#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 exact DRR must be checked for decision adequacy under 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. Add exact C.2.1 episteme identity only when the judgement or a named later reliance depends on it. E.9.DA supplies the object-specific evaluation questions and reusable coordinate meanings; it does not itself perform the assessment.

#Relations

#Content

#Problem frame

Use E.9.DA when one exact DRR must be checked for decision adequacy under 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. Add exact C.2.1 episteme identity only when the judgement or a named later reliance depends on it. E.9.DA supplies the object-specific evaluation questions and reusable coordinate meanings; it does not itself perform the assessment.

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, and A.19 for those objects.

First useful move: read the exact DRR in its declared authoring use and state its working problem, selected answer, practical change, first drafting action, and boundary. When it selects a broad authoring rule, inspect the actual predecessor/proposed host effect before opening any optional assessment or result apparatus.

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: one exact DRR checked for one declared FPF authoring use and qualification window. Assessment work, a reusable coordinate result, witnesses, records, status use, assurance, acceptance, and later repair are separate only when those objects are actually current.

#Problem

E.9 defines the DRR decision method and ordinary minimum form, plus exact decision-work/result and C.2.1 identity when a current claim or named reliance needs them. It does not by itself establish whether one exact DRR is decision-bearing enough for a declared downstream use. Without E.9.DA, reviewers can 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.
9. Ordinal adequacy values become repair targets, so the DRR gains source rows, locus tables, boundary catalogues, or review proof while the selected answer and first drafting action do not become more decisive.

#Forces

#Solution

Judge semantic adequacy before constructing evaluation apparatus. Read the exact DRR in its declared authoring use and ask whether a practitioner or author can recover the working problem, selected answer, practical change, selected loci, first drafting action, and boundary without inventing decisions or decoding avoidable formality.

For an ordinary bounded review, the sufficient result is:

• the exact DRR and declared authoring use;
• substantive findings, repaired DRR text, or the unchanged checked DRR when the review is clean;
• the actual predecessor/proposed host evidence when the DRR selects a broad language, ontology, or authoring rule;
• the first drafting action or first repair; and
• the stop or reopen condition.

That result may remain readable prose. It needs no assessment-work record, application object, aggregate result episteme, precision-profile record, witness package, or evidence-use package merely for symmetry.

Use the complete coordinate table when a complete reusable evaluation was explicitly requested or when a named later reliance needs stable coordinate values. Materialize the exact characteristic-space configuration, semantic evaluation method, dated assessment work, A.6.1 application, result episteme, witnesses, or evidence-use relations only when that receiving use depends on their identities. In that branch, keep the checked DRR, evaluation specification, work, application, result, record, evidence use, status use, authority, and later repair distinct; none performs or authorizes another.

For a broad language or ontology rule, DraftingActionability, LexicalAndNamingClosure, and the precision-restoration reading consume the actual-host predecessor/proposed comparison. The DRR's promise, a table-completeness check, a different lane test, or an invented fact pack is not evidence of practitioner use. Formal precision and plain comprehensibility are both required; neither compensates for loss of the other.

#Local names and kind settlement

The following names support only the complete reusable-result branch. An ordinary bounded review need not instantiate them. When the branch is opened, each name resolves to the existing FPF object or reference stated here; none names a checking machine, actor, authority, or mandatory record.

These names are local evaluation positions and refs. They are not release state, review status, project evidence, gate result, assurance, work, publication, or pattern-quality values.

#Optional exact evaluation application, result, and record

DRRDecisionAdequacyEvaluationConfiguration:
  DRRVersionRef: <exact C.2.1 DRR episteme>
  DRRDeclaredAuthoringUse: <drafting | amendment | distribution | source-use carry-through | accepted-decision carry-through | split or hold decision>
  ClaimScopeRef: <exact U.ClaimScope>
  DRRSelectedLocusDispositionMap: <locus -> selected responsibility, explicit non-responsibility, sibling decision, or outside-decision disposition>
  DRRDecisionAdequacyQualificationWindow: <source, edition, neighbour, currentness window>
  DRRDecisionAdequacyCharacteristicSpaceRef: <exact A.19 space>
  DRRDecisionAdequacyEvaluationSpecRef: <this E.9.DA specification edition>
  SemanticEvaluationMethodRef: <exact U.Method used by assessment work>
  DRRDecisionAdequacyEvidenceBasis: <checked loci and explicitly missing or unchecked loci>

DRRDecisionAdequacyAssessmentApplication:
  AssessmentWorkRef: <dated U.Work>
  EvaluatorSystemRef:
  EvaluatorRoleAssignmentRef:
  EnactedMethodRef: <same SemanticEvaluationMethodRef>
  A6_1ApplicationAndBindingRefs:
  EvaluationConfigurationRef:
  ReturnedCoordinateResultRefs:
  AggregateResultRef:

DRRDecisionAdequacyResultEpisteme:
  EntityOfConcern: <same exact DRRVersionRef>
  EffectiveReferenceScheme:
  ClaimGraph:
    DeclaredAuthoringUse:
    QualificationWindow:
    CoordinateTable: <all coordinates, values, adjacent-value rationales, evidence loci>
    PrecisionRestorationProfile:
    KindRestorationChecks:
    OnticCandidateDisposition: <when triggered>
    CampaignProblemSolutionUnfoldingCheck: <when triggered>
    DRRDecisionAdequacyStatus:
    FirstDraftingActionOrFirstRepair:
    MostExpansiveNonAdmissibleOverread:
    StopOrRepairCondition:
    ReopenIf:
  WitnessRefs:
  EvidenceUseRelationRefs:

An optional DRRDecisionAdequacyRecordRef may package refs to this configuration, assessment application/work, result episteme, witnesses, evidence-use relations, publication, and currentness. Filling or publishing that record does not perform the work, assign the coordinate values, make evidence relevant, confer assurance, create an F.10 status use, accept the DRR, or authorize downstream drafting.

When a viewpoint or grounding claim matters to the reliance, name its basis separately. Evaluator identity, record packaging, and source labels do not by themselves give the result that viewpoint or grounding.

[E.22](/generated/patterns/E.22) may frame whether the evaluation is floor-only, exceptional-improvement, trade-off, open-question, absorption, or proposal-producing. It neither performs the assessment nor assigns the result. [E.23](/generated/patterns/E.23) governs later repeated improvement work on the checked DRR after result claims or findings exist; it does not retroactively become the E.9.DA assessment.

#Ordinal coordinate scale

When a complete reusable coordinate evaluation is produced, each ordinal value is a content-evaluation claim about the exact checked DRR under the declared use and window. In an ordinary bounded review, the same scale may guide judgement without materializing a measure, work record, result episteme, assurance, acceptance, or reward.

#Required decision-adequacy coordinates

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

A complete reusable E.9.DA coordinate result uses this table shape. An ordinary bounded review may use the coordinates as probes and return substantive findings or repaired text without creating the table:

A prose summary, heading checklist, two-column coordinate-and-value table, or table without an EvidenceLocus is not a complete reusable coordinate result. It may still be a valid ordinary bounded review when it precisely states the checked DRR, declared use, substantive finding, repaired text or clean unchanged result, first action, and stop or reopen condition. Missing or unchecked evidence lowers any reusable coordinate that needs it.

Common calibration points:

#Local result status and stop condition

The following are local conclusions for the exact checked DRR, declared use, and window. They may be stated in an ordinary bounded result; a C.2.1 aggregate result episteme is needed only when a named later reliance needs that exact reusable object. They are not review decisions, gates, permissions, assurance levels, or work states.

A result carrying admissibleForDeclaredAuthoringUse states the first drafting action and most expansive non-admissible overread. newFrameRequired is not a pass for the current declared use. Non-ready result values state the first repair, split boundary, or architecture question; neither an ordinary conclusion nor a separately constituted result episteme performs that repair or imposes a gate without a separately governed receiving relation.

#Compact result form

An ordinary bounded result is deliberately short:

E.9.DA bounded review:
  Exact DRR:
  Declared authoring use:
  Actual-host evidence: <required only when a broad authoring rule is selected>
  Substantive result: <findings | repaired text | unchanged checked DRR when clean>
  Status:
  First drafting action or first repair:
  Most expansive non-admissible overread:
  Reopen if:

This is sufficient when no named later use needs a reusable coordinate result. A clean focused review may point directly to the unchanged DRR; an inspect-repair-verify pass points to the repaired text and focused verification.

When a complete reusable coordinate evaluation is explicitly required, or a named later reliance needs exact result identity, extend rather than replace the bounded result:

E.9.DA reliance-bearing result:
  Exact DRR and effective ReferenceScheme:
  Declared authoring use and qualification window:
  CharacteristicSpace and evaluation-spec refs:
  Semantic evaluation method, assessment work, and A.6.1 application refs:
  Evidence basis checked:
  Coordinate table: <Coordinate | Value | ShortRationale | EvidenceLocus>
  Precision-restoration reading and triggered exact checks:
  Witness and evidence-use refs actually used by the reliance:
  Status, first action or repair, bounded overread, and reopen condition:

Only this reliance-bearing branch requires every coordinate and the exact identities its receiving use consumes. A downstream status use, assurance, E.19 admission, authority, or drafting permission remains a separate governed claim.

#Structured finding row when reuse needs it

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

Use this row when a transferable structured finding is required. An ordinary bounded review may instead place the same precise diagnosis and repair direction in its one handoff or repaired text. Labels such as weak DRR, needs more evidence, or architecture unclear remain too vague in either form. Writing a finding neither performs assessment work nor repairs the checked DRR.

When [E.22](/generated/patterns/E.22), [E.23](/generated/patterns/E.23), absorption, or exceptional-improvement framing requests improvement, below-floor coordinate-result claims support finding rows and subsequent repair work; they do not themselves repair the DRR. Above-floor coordinates receive proposal rows only for substantive non-dominated decision-content opportunities inside the declared authoring use: a more decisive selected answer, source payload mutation, selected-locus obligation, architecture split or merge decision, rejected-alternative closure, first drafting action, regression case, or deletion or relocation of apparatus that would otherwise become pattern prose. Do not treat every value below 5 as a defect. A 4 may be the correct stop value only with loci showing why further decision-content movement is dominated, unavailable, or outside scope.

#Worked slices

Weak precision-restoration DRR. A checked 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. An ordinary review returns those missing decisions and the first repair; a requested reusable evaluation also lowers SelectedAnswerDecisiveness, SelectedLocusObligationClosure, FPFContentArchitectureSelectionAdequacy, and DraftingActionability.

Adequate multi-locus DRR. The DRR selects the precision-restoration move, assigns positive responsibilities to selected loci, states the first drafting action, carries source payload into examples and conformance, and closes only the alternatives needed to explain the answer. The reviewer can judge it from that content and the actual-host replay. A reliance-bearing evaluation may additionally publish coordinate values and an aggregate result, but the ordinary judgement does not wait for that apparatus.

Architecture-impact DRR. A checked DRR cites diagrams, graphs, dashboards, or architecture notes. Review the exact DRR against the relevant E.9.DA questions: did it settle the architecture or structure claim, structural-view relation, preserved and lost structure, missing-structure return condition or source-use relation, selected loci, and publication boundary? A description locates material; it is neither the architecture, the decision, nor the assessment result. Open exact assessment-work and result identities only for a reliance that needs them.

#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. Ordinary DRR review judges the decision and first action without manufacturing assessment records. When a named later reliance needs an exact reusable result, the evaluator, method, work, application, result, evidence use, and receiving status remain distinct; the pattern and optional record perform none of those acts. Pattern quality remains under E.21, repeated improvement under E.23, and wording repair under E.10 and its concrete neighbours.

#Conformance checklist

#Common anti-patterns and repairs

#Consequences

#Rationale

The cheapest place to repair a missing FPF decision is the DRR, before uncertainty fans out into hosts. A direct semantic judgement over the exact DRR and any triggered actual-host replay is the ordinary result. A complete coordinate table and exact evaluation/result identities are valuable only when a separately requested reusable evaluation or named later reliance needs them.

#SoTA-Echoing

#Relations

#E.9.DA:End

Last Updated: 2026-08-05 — upstream FPF commit 3dbce514 (github.com/ailev/FPF)