FPF Reference

    DRR Decision-Adequacy Evaluation CharacteristicSpace

    E.9.DA · Stable · Part E - The FPF Constitution and Authoring Guides

    About this pattern

    This is a generated FPF pattern page projected from the published FPF source. It is canonical FPF content for this ID; it is not a FPF Reference product feature page.

    How to use this pattern

    Read the ID, status, type, and normativity first. Use the content for exact wording, the relations for adjacent concepts, and citations to keep active work grounded without pasting the whole specification.

    Status: Core.

    Use E.9.DA when one DRR must be reliable enough for a declared FPF authoring use: pattern drafting, host amendment, selected-locus distribution, accepted-decision carry-through, source-use carry-through, scope-boundary decision, split decision, or architecture-hold decision.

    Relations

    E.9.DAbuilds onDesign-Rationale Record (DRR) Method
    E.9.DAbuilds onEvaluation CharacteristicSpace Construction
    E.9.DAcoordinates withFPF Authoring Conventions and Style Guide
    E.9.DAcoordinates withLEX-BUNDLE: Unified Lexical Rules for FPF
    E.9.DAcoordinates withPattern Quality Gates: Review and Refresh Profiles
    E.9.DAcoordinates withFPF Pattern-Quality Evaluation CharacteristicSpace
    E.9.DAcoordinates withImprovement-Oriented Quality Evaluation Question Framing
    E.9.DAcoordinates withQuality Improvement Loop Method
    E.9.DAcoordinates withOntology-First Plain Technical Rewriting
    E.9.DAoutline parentDesign-Rationale Record (DRR) Method
    E.9.DAexplicit referenceFPF Pattern-Quality Evaluation CharacteristicSpace
    E.9.DAexplicit referencePattern Quality Gates: Review and Refresh Profiles
    E.9.DAexplicit referenceLEX-BUNDLE: Unified Lexical Rules for FPF
    E.9.DAexplicit referenceMM-CHR — Measurement & Metrics Characterization
    E.9.DAexplicit referenceA.CHR-NORM — Canonical “Characteristic” & rename (Dimension/Axis → Characteristic)
    E.9.DAexplicit referenceA.CSLC-KERNEL — Minimal CSLC in Kernel (Characteristic/Scale/Level/Coordinate)
    E.9.DAexplicit referenceCharacteristicSpace & Dynamics Hook (A.CHR-SPACE)
    E.9.DAexplicit referenceDesign-Rationale Record (DRR) Method
    E.9.DAexplicit referenceEvaluation CharacteristicSpace Construction
    E.9.DAexplicit referenceLocal-First Unification Naming Protocol
    E.9.DAexplicit referenceRelational Precision Restoration (RPR) — Kind-Explicit Qualified Relation Discipline
    E.9.DAexplicit referenceEpistemic Precision Restoration
    E.9.DAexplicit referenceQuality Improvement Loop Method
    E.9.DAexplicit referenceOntology-First Plain Technical Rewriting
    E.9.DAexplicit referenceWording-Use Ontological Precision Restoration Architecture
    E.9.DAexplicit referenceFPF Authoring Conventions and Style Guide
    E.9.DAexplicit referenceImprovement-Oriented Quality Evaluation Question Framing
    E.9.DAexplicit referenceQuality-Term Precision Restoration
    E.9.DAexplicit referenceQ-Bundle: Authoring "-ilities" as Structured Quality Bundles

    Content

    Problem frame

    Use E.9.DA when one DRR must be reliable enough for a declared FPF authoring use: pattern drafting, host amendment, selected-locus distribution, accepted-decision carry-through, source-use carry-through, scope-boundary decision, split decision, or architecture-hold decision.

    Not this pattern when the evaluated object is one authored pattern version, one admission or refresh review, one local wording repair, or a measurement-law problem. Use E.21, E.19, E.10 and its precision-restoration neighbours, or C.16/A.17/A.18/A.19 for those objects.

    First useful move: name the exact DRRVersionRef, declared authoring use, selected-locus disposition map, and qualification window; then evaluate every decision-adequacy coordinate in this pattern. Missing decisions lower coordinates and produce repair, split, or hold status inside the same evaluation.

    What goes wrong if missed: a formally valid DRR may still be too weak for drafting. It may summarize sources instead of deciding, mention neighbours without obligations, hide rejected alternatives, leave trigger words unresolved, or omit the first drafting action.

    Primary EntityOfConcern in plain terms: the decision-adequacy claim of one exact DRR version for a declared FPF authoring use.

    Problem

    E.9 defines the DRR kind and minimum decision-rationale form. It does not by itself say whether one concrete DRR is decision-bearing enough for downstream FPF authoring. Without E.9.DA, reviewers tend to approve headings, source volume, or clean prose while the pattern author still has to invent missing decisions.

    Recurring failures:

    1. The decision question is broad or implicit.
    2. The selected answer is a summary rather than a decision.
    3. Alternatives, rejected options, and outside-decision items are not closed.
    4. Receiving loci are named but not assigned content obligations or non-obligations.
    5. The selected FPF content architecture is explicit but wrong.
    6. Source use is copied without saying what changed in the accepted decision.
    7. Architecture descriptions, views, graphs, packets, or notes are treated as the FPF decision.
    8. Administrative state becomes adequacy evidence.

    Forces

    ForceTension
    Decision completeness vs concise rationaleA DRR must decide enough, but must not become final pattern prose.
    Exactness vs drafting freedomThe DRR fixes selected answers and boundaries; authors still write usable pattern text.
    Source preservation vs synthesisSource distinctions matter, but the DRR must state FPF decisions.
    Multi-locus coordination vs EoC boundaryOne decision can affect many patterns while one DRR adequacy claim stays scoped.
    Architecture selection vs address completionEvery locus can be assigned and still be the wrong split or merge.
    Affordability vs completenessSmall editorial decisions stay under E.9; opened E.9.DA evaluates every coordinate compactly.

    Solution

    E.9.DA is the DRR decision-adequacy specialization of A.19.ECS. It evaluates whether one DRR version carries enough decision content for the declared authoring use.

    There is no partial E.9.DA result. Once invoked, the evaluator assigns a value, short rationale, and evidence locus to every coordinate in E.9.DA:4.4, and states the evidence basis used for the result. If the DRR lacks a field, source row, selected-locus map, architecture decision, comparator, or currentness basis needed by a coordinate, the relevant coordinate receives a low value and the status states the repair, split, or hold.

    Local names and kind settlement

    Local nameKind and role
    DRRDecisionAdequacyEvaluationAuthored adequacy-evaluation record for one scoped DRR decision-adequacy claim.
    DRRVersionRefExact DRR version being evaluated.
    DRRDeclaredAuthoringUseDownstream FPF authoring use the DRR is expected to carry.
    DRRSelectedLocusDispositionMapMap from selected loci named by value to content obligations, non-obligations, sibling decisions, or outside-decision dispositions.
    DRRDecisionAdequacyQualificationWindowEdition, source set, accepted-decision record, neighbour condition, and currentness window for which the evaluation holds.
    DRRDecisionAdequacyCoordinateSetThe required coordinates in this pattern.
    DRRDecisionAdequacyEvidenceBasisDRR, source, accepted-decision, selected-locus, architecture, currentness, and neighbour loci named by value for coordinate values.
    DRRCoordinateValueRationalesRequired result rows: coordinate, value, short rationale, and evidence locus named by value.
    DRRCoordinateLocusRefsExact DRR loci used as value evidence.
    DRRSourceUseDischargeMapSource-use role, source-currentness, selected payload, rejected payload, and selected locus when source material is load-bearing.
    DRRKindRestorationCheckRequired pre-repair/post-repair object-kind, relation-or-claim-kind, slot-or-use-position, admissible-use, and scope check, or not triggered/ordinary prose/already satisfied/blocker disposition with loci, for any DRR wording, naming, or precision-restoration repair proposal.
    DRRDecisionAdequacyStatusAdmissible-use status for the scoped DRR decision-adequacy claim.

    These names are local evaluation fields. They are not release state, review status, project evidence, gate result, assurance, or pattern-quality values.

    Evaluation record

    DRRDecisionAdequacyEvaluation:
  DRRVersionRef: <DRR version named by value>

  DRRDeclaredAuthoringUse: <drafting | amendment | distribution | source-use carry-through | accepted-decision carry-through | split/hold decision>
  DRRSelectedLocusDispositionMap: <locus -> obligation/non-obligation/sibling/outside>
  DRRDecisionAdequacyQualificationWindow: <source, edition, neighbour, currentness window>
  DRRDecisionAdequacyEvidenceBasis: <checked DRR, source, accepted-decision, selected-locus, architecture, currentness, and neighbour loci; missing or unchecked loci named when they affect values>
  DRRDecisionAdequacyCoordinateTable: <all coordinates, values, short rationales, evidence loci>
  DRRKindRestorationCheck: <required for each wording/naming/precision-restoration repair proposal; pre kind/relation/claim/slot-or-use-position/admissible use/scope -> post kind/relation/claim/slot-or-use-position/admissible use/scope; not triggered | ordinary prose | already satisfied | preserved | split | intentionally changed | blocker, with loci>
  DRRDecisionAdequacyStatus: <status>
  StopOrRepairCondition: <local stop, first repair, split, or architecture hold>

    [E.22](/generated/patterns/E.22) may frame whether the evaluation is floor-only, exceptional-improvement, trade-off, open-question, absorption, or proposal-producing. [E.23](/generated/patterns/E.23) governs repeated improvement of the DRR after evaluation findings exist.

    Ordinal coordinate scale

    ValueLabelMeaning for a DRR decision-adequacy coordinate
    0absentThe coordinate is not expressed for the declared authoring use.
    1namedOnlyThe coordinate is named or implied, but cannot carry decision reliance.
    2partiallyExpressedForDeclaredUseThe coordinate is present but incomplete, fragile, or too narrow.
    3sufficientlyExpressedForDeclaredUseThe coordinate can carry the declared authoring use, with limits visible.
    4wellExpressedForDeclaredUseThe coordinate is clearly expressed with direct evidence and boundary protection.
    5exceptionallyExpressedForDeclaredUseThe coordinate is exceptionally expressed across reinforcing loci and cases without hiding cost or neighbour loss.

    The value is a content evaluation of the DRR text and accepted source-use payload, not a reward for review, landing, popularity, citation volume, or absence of visible defects.

    Required decision-adequacy coordinates

    CoordinateEvaluation question
    BoundedDecisionQuestionRecoverabilityCan the reader recover the FPF content decision question named by value and adjacent questions outside it?
    SelectedAnswerDecisivenessDoes the DRR decide the selected answer now rather than defer it to drafting?
    SourceUseAndDecisionInheritanceCarryThroughDoes needed source use or accepted decision inheritance change selected answers, boundaries, obligations, cases, architecture choices, stops, or reopen conditions by value?
    AlternativeDispositionCompletenessAre selected, rejected, inherited, lineage-only, rationale-only, and outside-decision options closed for the declared use?
    SelectedLocusObligationClosureAre obligations and non-obligations assigned to selected loci named by value without unclassified selected loci or precision-restoration/profile defects that would become pasteable pattern prose?
    FPFContentArchitectureSelectionAdequacyIs the selected FPF content architecture substantively adequate: existing pattern, new pattern, split, merge, selected content object, branch, and governing pattern for each outside claim, relation, or boundary?
    ArchitectureSourceAndViewLossClosureAre affected structures, structure kinds, structural views, view losses, source-return conditions, and splits among architecture decision, architecture description, and publication decided when the decision uses them?
    DraftingActionabilityCan a pattern author recover the first substantive drafting content as this pattern's positive subject-kind/action spine, without mining copied boundary doctrine, reference boilerplate, phrase apparatus, or architecture-placement rationale for pattern prose?
    LexicalAndNamingClosureAre durable names, trigger words, and relation-like heads repaired through E.10, F.18, A.6.P, C.2.P, or the pattern that governs the relevant kind, claim, relation, or name?
    SoTAAndEvidenceUseInDecisionDoes each load-bearing source change a decision payload, and are non-SoTA source uses bounded?
    ScopeBoundaryAndNonOverreadAre outside-decision items, inadmissible overreads, source-return paths, and lost distinctions explicit without letting precision-restoration defects or architecture-memo leakage displace the selected answer?
    ConsequencesAndRegressionCoverageAre consequences, costs, validation obligations, source-loss regressions, regression cases, and near-misses enough to protect drafting?
    SiblingDecisionCoordinationIs coordination with other DRRs, accepted decisions, or evaluation patterns explicit without duplication or weakening?
    AdministrativeStateAndAuthoringHistorySeparationAre review logistics, packet state, landing, monolith placement, chat history, and authoring history kept out of decision evidence?
    CorpusEcologyAndShadowSpecResistanceDoes the DRR assign repeated doctrine to governing patterns and avoid duplicate local variants or shadow specs?

    Coordinate separation is by repair question. One DRR section may support several coordinates, but the rationale must state the distinct property supported for each. When two heads always fail and repair together, the DRR or the evaluation pattern needs characteristic-space repair through A.19.ECS.

    Result-row discipline and calibration

    An E.9.DA result uses this table shape:

    CoordinateValueShortRationaleEvidenceLocus
    <E.9.DA coordinate><0..5><assigned-value basis; why the lower adjacent value would understate the DRR evidence; why the higher adjacent value would overstate it, or for 5 what would lower/reopen><DRR section, row, alternative, source-use row, selected-locus row, accepted-decision row, architecture decision, or missing locus named by value>

    A prose summary, heading checklist, two-column coordinate/value table, or table without exact EvidenceLocus is not an E.9.DA result. It is draft evaluation material. Missing or unchecked evidence lowers the coordinate that needs it; it does not make the coordinate inactive.

    Common calibration points:

    Coordinate family345
    Decision question and selected answerThe decision can guide limited drafting, but deferred or ambiguous material remains visible.The selected answer and outside questions are directly recoverable for declared authoring use.The decision is reinforced across question, alternatives, consequences, selected loci, and first drafting move without hidden deferral.
    Source-use and inheritanceSources or inherited decisions are relevant, but payload mutation or rejection is compact or incomplete.Source-use role, adopted payload, rejected payload, currentness, and selected-locus obligation are explicit.Source distinctions are replayable across selected answer, cases, boundaries, and first drafting move.
    Selected-locus and architecture closureLoci are named, but some obligation, non-obligation, split, architecture choice, ordinary reference relation, or phrase apparatus remains generic.Loci named by value and content obligations are closed for declared use without precision-restoration defects or architecture-memo prose in the future pattern body.The split, merge, governing pattern for outside claim/relation/boundary, and lost/source-return distinctions are replayable across cases and consequences while product prose remains positive-subject first.
    Drafting actionabilityA skilled author can proceed, but must infer some first move, subject spine, boundary disposition, selected-locus relation, or reference/architecture disposition from scattered material.The first substantive drafting content is the positive subject-kind/action spine; copied distinctions owned by other patterns are classified as pointers named by value or non-carried fanout; ordinary references stay as references; architecture rationale and phrase apparatus stay out of pattern prose; and pattern application remains explicit.Drafting can proceed across heterogeneous selected loci without inventing decisions, final prose, local negative catalogs, reference boilerplate, phrase apparatus, or architecture-memo leakage.

    Status and stop condition

    StatusMeaning
    admissibleForDeclaredAuthoringUseThe DRR can be used for the declared drafting, amendment, distribution, source-use, or accepted-decision carry-through.
    newFrameRequiredThe DRR appears useful only for a different decision, authoring use, selected-locus set, source-use claim, or qualification window than the declared one. This is not an admissible result for the current request; open a new E.22 frame or repair the DRR.
    repairBeforeDraftingOne or more coordinate floors fail for the declared authoring use.
    splitDecisionRequiredSeveral coupled questions need separate decision records or explicit convergence.
    holdForArchitectureDecisionContent object, branch, neighbour boundary, selected locus, structural view relation, source-return condition, or publication split must be decided before adequacy can close.

    admissibleForDeclaredAuthoringUse states the first drafting move and the most expansive non-admissible overread. newFrameRequired is not a pass for the current declared use. Non-ready statuses state the first repair, split boundary, or architecture question.

    Compact result form

    E.9.DA result:
  DRR version: <DRRVersionRef>
  Declared authoring use: <DRRDeclaredAuthoringUse>
  Qualification window: <window>
  Evidence basis checked: <DRRDecisionAdequacyEvidenceBasis>
  Status: <DRRDecisionAdequacyStatus>
  Coordinate table: <Coordinate | Value | ShortRationale | EvidenceLocus for every required coordinate>
  First drafting move or first repair: <...>
  Most expansive non-admissible overread: <...>
  Reopen if: <smallest changed locus or condition>

    The coordinate table may be short. It is still complete. Status is not assigned from a prose summary, two-column table, applied-finding count, review acceptance, or result missing evidence loci needed by its values.

    Finding row

    E.9.DA finding:
  DRR version: <DRRVersionRef>
  Declared authoring use: <DRRDeclaredAuthoringUse>
  Coordinate or status affected: <coordinate | status | stop condition>
  Exact DRR locus: <section, row, alternative, source-use row, accepted-decision row>
  Value or status effect: <value/status/floor/stop impact>
  Correction direction: <selected answer | selected locus | source-use payload | architecture choice | example | boundary | stop/reopen>
  Closure test: <what changed DRR text would show>

    Vague labels such as weak DRR, needs more evidence, or architecture unclear are not findings until rewritten into this row.

    Worked slices

    Weak precision-restoration DRR. A DRR says E.10, A.6.P, and C.2.P are relevant, but does not decide whether a new branch exists, what name it has, which repeated prose moves, or which regression cases test the split. SelectedAnswerDecisiveness, SelectedLocusObligationClosure, FPFContentArchitectureSelectionAdequacy, and DraftingActionability fall.

    Adequate multi-locus DRR. The DRR selects a new precision-restoration pattern, assigns exact content obligations to selected loci, states rejected alternatives, gives first drafting moves, and carries source-use payload into examples and conformance. It can be admissible for host drafting without containing final pattern prose.

    Architecture-impact DRR. A DRR uses diagrams, graphs, dashboards, or architecture notes. The evaluation asks whether the DRR decided the architecture or structure claim, structural view relation, preserved and lost structure, source-return condition, selected loci, and publication boundary. The description locates material; it is not the FPF decision.

    Bias annotation

    This pattern biases FPF toward decisions before drafting. The bias is useful because missing decisions become expensive once they fan out into pattern hosts.

    The bias is bounded. Small editorial decisions can use E.9 directly. Pattern quality remains under E.21; repeated improvement remains under E.23; wording repair remains under E.10 and precision-restoration neighboring patterns named by value.

    Conformance checklist

    CheckRequirement
    CC-E9DA-1Name DRRVersionRef, declared authoring use, selected-locus disposition map, and qualification window.
    CC-E9DA-2Evaluate every coordinate in E.9.DA:4.4 with value, short rationale, and evidence locus, using the required result-row shape.
    CC-E9DA-3Justify values from DRR decision content and accepted source-use payload, not administrative state or reputation.
    CC-E9DA-4State DRRDecisionAdequacyStatus, first drafting move or first repair, bounded non-use, and reopen condition.
    CC-E9DA-5Keep DRR adequacy distinct from pattern quality, review pass, release state, evidence, assurance, gate, and project work.
    CC-E9DA-6Apply E.10 to load-bearing names, coordinates, status values, examples, stop conditions, and finding wording introduced or repaired by the evaluation.
    CC-E9DA-6aApply the F.19 kind-or-boilerplate diagnostic from E.9/E.21 to proposed drafting wording and record the scalar effect as a precision-restoration profile: remaining word-use precision goes to E.10, E.10.ARCH, F.18, or a governing pattern; phrase apparatus goes to F.19; boilerplate stays out of future pattern prose.
    CC-E9DA-6bFor any proposed wording, naming, or precision-restoration repair, record DRRKindRestorationCheck. The repair is not adequate if it only removes a trigger word or substitutes a cleaner phrase while changing, narrowing, widening, flattening, or losing the governed kind, relation, claim kind, slot or use-position, admissible use, or scope without an accepted semantic decision and governing-pattern reference when another pattern governs the kind under repair, relation, claim, or position.
    CC-E9DA-7State source contribution by payload mutation when a source is load-bearing.
    CC-E9DA-8State what became worse if visible decision-adequacy values improved.
    CC-E9DA-9State the DRRDecisionAdequacyEvidenceBasis; if source-currentness, accepted-decision inheritance, selected-locus, architecture, or comparator evidence is missing or unchecked, lower the coordinate that needs it.
    CC-E9DA-10Use adjacent-value calibration when assigning 3, 4, or 5; a rationale must distinguish the assigned value from its lower and higher neighbours.

    Common anti-patterns and repairs

    Anti-patternRepair
    Heading-complete DRR. Headings exist but authors cannot tell what to write.Lower selected-answer, selected-locus, and drafting-action coordinates.
    Source packet in DRR clothing. Sources are preserved but FPF decisions are absent.State selected payload, rejected payload, and selected-locus obligations.
    Address completion without architecture. Every locus is named but the split or merge is wrong.Repair FPFContentArchitectureSelectionAdequacy.
    Watch item as decision. Drafting is expected to choose the answer later.Select, repair, split, or hold.
    Review-state proxy. Review acceptance or landing is treated as adequacy.Use decision-content evidence only.
    Adequacy table without evidence loci. Values are listed without exact DRR or source loci.Re-run the evaluation with `Coordinate
    Apparatus-overwrapped drafting payload. The DRR offers selected-pattern wording wrapped in role/carrier/locus/flow/state/status/text/package/process apparatus without changing a recoverable kind, relation, claim kind, admissible use, evidence value, selected locus, user move, or flow role.Classify the wording under F.19. If it changes a kind or claim, repair through precision restoration; if not, remove it from the future pattern payload or rewrite it as the positive subject-kind/action spine.

    Consequences

    ConsequenceBenefitCost
    DRR adequacy becomes inspectable before drafting.Pattern authors get decisions, not source summaries.Every opened E.9.DA evaluation touches all coordinates.
    Architecture selection becomes visible.Exact but wrong split/merge choices no longer pass as complete distribution.Some DRRs need architecture repair before drafting.
    Source mutation is explicit.SoTA, standards, reviews, audits, and accepted decisions shape decisions rather than decorate them.Rationale-only sources cannot raise values.

    Rationale

    The cheapest place to repair missing FPF decisions is the DRR, before pattern prose spreads uncertainty across several hosts. A compact complete evaluation is better than a heavy preliminary audit: it gives every coordinate a value, identifies the first repair, and stops.

    SoTA-Echoing

    ClaimPractice basisLocal adoption
    DRR adequacy is decision-content adequacy, not template completeness.Architecture-description and ADR traditions keep concerns, alternatives, decisions, rationale, and consequences inspectable.The DRR must carry selected answers, alternatives, consequences, and selected-locus decisions.
    Multi-host FPF changes need selected-locus disposition.Lightweight ADR practice is useful but too central-record-oriented for multi-pattern FPF changes.DRRSelectedLocusDispositionMap states obligations and non-obligations by locus.
    Source evidence must mutate the decision.Current FPF E.8, E.19, E.21, and living-source discipline require non-decorative source use.SoTAAndEvidenceUseInDecision checks changed decision payload, not citation presence.
    Quality improvement remains multi-coordinate.MCDA, Pareto, Goodhart, and QD lines inherited through E.22/E.23 show why one visible value is insufficient.The evaluation asks what became worse and keeps repeated improvement outside E.9.DA.

    Relations

    PatternRelation
    E.9Defines the DRR kind and minimum form.
    E.8Receives authored pattern bodies after accepted decisions.
    E.21Evaluates resulting pattern versions, not DRR adequacy.
    E.22Frames the evaluation purpose when needed.
    E.23Runs repeated improvement of a DRR after findings or proposal rows exist.
    E.19May return findings that expose upstream DRR defects.
    E.10, A.6.P, C.2.P, C.16.Q, F.18Govern wording, relation, episteme, quality-term, and naming repair.
    C.16, A.17, A.18, A.19, C.25Govern characteristic, scale, measurement, characteristic-space, and quality-bundle claims.
    Architecture-facing FPF patternsReceive architecture, structure, view, graph, publication, and source-use distinctions when the DRR decision uses them.

    E.9.DA:End

    Last Updated: 2026-06-05 — this section last modified in upstream FPF commit eaafd3a4 (github.com/ailev/FPF)