C.11.DUA:4.3 - Appraise a disputed requirement and its current force

When the requirement itself is in question, identify the quantity, activity or claim it governs and the problem it is meant to address. Examine its basis and uncertainty, threshold, protective contribution, burden and distribution of error costs. Include delay and displaced risks: reducing one named risk may increase another.

Compare retaining, tightening, relaxing or replacing the requirement only where these are meaningful alternatives. Resolve labels such as “safety” or “security” to the particular hazard, exposure, action or evidence condition. Apply the same proportionality question to the evidence demanded to justify the requirement itself.

A limit below background calls first for distinguishing the incoming background, the activity’s attributable increment and the total resulting level. A total-exposure objective can justify reducing background too. Neither “below background” nor “required for safety” settles the merits without that contribution comparison.

Keep the merits judgement separate from the currently available action set. A binding requirement continues to govern until the relevant authority or agreement changes it. Advice can recommend a lawful exception, a revised criterion or another activity and identify the feasible route to that change. A hoped-for revision is not already available. If the current requirement makes the proposed action unavailable and no acceptable alternative or timely revision is feasible, state that impasse.

When applying apparatus under C.19.2, compare eligible applications under the current result, guarantee and constraints. A cheaper method that drops a required guarantee is a different proposal. Resume under a revised declaration only when that revision is available through its governing authority or agreement.