinates, categories, functions, or meanings to a referent while the referent itself is held substantially fixed, and every downstream reading is recomputed under the new assignment. ^[1] The asymmetry is the whole point and is easy to lose: the object does not move, the apparatus that says where the object is moves, and the resulting change in recorded values is entirely real without anything having happened to the object.

Seven things must be present together. An incumbent frame that was genuinely operative, meaning assignments were computed in it by default rather than derived case by case. A referent with an identity criterion strong enough to survive the substitution, so there is something for both frames to be about. A candidate frame defined over that same referent rather than a different one. A bridge relating old assignments to new ones across at least a shared sub-domain. A partition of the quantities involved into those the bridge leaves fixed and those it moves. Changed assignments that follow systematically from the rule rather than being settled item by item. And an establishment test that says when the replacement has actually become operative.

Ordinary usage recognizes none of these constraints; "changing the frame" is applied to a passing suggestion, a fresh coat of vocabulary, and a genuine re-basing with equal ease. The establishment requirement does most of the discriminating work. A tonicization borrows a chord from another key and returns; a modulation leaves the listener computing scale degrees in the new key without re-deriving them. A pilot in one department, a slide proposing an alternative view, a single report issued on a different basis — none has changed the operative frame, however persuasive, because the defaults have not moved. ^[2]

Structural Signature

An operative frame assigning over a preserved referent → a bridge relating old and new assignments → establishment of the replacement as the default → systematic downstream reassignment, with invariant and frame-relative quantities separated.

Recurring features:

• A referent whose identity is fixed by something other than the frame being replaced, so preservation can be checked independently of the substitution.
• An incumbent frame identifiable by its defaults: what gets computed without anyone deciding to compute it that way.
• A bridge that is a stated correspondence over a domain rather than case-by-case improvisation, which is what makes the reassignment systematic instead of piecemeal; the correspondence may be published as a rule or as a mapping table, and the best-documented instance is a table with a no-map flag.^[3]
• An invariant set — the quantities the bridge fixes — together with its complement, which is frame-relative by construction.
• An establishment marker: a cadence, an effective date, a standard's adoption, a body of practice that has stopped translating.^[4]
• A translation obligation running backwards, since records created under the incumbent frame become unreadable unless pushed through the bridge.^[3]
• A partial-coverage residue, because a bridge need not map the whole domain — in the best-documented case it does not — and the unmapped cases must be adjudicated by hand. ^[3]

What It Is Not

The prime classifies an operation and says nothing about whether the operation is warranted. A frame change can be an advance, a regression, a manipulation, or an accident of institutional drift, and the structure is identical in all four. It carries no claim that the successor is truer or more useful, and no claim that a frame's replaceability makes all frames equally good: the bridge and the invariant list are exactly what allow one frame to be judged against another, and they are internal to the operation rather than dissolved by it. ^[5]

Several further things fall outside its claims. It does not require an agent or a decision; frames are replaced by generational turnover, by tooling defaults, and by the quiet accretion of exceptions at least as often as by anyone choosing. It does not require totality — a frame can be replaced for one register, one department, one table, or one class of objects while the rest of the domain runs on unchanged. It sets no threshold on how much of the referent must be preserved beyond enough that the two frames are about the same thing, and it supplies no timetable, since establishment can take a bar or a generation. It makes no claim about reversibility, because bridges range from exactly invertible to lossy and one-way. And it is not about vocabulary distance: two frames can use identical words while assigning completely differently, and two frames can agree on every assignment while sharing no word at all. Only the assignments decide. ^[6]

Broad Use

The reach is unusual because the roles are fillable by mathematical objects, physical conventions, notational systems, institutions, and interpretations alike, and in every one of those settings the same four questions — which frame, which referent, which bridge, which invariants — have determinate answers.

Physics and metrology: changing inertial frames, where events are the referent, the Lorentz transformation is the bridge, and the spacetime interval stays fixed while velocity, simultaneity, and duration are frame-relative; also changes of gauge, geodetic datum, epoch, and unit system.

Mathematics and computation: change of basis, change of coordinates, change of variables, and re-representation of a group, a number system, or a data model; the change-of-basis matrix is the bridge and the similarity invariants are the fixed set.

Music: modulation, in which pitch material persists, scale-degree function is reassigned, a pivot chord supplies the correspondence, and a cadence performs establishment.

Classification: revision of taxonomies from morphological to phylogenetic criteria, successive disease nosologies, and re-coded industry and occupational schemes — the specimens and cases persist while group membership is recomputed.

Accounting and measurement regimes: recognition-basis changes, functional-currency changes, re-based indices, changed reporting segments, changed units of analysis.

Law and administration: recharacterizing an instrument, moving a matter from a regulatory frame to a contractual one, jurisdictional and venue changes.

Cognition and rhetoric: appraisal shifts in therapy, negotiation reframes, and the substitution of one causal story for another over the same evidence.

What travels is not the vocabulary of any of these but the requirement that the four questions be answerable. A case where no bridge can be stated is not a frame change with a difficult bridge; it is a different phenomenon that happens to look similar from outside. ^[6]

Clarity

The confusion this prime dissolves is the conflation of a property of a thing with a property of a description of a thing. Without the distinction, two observers computing correctly in different frames read each other's answers as errors, and any movement in a number is read as movement in the world. Frame change makes the invariant/frame-relative partition a required output rather than a courtesy, so the question "did something happen, or did the assignment move?" acquires a procedure instead of an intuition. ^[7]

It also settles a class of arguments that cannot be resolved on their own terms. When a disagreement disappears once both parties' claims are pushed through the bridge, the disagreement was about assignment; when it survives the bridge, it concerns the referent and no amount of re-description will touch it. That single test separates a metric dispute from a substantive one, a terminological clash from a theoretical one, and a re-basing artefact from a trend. Most usefully, it names the case where every figure moved and nobody was lying: a reclassification, a re-based index, or a changed unit of analysis produces genuine movement in every derived number while the underlying stock of events sits untouched.

Manages Complexity

What the abstraction lets you stop tracking is the downstream reassignments themselves. Once the bridge is specified, the invariant list published, and the establishment marker fixed, those three objects stand in for an open-ended inventory of individually re-derived facts. A change of basis does not require re-deriving each coordinate; it requires one matrix. A recognition-basis change does not require re-negotiating each figure; it requires one rule and a restatement policy. ^[8]

It also lets you stop maintaining parallel narratives about history. Records made before the cutover need not be rewritten if the bridge can be applied on demand: the old series stays as it was and is read through the mapping, which is cheaper and less lossy than perpetual restatement. And it turns a diffuse worry — are we still comparing like with like? — into a short list of checkable conditions: is the referent the same, is the bridge total over this sub-domain, has establishment occurred, and is this quantity on the invariant list? Every condition answered stops consuming attention permanently rather than case by case.

Abstract Reasoning

The diagnostic runs in six steps, and the order matters because the early ones eliminate most false positives. Name the referent and state what would count as the same thing after the change; if nothing would, the operation altered the object rather than its frame. Name both frames as assignment rules over that referent, not as moods or attitudes. Attempt the bridge: if no correspondence can be stated over any shared sub-domain, the frames are incommensurable and what is occurring is replacement without translation, which behaves quite differently. Partition the quantities by asking which the bridge fixes. Run the establishment test by asking which frame a dispute would currently be settled in.

The sixth step is the counterfactual, and it is where the analysis earns its keep: hold the frame fixed and ask whether a change in the referent alone could have produced the same observation. If it could, the frame change is not doing the explanatory work and the observation remains unresolved between two causes. The procedure licenses an inference in the other direction as well. Given a stated bridge and a stated invariant list, any quantity absent from the list can be predicted to move under the substitution, which converts "what will change when we switch?" from a survey into a derivation.

Knowledge Transfer

What carries across substrates is the role structure and the discipline attached to it: the preserved referent, the demand for a stated bridge, the invariant partition, the establishment test, and the backwards translation obligation on legacy records. An analyst who has watched a re-based index manufacture a phantom trend^[9] has the equipment to recognize the same artefact in a taxonomic revision or a redefined metric,^[4] and the claim that the transfer is structural rather than metaphorical — that the same five checks just listed are being run in both cases — is this entry's account of its own abstraction rather than a sourced finding.

Three things do not carry, and treating them as though they did is the characteristic error. Invertibility does not: Lorentz transformations and change-of-basis matrices are exactly invertible, while taxonomic, diagnostic, and interpretive substitutions are lossy, so intuitions about costless round-tripping imported from the formal cases are simply wrong in the institutional ones. The provenance of the invariant list does not: physics obtains invariants by theorem, whereas an organization has to negotiate them, which makes the list contestable and its authorship consequential. And the establishment criterion does not: a cadence, an effective date, a standards body's vote, and a community's settled usage are all establishment markers, but each is substrate-specific and none can be borrowed from a neighbouring domain.

Examples

Formal/abstract

A linear operator T acts on an n-dimensional space and is represented by the matrix A relative to basis B. Choose a second basis B′ and form the change-of-basis matrix P whose columns express the new basis vectors in the old ones. The representation becomes A′ = P⁻¹AP, and every coordinate of every vector in the space changes. Nothing has happened to T. The trace, determinant, rank, eigenvalues, and characteristic polynomial are unchanged, because similarity fixes them; the individual matrix entries and all coordinate tuples are frame-relative. The bridge is total and exactly invertible, which is why this is the cleanest available instance of the pattern. Establishment is still a real condition here: if the alternative basis is written down once and every subsequent computation is carried out in B, the frame has not changed, only been noticed. It changes when new work is done in B′ by default and old-basis data is pushed through P before use. Modulation in tonal music has the same skeleton with a weaker bridge — pitch material persists, scale-degree function is reassigned, the pivot chord supplies the correspondence by being readable in both keys at once, and the cadence establishes.

Mapped back: The referent is the operator, preserved exactly; the frames are the two bases; the bridge is P; the invariant set is the similarity invariants; the establishment test is whether subsequent computation defaults to the new basis. The case also shows why the invariant list is the load-bearing output rather than a technicality, since it is the only reason a claim about T made in one basis can be trusted by someone working in the other. ^[8]

Applied/industry

A subscription business has always reported revenue in the period a customer was billed. It moves to recognizing revenue across the service period that the billing covers. No contract is renegotiated, no cash moves differently, and no customer behaves differently; the transactions are the referent and they are untouched. What changes is the assignment of amounts to periods, and the change is systematic: one rule maps every historical invoice to a schedule of recognized amounts. The bridge is that rule together with the restated comparatives it produces. Recognized revenue over the life of a contract is invariant; every quarterly figure, growth rate, margin, and covenant ratio derived from quarterly figures is frame-relative. Establishment is the effective date after which the board, the auditors, and the lenders read the new numbers as the numbers, and it is genuinely binary even though adoption is gradual — until it lands, both bases are live and individual figures are ambiguous rather than merely disputed. The characteristic failure is reading the resulting discontinuity as performance: an apparent deceleration produced entirely by spreading front-loaded annual billings is an artefact of the reassignment, and the only way to see that is to check whether the moved quantity was ever on the invariant list.

Mapped back: Incumbent frame, billing-period recognition; replacement frame, service-period recognition; referent, the unchanged contract population; bridge, the recognition rule plus restatement; invariants, lifetime cash and lifetime recognized revenue per contract; establishment, the effective date. Every pre-cutover series in the company's own systems now requires translation before it can be read, which is the backwards obligation that the formal case hides by having a costless inverse. ^[10]

Structural Tensions

T1 — Invariants versus their certification. Everything the operation promises rests on the invariant list, and in formal settings a theorem supplies it. Elsewhere the list is written by whoever proposes the change, usually before anyone knows which quantities will turn out to matter. Anything left off becomes frame-relative by default rather than by finding, so an incomplete list quietly converts substantive movement into permitted movement. The list is simultaneously the guarantee that the referent survived and an artefact authored by an interested party, and nothing internal to the operation distinguishes a principled omission from a convenient one.

T2 — Insight versus relabelling. A frame change earns its name when some question gets a different answer under the new assignment; a relabelling is a bijection that leaves every inference exactly where it was. At the moment of announcement the two are indistinguishable, because both present as fresh vocabulary applied to old material and both are argued for in the same terms. The discriminator is downstream and slow: which decisions were subsequently taken differently. Anyone required to justify a substitution before that evidence exists is arguing on a criterion that is not yet observable, which is why the argument turns on taste.

T3 — Establishment versus excursion. The test is binary and adoption is not. Between the first use of the replacement and the point where nobody translates any more, both frames are partly operative, and assignments made in that interval are genuinely ambiguous rather than merely contested. Participants resolve the ambiguity afterwards by nominating a moment as the change, which makes establishment dates artefacts of later narration in every domain that lacks a cadence or an effective date. The prime demands a marker that, outside the formal and administrative cases, it cannot itself supply.

T4 — Bridge fidelity versus bridge cost. A total, invertible bridge with fully restated history costs the most and is frequently unavailable; a partial bridge is cheap and leaves a residue of cases that must be adjudicated individually forever. Organizations that restate everything spend heavily and still lose whatever the rule cannot reach; organizations that restate nothing keep their history and lose the ability to read it. Neither extreme is a failure of diligence, and the abstraction supplies no way to price the middle, which is where nearly every real substitution sits.

T5 — Preserved referent versus frame-constituted identity. The operation requires the referent to survive, yet in many domains the frame is what individuates the referent in the first place. Species under morphological and phylogenetic criteria, diagnoses under successive nosologies, and transactions under two accounting definitions are not obviously the same objects on both sides of the change. Preservation then has to be judged at a lower level — specimens, patients, cash movements — while the identity claim at the level people actually care about is precisely what the substitution disputes.

T6 — Diagnosis versus advocacy. The same operation that explains a disagreement can be used to manufacture one or to make one vanish. Showing that a dispute dissolves under the bridge is a genuine finding; performing a substitution so that it will dissolve is a move, and from outside the two produce identical artefacts. Because an unwelcome result can be recast as an assignment artefact, and an ordinary artefact can be presented as a discovery, the prime's diagnostic power and its rhetorical usefulness grow together and cannot be separated by inspecting the operation alone.

Structural–Framed Character

Frame Change sits at the structural pole of the structural–framed spectrum — aggregate 0.0, with all five criteria at zero. The skeleton is stated entirely in relational terms: an operative frame assigning coordinates, roles, meaning, or evaluation; a referent that stays identifiable across the change; a bridge relating the old frame to the new; an establishment test separating real change from fleeting excursion; systematic downstream reassignment; and explicit invariants alongside the changed quantities. Coordinate systems, musical modulation, conceptual schemes, and interpretive reframing all retain that structure.

Nothing pins the prime off zero. Human-practice-bound, the diagnostic that most often does the pinning, reads 0.0 because none of the required roles names an agent: a frame, a referent, a bridge, a test, and a reassignment exhaust the definition, and a coordinate substitution satisfies them as fully as an interpretive one. Institutional origin is 0.0 for the matching reason — no discipline or convention has to license the substitution.

Vocabulary travels intact at 0.0: frame, bridge, invariant, and reassignment are native wherever the pattern appears, so nothing needs translating. Evaluative weight is 0.0 — the prime describes a substitution and the recomputation that follows, not whether the new frame is better, even where the interpretive subtype changes evaluation. Import-versus-recognize is 0.0: applying the prime recognizes a substitution already performed, which the establishment test confirms.

The grade means the prime carries into any substrate at no translation cost. Its discipline lies in the roles: with no substitution there is only a frame of reference; an operation altering the referent is a transformation.

Substrate Independence

Frame Change is a highly substrate-independent prime — composite 4 / 5 on the substrate-independence scale. The invariant content is an asymmetry: a referent whose identity is fixed independently, an incumbent apparatus recognizable by what it computes without anyone deciding to, a bridge relating old assignments to new ones over a shared domain, an establishment point after which the replacement is the default, and downstream values that move systematically while the referent does not. Coordinate transformation, musical modulation, conceptual scheme replacement, revised organizational classification, and interpretive reframing all carry that structure. It falls short of the ceiling because its exact instances are the formal ones, where the bridge is a complete rule; elsewhere the bridge covers only part of the domain and leaves a residue adjudicated case by case.

• Composite substrate independence — 4 / 5
• Domain breadth — 4 / 5
• Structural abstraction — 4 / 5
• Transfer evidence — 4 / 5

Relationships to Other Abstractions

Current abstraction Frame Change Prime

Parents (2) — more general patterns this builds on

• Frame Change is a kind of Transformation Prime

  Frame Change is Transformation specialized to preserving a referent while substituting the organizing frame that assigns its coordinates or meaning.

• Frame Change presupposes Frame of Reference Prime

  A change of frame requires specifiable old and new frames plus the mapping and invariants by which their assignments can be compared.

Children (4) — more specific cases that build on this

• Geneticization Domain-specific is a kind of Frame Change

  Geneticization specializes the replacement or elevation of an organizing frame through which a substantially preserved phenomenon is re-read.

• Transformative learning Domain-specific is a kind of Frame Change

  The proposed strict upward parent is prime:frame_change.

• Reframing Prime is a kind of Frame Change

  Reframing is the interpretive species of Frame Change, preserving a referent while replacing the frame that assigns its meaning and implications.

▸ Show 1 more

Hierarchy paths (2) — routes to 2 parentless roots

• Frame Change → Transformation → Function (Mapping)

Show alternative path (1)

Neighborhood in Abstraction Space

Frame Change sits in a sparse region of abstraction space (77^th percentile for distinctiveness): few abstractions share its structure, so a faithful description tends to retrieve it precisely rather than landing on a neighbor.

Family — Equivalence, Inversion & Formal Structure (14 primes)

Nearest neighbors

• Reframing — 0.78
• Frame Problem — 0.71
• Frame of Reference — 0.70
• Framing — 0.69
• Inquiry-Change Learning Loop — 0.68

Computed from structural-signature embeddings · 2026-09-10

Not to Be Confused With

Frame Change must first be separated from Frame of Reference, which it presupposes. A frame of reference is the standing organizing system itself — the axes, the categories, the tonal centre, the accounting basis — considered as a thing that assigns. It is static in the relevant sense: it can be described, compared, and criticized with nothing being replaced. Frame change is the operation that swaps one for another and installs the successor as operative. The dependence runs one way. A frame of reference exists perfectly well with no successor in view, and most do; a frame change is undefined without two of them plus the mapping between. Where a discussion is about what a frame commits you to, the topic is frame of reference; where it is about the substitution and its consequences, it is frame change.

Transformation is the parent and is broader in exactly the way that matters. A transformation is any rule-governed mapping that restructures an input into a different output, holding some invariants fixed and altering others, and the object it acts on is generally changed by it. Frame change is the specialization in which the object is not what is acted on: the operation applies to the assigning system, and the referent's survival is a requirement rather than an outcome. This is why the same matrix appears in both roles and means different things. P⁻¹AP with A fixed and P varying is a frame change; a matrix applied to a vector to produce a different vector is a transformation of the referent. Asking which object the operation acts on separates them reliably.

Reframing is a subtype rather than a synonym. It occupies the interpretive region: a situation, artifact, or body of evidence is held fixed while the interpretive frame fixing its meaning, salience, evaluation, and action implications is replaced. Everything true of frame change is true of reframing, plus a commitment to the consequence being a shift in meaning or appraisal. Frame change also covers substitutions with no interpretive content whatever — a change of basis, a datum change, a re-coded classification scheme — where nothing is being appraised and nobody's evaluation moves. Treating the two as equivalent imports evaluative expectations into cases that have none, and it is the commonest route by which the physical and rhetorical senses of "frame" get run together.

Problem Framing differs on the time axis. It constructs the boundary and representation of a problem before solving begins, deciding which actors, variables, constraints, and success criteria sit inside the question. That is a first-time construction, and its characteristic risk is that a poor frame is adopted unexamined. Frame change presupposes an already-operative frame and replaces it. A team that has never articulated its problem frame cannot perform a frame change on it; it can only frame it. Once framed, subsequent substitutions are frame changes, and their difficulty is the establishment problem rather than the construction problem.

Translation and Conceptual Bridging supplies one of the roles without being the whole. Translation converts concepts or meanings between frameworks — precisely the bridge — but leaves both frameworks standing. Nothing becomes operative at the other's expense; the point is simultaneous readability, and a good translator maintains fluency in both directions indefinitely. Frame change consumes the translation and adds a succession: one frame becomes the default and the other becomes the thing requiring translation. A permanently bilingual community is doing translation; the same community after its records stop being kept in the older system has undergone a frame change.

Remapping is the nearest dynamic neighbour and differs on persistence and reversibility. A remapping substrate holds several context-keyed representations and switches between them discretely on a cue, preserving the inactive ones intact for later re-entry. The switching is recurrent and expected, and no representation displaces another. Frame change installs a successor: the incumbent does not sit ready for re-entry but becomes legacy, readable only through the bridge. Routine switching between metric and imperial units for different clients is remapping; an organization abandoning one for the other is a frame change.

Finally, Gauge Invariance and Symmetry name the limiting case. Both concern changes of representation that make no observable difference, which is to say the invariant set is everything anyone measures. Frame changes of that kind exist and are important, but the prime's ordinary case is one where the invariant set is a proper subset and real downstream figures move. Symmetry answers the question of what stays fixed under a change; frame change requires that answer as an output but is defined by the substitution and its establishment, not by the invariance.

Solution Archetypes

No catalogued solution archetypes reference this prime yet.

Notes

Two observations that did not fit the body. The physical and the rhetorical senses of this prime differ mainly in bridge quality rather than in structure — a Lorentz transformation and a therapeutic reappraisal fill the same roles, but one has an exact inverse and a theorem-supplied invariant list while the other has neither — so most quarrels about whether the two senses belong under one heading are really disagreements about how much a weak bridge is worth. And the prime is unusually easy to satisfy by accident: tooling defaults, a changed report template, or a new hire's habits can install a replacement frame that nobody proposed and no one can date, which is why the frame audit is a more common practical need than the deliberate substitution.

References

[1] Goffman, Erving. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harper & Row, 1974. Treats frames as schemata of interpretation that assign meaning to a strip of activity, with keying as the systematic re-reading of the same material under a substituted schema. registry ↩

[2] Saslaw, Janna K. "The Concept of Ausweichung in Music Theory, ca. 1770-1832". Current Musicology, 2003. Distinguishes a transient digression into another key from an established modulation, applying the criterion that the old tonality be definitively abandoned and the new one established harmonically and thematically. registry ↩

[3] National Center for Health Statistics. Diagnosis Code Set General Equivalence Mappings: ICD-10-CM to ICD-9-CM — Documentation and User's Guide, 2018. NCHS, 2018. Supports the backwards-translation apparatus and its incomplete coverage in this one case: "Not all I-10 codes are contained in the I-9 to I-10 GEM." It also qualifies the bridge-form feature above: this bridge is itself a relationship table with attribute flags, including a no-map flag, rather than a rule, which is why the entry no longer contrasts the two. It establishes nothing about how often bridges leave a residue, and nothing about how the unmapped cases are settled afterwards. registry ↩a ↩b ↩c

[4] Anderson, Robert N., and others. "Comparability of Cause of Death Between ICD-9 and ICD-10." National Vital Statistics Reports, vol. 49, no. 2 (2001): 1–32. Supports two narrow points about one frame change: that it carried a stated effective date, "effective with deaths occurring in the United States in 1999," and that it broke trend continuity, since "the discontinuity in trend is substantial." It supports nothing about frame changes in general, and the recurring-feature list itself is this entry's synthesis. registry ↩a ↩b

[5] Kuhn, Thomas S. "Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice". In The Essential Tension, University of Chicago Press, 1977. Argues that a successor is judged against shared criteria - accuracy, consistency, scope, simplicity, fruitfulness - so replaceability does not make competing schemes equally good. registry ↩

[6] Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, 1962. Argues that successor schemes can retain the same terms while assigning them differently, and that where no translation can be stated the case is incommensurability rather than a bridged substitution. registry ↩a ↩b

[7] Einstein, Albert. "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper". Annalen der Physik 322(10), 891-921, 1905. Derives the transformation under which simultaneity and duration are frame-relative, separating those quantities from what the transformation leaves fixed. registry ↩

[8] Halmos, Paul R. Finite-Dimensional Vector Spaces. Van Nostrand / Springer Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, 1958. Sections 46 (Change of basis) and 47 (Similarity) give the change of basis as a single similarity transform, under which coordinates move while the similarity invariants do not. registry ↩a ↩b

[9] National Bureau of Statistics (Nigeria). A Note on GDP Rebasing/Re-Benchmarking Exercise. Abuja: NBS, 2014. Supports only that a re-based series cannot be read against its own past: "comparing the rebased GDP growth rates with previous estimates ... is likely to be misleading." It says nothing about an analyst carrying that recognition to another substrate. registry ↩

[10] Financial Accounting Standards Board. Accounting Standards Update No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606). FASB, May 2014. Replaces the recognition basis with a five-step model recognising revenue as performance obligations are satisfied, sets effective dates, and permits either full-retrospective restatement of comparatives or a modified-retrospective cumulative-effect transition. registry ↩