A.19.SelectorMechanism:6 - Bias-Annotation — informative

This pattern intentionally biases selection authoring toward explicitness and admissibility.

• Governance bias. Bias toward explicit criteria and policy-reference records rather than implicit constants. Risk: perceived overhead. Mitigation: keep criteria records minimal, and centralize defaults via TaskSignatureSlot when used.
• Architecture bias. Bias toward set‑return semantics and against forced total orders. Risk: consumers may expect a single winner. Mitigation: make single‑winner selection an explicit criterion or a declared comparator outcome, not an implicit kernel behavior.
• Epistemic bias. Bias toward fail‑closed evidence handling and against unknown coercion. Risk: more degrade or abstain early. Mitigation: improve evidence pins and policy clarity; do not relax the kernel.
• Practice bias. Bias against embedding telemetry and publication into selection. Risk: teams want one step to select and report. Mitigation: keep those relations under their governing patterns; retain replay through dated selection work, the actual Select application and result binding, A.10 evidence provenance, and G.11 currentness.
• Didactic bias. Bias toward one governing pattern and “Tell + Cite” elsewhere. Risk: refactoring work. Mitigation: the result is a spec that can be read and taught without scavenger hunts.