Actually, according to Arcadia methodology, you are not supposed to define exchanges between parent functions and their child functions.
You are also supposed to delegate functional exchanges between parent functions to their child until reaching leaf functions.
With you current model, you will see that if you launch a model validation (right click on the Physical Functions package for example then Validate Model), you will get several errors:
In Arcadia methodology, function ports (and thus functional exchanges) shall be defined on leaf functions only. You shall thus modify your model to get something like this:
The purpose of this rule is to avoid requiring people to keep in consistency between definition of functional exchanges at different levels of functions.
However, the tool provide the capability to visualize functional exchanges on parent functions:
In this picture, I have removed children of function “Parent 1” from the diagram, but
I did not changed anything in the model.
Child 11 and Child 12 still exist in the model, and the functional exchanges are defined between Child 21 and Child 11 on one side, and Child 22 and Child 12 on the other side.
What we can see here is only a “computation” of functional exchanges and ports on the Parent 1 function.
Thus actually you should not have been able to create a functional exchange between Parent 2 function and its children functions in the Functional Scenario diagram.
It should be forbidden as for the [PDFB] diagram.