C.11:4 - Solution

C.11:4.1a - Causal-use hook for choice records

When a choice depends on an effect, intervention, counterfactual, causal-policy, or off-policy claim, the ChoiceResult keeps the decision question local and cites the C.28 support result as one basis.

ChoiceResult.causalUseSpec?:
  causalUseQuestionRef?: CausalUseQuestionRef
  targetCausalityLadderRung: CausalityLadderRung
  causalUseClaimKind: CausalUseClaimKind
  causalActionPolicyClass?: CausalActionPolicyClass
  causalSupportComponentRefs?: CausalSupportComponentRefs
  causalUseEvidenceDesignRef?
  causalUseSupportResultRef?: CausalUseSupportResultRef
  supportedUse
  unsupportedUse

Omit the tail when causal support changes neither the comparison nor the chosen result. If causal wording changes the result, include the tail or downgrade the wording. A C.28 result does not choose, permit, or deploy an option; C.11 uses it with the other decision premises and may still select, defer, or abstain.

C.11:4.1 - Primary EntityOfConcern and admissible choice result

C.11 governs theory-side choice among already-available options. Its selected decision result states what should be chosen from the current OptionSet, including whether further probing, information gathering, or computation is rational before the choice is fixed.

The OptionSet choice question begins only after an option set already exists. It does not form complete ways of obtaining one result, govern open-ended generation of options, or govern the execution order of a plan after a choice has already been made.

C.11:4.2 - Decision discipline over a live option set

A conforming C.11 pass does not stop at naming schools of decision theory. It carries one usable choice discipline over a live OptionSet, and it ends with one explicit ChoiceResult under one explicit ChoiceRule.

1. Fix the chooser and the choice-bearing level. State one DecisionSubject and one DecisionSubjectGranularity. If the real dispute is still about who or what counts as the chooser, coordinate with A.13 instead of hiding that dispute inside one local choice.

2. Freeze the current option set. State the already-available options being compared now as one OptionSet. If the rows are only labels or fragments and the question is several complete ways to obtain the same result, stop here and apply C.38. Use C.39 when a way to obtain the result still needs explanation, or C.40 when usable material needs feasible variation and examination. Use C.18 when generation-account or archive/front claims are needed.

3. Make the comparison basis explicit. State one PreferenceOrder or one EvaluativeMeasure, plus one BeliefState and one OutcomeModel. The comparison is not usable if some options are being judged under one belief state and other options under one later, unmarked update. If two options are only comparable after one further probe or one model revision that changes the belief state or outcome model before comparison, say that the current comparison is unfinished and apply step 5 rather than pretending that one silent basis shift already solved it.

4. Choose the dependence layer that actually governs the case. Start from the evidential baseline when the choice is being compared through likely outcomes under the current BeliefState. Add one InterventionModel when taking one option changes the world through intervention rather than mere observation. Add one CounterfactualModel plus one SubjunctiveDependenceRelation when the case depends on one predictor, one structurally linked chooser, or one decision-procedure coupling that intervention talk alone does not capture. Use the least-committing dependence layer that still covers the live case, and do not switch layers across options without saying so explicitly.

5. Compare a live inquiry alternative before commitment. An inquiry alternative is live when a current proposal, consequential uncertainty, anomaly or applicable requirement supplies a plausible way for further information or computation to change this choice or its warranted use. Apply the probe-worthiness test to that alternative, stating the feasible probe, budget, cost and relevant information or computation value at the precision the choice needs. Otherwise this step adds no investigation or recording requirement. An empty form field does not activate inquiry, and no new search is required to certify that no other inquiry exists. This rule is intentionally local or myopic: it judges the best next feasible probe over the current OptionSet and current comparison basis, not one full sequential or non-myopic experimental program. Richer OED lines may strengthen this doctrine, but the local C.11 closure rule already has to decide whether the next feasible probe can still change the current choice. If no feasible further probe fits the remaining ProbeBudget, or if the best available probe no longer justifies its CostToProbe, close under the current comparison basis. If a feasible probe is still worth its cost, and that probe could still change which option survives or whether the current OptionSet should be rejected, run it, update the BeliefState and OutcomeModel, and return to step 3. If one choice result is already fixed and the remaining probe would change only execution-path description, call-plan ordering, enactment budget, or checkpointing of that chosen option, stop treating the probe as local choice doctrine and apply C.24.

6. Apply one ChoiceRule and emit one ChoiceResult plus the next question. End with one explicit result: choose now, reject current set, probe again, or reroute because this is no longer local choice. If the result is choose now, name the selected option or retained tie-set and the comparison basis supporting it; add the outcome of a live inquiry comparison or a limitation needed by the decision or its recipient. If the result is reject current set, name the reason no current option survives under the present basis and, when more work follows, the neighboring question that now takes over. If the result is probe again, name the next probe and the exact comparison defect it is supposed to repair. A C.11 pass is done only when it names the lawful choice result and the reason that result is lawful.

C.11:4.2a - Receive heterogeneous premises without relabeling them as signals

An interesting observation, information-gain estimate, capability result, objective or reward, articulated former cue, or C.17 characterization enters this pattern only under its exact source/result identity. Use E.10.LRN first when learning wording still hides that identity. Use A.10 when an evidence-bearing or source-bearing claim is actually relied on: its existing RelianceDisposition qualifies only that bounded premise use. An objective, reward, preference, or loss enters as the EvaluativeMeasure, PreferenceOrder, or ChoiceRule input it actually supplies and is not evidence by numerical form. When an A.16.1 cue pack remains current as a source or provenance episteme, preserve that source identity and route the separately articulated endpoint result through its direct claim owner. A C.17 novelty, surprise, use, or creativity characterization remains a characterization and does not license a move by itself.

No separate premise-qualification result sits between those owners and C.11. Use the qualified inputs in the live option/probe comparison and return only the existing ChoiceResult. When the missing comparison basis is specifically what a finite candidate contributes relative to the current configuration, use C.11.CRC to construct that ordinary comparison claim and return here. If every premise and the finite comparison are already explicit, proceed directly.

C.11:4.2.1 - Well-formed comparison state

Well-formedness constraint: a live C.11 comparison state is usable only when the decision record states the following, subject to the stated condition on inquiry:

• one DecisionSubject at one DecisionSubjectGranularity;
• one current OptionSet;
• one current comparison basis through PreferenceOrder or EvaluativeMeasure, plus one BeliefState and one OutcomeModel;
• one active dependence layer for the current comparison, unless the record explicitly says that comparison is still being reopened;
• when an inquiry alternative is live, an account of its feasibility, cost and possible contribution to the choice; when a decision or later use needs a retained inquiry limitation or reason, that minimum content in the same decision result.

An inactive inquiry item requires no empty value, no no-probe statement and no waiver. The chooser, option set, shared comparison basis and applicable dependence layer remain necessary.

The comparison is still unfinished, not yet wrong but not yet closeable, when any of the following remains true:

• the chooser is still shifting between person, team, organization, or another collectivity-bearing level;
• the option set is still changing while the record also claims to rank the options;
• one option is being judged under one belief state and another under one later update that is not itself declared as the next probe result;
• one heavier dependence layer is invoked for rhetorical force, but the record never states what defect of the lighter comparison it repairs;
• the record says more information would help, but never says which probe could still change the choice and why.

C.11:4.2.1a - Minimal admissible decision semantics

This minimal choice doctrine does not settle every decision-theory dispute, but it already supports some semantic distinctions by value and rules out others.

The following are lawful in this C.11 body when they are stated explicitly:

• one incomplete or only partially ordered PreferenceOrder, so long as the unresolved comparison stays visible through one retained tie-set, one further probe, or one honest reject current set result rather than one fake winner;
• one EvaluativeMeasure for magnitude, threshold, or trade-off-sensitive cases, so long as the measure being used now is explicit enough to explain why the current result follows under it;
• one temporary unresolved criterion conflict, so long as the record says whether the present comparison is using one priority order, one threshold, one explicit trade-off measure, or one unfinished state that still blocks closure;
• one explicit BeliefState revision, so long as it enters the comparison as one named probe result or one named model repair rather than as one silent basis shift;
• one widened DecisionSubject at person, team, organization, or other collectivity-bearing level, so long as the current subject-bearing level is explicit and the record does not hide unresolved cross-scale or cross-collective conflict behind one generic chooser label.

The following are not admissible in this C.11 body:

• silently totalizing one genuinely partial preference relation just to force choose now;
• silently switching from one criterion mix or one belief state to another across options;
• pretending that unresolved cross-scale or cross-collectivity conflict is already one settled local ranking when the aggregation question has not actually been discharged;
• using one polished record shape as a substitute for one stated comparison doctrine.

This is why C.11 is more than one note-taking protocol. The body already supports local incompleteness, partial order, explicit trade-off measures, and wider chooser-bearing cases, but it requires those semantic facts to change the lawful result rather than remain hidden beneath one elegant summary line.

C.11:4.2.2 - Probe-worthiness rule

Another probe is worth doing only when all three conditions hold together:

• the probe fits inside the remaining ProbeBudget;
• the expected gain from the probe, through ValueOfInformation or ValueOfComputation, is large enough to justify its CostToProbe;
• the probe can actually change the local choice result by changing the ranking, breaking or creating a tie, showing that no current option survives, repairing one missing comparison, or showing that the question should reroute.

This is the current local or myopic probe-worthiness rule for C.11: judge the best next feasible probe over the current OptionSet, not one whole non-myopic experiment design over longer horizons. Later sequential or non-myopic OED may strengthen this doctrine, but they do not relocate the local-choice question outside C.11.

Do not keep probing merely because uncertainty remains. Uncertainty is ordinary. What matters is whether one feasible next probe can still change what should be chosen, or whether the current OptionSet should be rejected, from the current local choice question.

If the best available next probe cannot change the local choice result, or its expected gain cannot justify its cost, state one explicit ChoiceResult under the current basis and current ChoiceRule.

If the next probe would no longer change which option survives but would only change how one already-chosen option gets enacted, budgeted, or checkpointed, the question has already crossed to C.24.

C.11:4.2.3 - ChoiceRule versus ChoiceResult

ChoiceRule and ChoiceResult are not the same kind of thing.

• ChoiceRule is the doctrine or operator that says how the current comparison basis, dependence layer, and any applicable probe-worthiness value support one ChoiceResult.
• ChoiceResult is the emitted record stating which choice result is lawful now under that rule.

The operational answer of this pattern is therefore one emitted ChoiceResult under one explicit ChoiceRule. The result is complete only when it states the choice result and the condition that makes that result lawful.

Only four result forms are lawful here:

• choose now
• reject current set
• probe again
• reroute

A fifth soft result such as “keep thinking”, “stay with the current view”, or “the case is still complex” is not a conforming output. It is one unfinished state that still needs to be typed.

For choose now, the emitted ChoiceResult should show:

• the selected option or retained tie-set and the comparison basis supporting it;
• the outcome of a live inquiry comparison or a limitation needed by the decision or its recipient, when applicable.

For reject current set, the emitted ChoiceResult should show:

• that no member of the current OptionSet survives under the present comparison basis;
• the exact shared defect, threshold failure, or dominated-outcome reason that defeats the current set;
• the next neighboring question only when more work now follows, such as new option generation or one explicit escalation path.

For probe again, the emitted ChoiceResult should show:

• the exact next probe;
• the comparison defect that probe is expected to repair;
• the reason the probe is still worth its cost.

For reroute, the emitted ChoiceResult should show:

• the neighboring question and the pattern used to answer it;
• the reason this is no longer local choice among already-available options.

C.11:4.2.4 - Closure rule over the current OptionSet

The comparison may close as choose now only when all of the following are true together:

• the current OptionSet is stable enough that no further options are being invented for this comparison;
• the current comparison basis is explicit enough to state why one option survives or why one tie-set remains;
• no still-feasible next probe is expected to change the survivor relation with enough expected value to justify its cost;
• the record still concerns local choice rather than pool policy, selector-result declaration, publication availability, or enactment.

The comparison may close as reject current set only when all of the following are true together:

• the current OptionSet is explicit and stable enough to reject as the present choice set;
• the current comparison basis is explicit enough to show why no member survives under the present basis;
• no still-feasible next probe is expected to rescue one member with enough expected value to justify its cost;
• the result is still one local choice conclusion rather than one disguised pool-policy, selector-result declaration, publication-availability, or enactment result.

Assess the probe conditions above from the current basis and any live inquiry alternative. They are conditions of a warranted choice, not a requirement to produce a separate account of omitted checking.

The comparison should close as probe again only when all of the following are true together:

• one next probe is named by value;
• that probe fits the remaining ProbeBudget;
• that probe is expected to repair one named comparison defect;
• that repaired defect could still change which option survives, whether the current set should be rejected, or whether the question should reroute.

The comparison should close as reroute when the record shows that the decision question has changed:

• to C.38 when labels or fragments must first become complete-enough ways of obtaining the same result;
• to C.39 when a way to obtain the result still needs explanation;
• to C.40 when usable material needs feasible variation and examination;
• to C.18 when the question concerns the generation account or archive/front stewardship;
• to C.19 when the question is now how broadly to keep exploring or exploiting one candidate pool;
• to C.24 when one choice result already exists and the next task is now sequencing, enactment, or execution-path probe work;
• to G.5 when the next task is declaring or naming selector-facing selected-set content; when that result already exists, use E.17 for its source-backed publication face and return to source and E.24.PUB for the publication occurrence and audience availability.

If none of those closure conditions can yet be satisfied, the record is still unfinished. It is not rescued by richer terminology alone.

C.11:4.2.5 - Minimal decision-record form

A minimal C.11 decision record has the shape below. Include ProbeDecisionValue only for a live inquiry alternative or an inquiry judgement whose content the decision or recipient needs. Include only the relevant information or computation value. A retained prose reason or limitation alone does not activate that block: put only the needed statement in ChoiceResult.

DecisionSubject(...)
DecisionSubjectGranularity(...)
OptionSet(...)
ComparisonBasis(
  preferenceOrder or evaluativeMeasure,
  beliefState,
  outcomeModel,
  optional intervention/counterfactual/subjunctive layer
)
ChoiceRule(
  closure rule over the current basis and any applicable probe decision value
)
ProbeDecisionValue(  # conditional as described above
  probeActionSet,
  probeBudget,
  costToProbe,
  relevant valueOfInformation or valueOfComputation or both
)
ChoiceResult(
  choiceDisposition = choose_now | reject_current_set | probe_again | reroute,
  selectedOption or retainedTieSet or rejectedCurrentSet or nextProbe or rerouteOwner,
  reason this result is lawful now
)

Exact syntax is unnecessary. The chooser, options, shared comparison basis, ChoiceRule and ChoiceResult are required. Inquiry content is required only under the stated condition; an absent block requires no placeholder or omission explanation.

Use branch language only when it changes the actual comparison being performed.

C.11:4.2.6 - Resource-aware choice is one lens over declared source families

• Start from one declared source family or one declared source-family composition such as Front, Archive, or Front+Archive.
• Apply one declared decision lens over that source family rather than inventing one hidden universal winner rule.
• CostToProbe, ValueOfInformation, and ValueOfComputation belong to that lens-side choice doctrine.
• They may justify another probe, one changed local comparison outcome, or one stop decision, but they do not rename the current DominanceSet and do not declare one shortlist-family result.
• If one candidate remains worth probing because its expected information value still exceeds its expected cost, say that explicitly as one lens-side choice judgement.
• If one archive point remains worth probing because it may change the frontier later, keep that as one resource-aware choice claim, not as evidence that the point is already on the current front.
• The kernel floor here is:
  • A.19.SelectorMechanism remains the cited set-return floor
  • SelectionSlot remains the selector output floor
  • if later selector-facing set-result declaration is required, that set-returning floor may support one Shortlist or one RankedShortlist in G.5 rather than one forced single winner

C.11:4.3.1 - Classical evidential baseline

Stay with the classical evidential baseline when the question is to compare already-available options through preferences, utilities or desirabilities, beliefs, and likely outcomes under uncertainty.

In this baseline, the options are being compared as evidence about what consequences are likely if they are chosen. This is the ordinary default when intervention structure, predictor-coupling, or context-sensitive non-commutativity are not yet doing real work in the case.

Typical practical cash-outs are:

• choose now because the current shared BeliefState and OutcomeModel already make one option or tie-set survive, and no still-feasible probe is worth its cost;
• probe again because one further observation, measurement, or comparison pass could still change the ranking without requiring a heavier causal, subjunctive, or context-order repair;
• reroute because the current decision question is no longer really comparing one fixed OptionSet, but has become search, pool policy, selector-result declaration, publication-availability, or enactment work.

The baseline is still unfinished when the current comparison invokes it but cannot keep one shared BeliefState and OutcomeModel across the compared options, or when one heavier defect is already live and the current comparison still pretends one plain evidential comparison is enough.

C.11:4.3.2 - Causal repair

Switch on one InterventionModel when taking one option changes the world through intervention rather than merely signaling which outcome was already likely.

What changes here is not the prestige label of the theory line, but the comparative question itself: the working question is no longer only what this option indicates about the outcome, but what this option causes in the outcome structure.

Typical practical cash-outs are:

• choose now because, under the declared intervention structure, one option now causally dominates or remains the survivor and no remaining feasible probe can reverse that causal ranking;
• probe again because one intervention-relevant uncertainty still blocks a lawful causal comparison and one named next probe could still change which option causally survives;
• reroute because the intervention-use question has already moved from local choice into enactment planning, protocol design, or one neighboring question.

The causal repair is incomplete if the comparison still treats options only as evidence after invoking causal language, or if an InterventionModel is named without stating what defect of the lighter evidential comparison it repairs.

C.11:4.3.3 - Success-first or subjunctive repair

Switch on one CounterfactualModel plus one SubjunctiveDependenceRelation when Newcomb-like, blackmail-like, or other predictor-coupled cases remain under-described by the older evidential-versus-causal split.

What changes here is that the comparison must stay answerable to linked decision procedures, predictors, or structurally similar choosers rather than only to direct intervention on one local event.

Typical practical cash-outs are:

• choose now because, under the declared counterfactual or subjunctive structure, one option survives once the predictor-coupled comparison is made explicit;
• probe again because one further model clarification, predictor assumption check, or decision-procedure comparison could still reverse the current survivor relation;
• reroute because the governing decision question is no longer settling local choice doctrine but has become one wider characterization, negotiation, or enactment question that only borrowed predictor-coupling language.

If that coupled structure is not live, do not activate this branch. If a predictor-coupled or success-first repair is named but the linked structure that changes the comparison is still unspecified, the branch is not yet load-bearing in the current decision.

C.11:4.3.4 - Active-inference neighboring repair

Bring the active-inference line into view when the chooser is embodied, online, and socially coupled, and when the decision cannot be understood as one disembodied choose-then-act moment.

What changes here is practical choice logic, not one neighboring-school label. The comparison is no longer over one frozen snapshot alone. The comparison must now ask whether one more observation, one more coupled update, or one more socially mediated or role-expectation clarification actually changes what should be done now.

This minimal choice doctrine makes that social-expectation pressure explicit, but it does not yet operationalize one full ROE or SocialExpectationRegime object model inside C.11. If that heavier machinery is itself what the case hinges on, the decision record should say so honestly rather than pretending the local C.11 floor has already settled it.

Typical practical cash-outs are:

• probe again because one further embodied observation, coupled update, or explicit role-expectation clarification can still change the state estimate enough to reverse the current survivor relation;
• choose now because delay itself now worsens the state being managed, closes the window in which the preferred option remains feasible, or leaves no lawful time for one more socially mediated check;
• reroute because the question has already become enactment sequencing or agent-characterization work rather than local choice.

C.11 keeps the choice question visible there, but A.13 still governs the narrower question of what kind of agent or agential system is in play. For measured characteristic and evidence claims, use A.17 for Characteristic identity and arity, A.18 for Scale and Coordinate bindings, A.19 for the declared space and reusable predicate, C.16 for the measurement account, and A.10 for bounded reliance on the evidence. C.24 still governs sequencing and enactment once a choice result has already been fixed.

Do not invoke this line only because one agent is acting in the world. Invoke it when embodied coupling, online updating, or explicit social-expectation pressure actually changes what the chooser should do now from the current OptionSet.

C.11:4.3.5 - Quantum-like neighboring repair

Bring the quantum-like line into view when context effects, order effects, response-replicability tension, or incompatible-question structure change the comparative state enough that one simple commutative probability reading no longer fits.

What changes here is the practical structure of comparison. One order of questioning or one framing path may produce one different survivor relation from another. The comparison must therefore either stabilize the comparison under one declared order or show why one more clarifying pass is still needed.

This minimal choice doctrine keeps the branch at that measurement-sensitive recognition point. It does not yet claim one full quantum-like state-space package inside C.11; it claims only that the live comparison may need one explicit measurement-class or order-sensitive repair rather than one plain commutative reading.

Typical practical cash-outs are:

• choose now under one declared order or framing because rival orders no longer change which option survives;
• probe again because one framing-sensitive comparison pass, one further question order, one response-replicability check, or one explicit measurement-class clarification could still reverse the survivor relation;
• reroute when the current decision question is no longer deciding among live options but has become one selector-result declaration, publication-availability, or enactment problem that only borrowed order-effect language rhetorically.

Do not promote this line to the unmarked default unless those repaired limitations are live in the case.

Do not invoke this line merely because a case feels psychologically subtle. Invoke it when one changed order, framing, response pattern, or incompatible-question structure actually changes the comparison state or the survivor relation in the live choice.

If no causal, subjunctive, active-inference, or quantum-like refinement is needed for a live limitation, stay with the classical evidential baseline.

The family map is therefore one disciplined set of refinements over the same choice question, not one excuse to rename every neighboring question as decision theory.

C.11:4.4 - Reroute as soon as the question stops being local choice

Use C.11 while the question remains: from this current OptionSet, what should the DecisionSubject choose, and is another probe worth its cost before commitment?

Reroute immediately when the question changes:

• If the current rows are labels or fragments and the hard question is how several complete ways could obtain the same result, leave this pattern and work in C.38 first.
• If a way to obtain the result still needs explanation, use C.39. If usable material needs feasible variation and examination, use C.40. Use C.18 when the question concerns the generation account or archive/front stewardship.
• If the options already exist but the question is how broadly to keep exploring or exploiting the candidate pool, leave this pattern and work in C.19, where the next useful output is one explicit pool-policy result rather than one local ChoiceResult.
• If one option is already chosen and the question is how to sequence, budget, or enact that choice, leave this pattern and work in C.24, where the next useful output is one enactment-facing call plan or CheckpointReturn.
• If the question has shifted from deciding to declaring or naming selector-facing selected-set content, leave this pattern and work in G.5. Its next useful output may be a Shortlist or RankedShortlist when alternatives remain for later choice, a JointUseSet when every named member is included for one bounded use, a narrowed handoff, abstain, or escalation. None is one more local ChoiceResult. If that result already exists and the current question is presentation or availability to an audience, use E.17 for the source-backed publication face and return to source and E.24.PUB for the publication occurrence and availability.

ProbeBudget stays here while it means the epistemic or deliberative budget for one more probe before choice and while that probe can still change which option survives or whether the current set should be rejected. When the same word now means execution budget, call budget, enactment budget, or execution-path scouting after one choice result already exists, the question has moved to C.24.

ValueOfInformation and ValueOfComputation also stay theory-side here as comparative criteria while the question is still local choice among the current options. If one more probe could still change which option survives or whether the current set should be rejected, stay in C.11. If the choice result is already fixed and those criteria now govern only execution-path sequencing, call-plan ordering, or enactment of the chosen option, the question has crossed to C.24. C.19 and C.24 may consume the criteria, but they do not become the doctrine authorities for them.

Outside this pattern remain candidate generation, pool-wide exploration policy, selector-facing set-result declaration, publication availability, and execution planning.

C.11:4.5 - Minimal inventory and mathematical floor

The minimum usable inventory for this pattern is:

• subject and option objects: DecisionSubject, DecisionSubjectGranularity, OptionSet;
• evaluative and epistemic objects: PreferenceOrder, EvaluativeMeasure, BeliefState, OutcomeModel;
• dependence and comparison objects: InterventionModel, CounterfactualModel, SubjunctiveDependenceRelation, ChoiceRule, ChoiceResult;
• probe and bounded-resource objects: ProbeActionSet, ProbeBudget, CostToProbe, ValueOfInformation, ValueOfComputation.

The applicable objects from this inventory are required because the decision record must carry one explicit path from a live OptionSet through one live ChoiceRule to one emitted ChoiceResult.

C.11:4.5.1 - Always explicit versus conditionally activated objects

The following objects should be explicit in every usable C.11 decision record:

• DecisionSubject and DecisionSubjectGranularity;
• OptionSet;
• one evaluative basis through PreferenceOrder or EvaluativeMeasure;
• BeliefState;
• OutcomeModel;
• ChoiceRule;
• ChoiceResult.

The following objects activate when the case needs them:

• InterventionModel for causal repair;
• CounterfactualModel plus SubjunctiveDependenceRelation for success-first or predictor-coupled repair;
• ProbeActionSet, ProbeBudget, CostToProbe, ValueOfInformation, and ValueOfComputation when one more probe or one more computation pass is still live.

What matters is not that every decision record mechanically mentions every token. What matters is that the current comparison does not smuggle one active question without naming the object that carries it.

Immediate lexical commitments:

• the default chooser term is DecisionSubject, not Agent;
• DecisionSubjectGranularity names the chooser-bearing level when the question is about whether the chooser is one person, team, organization, or another collectivity-bearing system rather than one generic scalar or coordinate;
• relation-heavy wording remains answerable to A.6.P together with A.6.5.

Local plain glosses for the load-bearing inventory:

• DecisionSubject: who or what is actually carrying this choice now, whether that is one person, one team, one committee, one organization, or another collectivity-bearing system;
• DecisionSubjectGranularity: the level at which the choice is being attributed, such as person-level, team-level, or organization-level rather than one vague “agent” label;
• OptionSet: the concrete options already on the table now;
• PreferenceOrder: the current better-than / worse-than ordering over those options for this decision subject;
• EvaluativeMeasure: the explicit utility-style or desirability-style scoring measure used when the case needs magnitudes, thresholds, or trade-offs rather than only one ordering;
• BeliefState: the current uncertainty-bearing state about the world, the case, and the likely consequences of the options;
• OutcomeModel: the model that maps options plus the current uncertainty picture to the consequences that matter for this choice;
• InterventionModel: the part of the model that says how the world changes because one option is actually taken;
• CounterfactualModel: the model used to compare relevant non-actual alternatives or alternate decision procedures;
• SubjunctiveDependenceRelation: the dependence between this choice and one predictor, one linked chooser, or one structurally similar decision procedure when intervention talk alone is not enough;
• ChoiceRule: the current choice doctrine or operator that says what conditions make choose now, reject current set, probe again, or reroute lawful in this case;
• ChoiceResult: the emitted result record saying which of those lawful choice results actually follows now under the current ChoiceRule;
• ProbeActionSet: the further checks, measurements, simulations, or questions that can still be run before commitment;
• ProbeBudget: the remaining time, money, attention, or tolerated delay available for those pre-choice probes;
• CostToProbe: the real cost of another measurement, question, simulation, trial, or delay before commitment;
• ValueOfInformation: the expected gain from learning more before choosing;
• ValueOfComputation: the expected gain from spending more reasoning or compute before choosing.

What follows from DecisionSubject being wider than Agent:

• the chooser in C.11 need not be one person-like agent;
• a team, committee, organization, or coupled human-tool system may be the DecisionSubject when that is the real level at which the choice is being made;
• the pattern therefore does not force agency characterization to do the job of naming who or what is currently choosing.

This floor is enough to keep choice doctrine inspectable and stable. It does not yet assume one full branch-specific quantum-like package or one cross-scale geometry-heavy package.

C.11:4.5.2 - Boundary on multilevel and social-expectation doctrine

DecisionSubject and DecisionSubjectGranularity are the local answer to human-only and individual-only narrowing. They keep the chooser explicit at person, team, organization, or other collectivity-bearing level so the doctrine does not silently collapse back into one generic individual agent.

This minimal choice doctrine does not yet settle all of the heavier doctrine that can sit behind that wider chooser-bearing scope. In particular, this body does not yet fully settle:

• collective aggregation doctrine over conflicting preferences or criteria;
• cross-scale or cross-collective conflict between person-, team-, organization-, or broader system-level objectives;
• one full ROE or social-expectation structure for socially scaffolded choice;
• one full multilevel or geometry-heavy formal package for those cross-scale or cross-collective questions.

Those absences are not hidden exceptions. They are explicit scope boundaries of this C.11 body. If one of those heavier questions is already live in the case, the decision record should say that the local C.11 floor is being used only as the current typed floor and should keep the unresolved aggregation, ROE, or multilevel support question visible by value.

C.11:4.6 - Minimal decision tuple and finish condition

A C.11 decision record is complete only when it states:

• who or what is choosing: DecisionSubject at one DecisionSubjectGranularity;
• what is currently choosable: OptionSet;
• how the options are compared: PreferenceOrder or EvaluativeMeasure, plus BeliefState and OutcomeModel;
• which heavier dependence layer is active when the case needs it: InterventionModel for causal repair, or CounterfactualModel plus SubjunctiveDependenceRelation for success-first or predictor-coupled repair;
• what comparison doctrine currently governs the case: one explicit ChoiceRule;
• when an inquiry alternative is live, an account of its feasibility, cost and possible contribution to the choice; when a decision or later use needs a retained inquiry limitation or reason, that minimum content in the same decision result.
• what the current comparison concludes: one emitted ChoiceResult that says choose now, reject the current set, probe again, or reroute. That result must name either the selected option, the retained tie-set, the rejected current set, or the next probe or reroute named by value.

Without that explicit tuple, choice doctrine usually collapses into one of three easier but wrong substitutes: generic rationality talk, search folklore, or planning folklore.

The finish condition is more specific than “the record now sounds informed.” The record is finished enough for practical use only when the choice result stated in ChoiceResult follows from the stated comparison basis, stated ChoiceRule, and any applicable probe decision value rather than from unstated background assumptions.

A C.11 pass is finished enough for practical use when all three conditions hold:

• the current comparison basis is explicit enough to explain the stated ChoiceResult: why an option or tie-set survives, no current option survives, or probing or rerouting is needed;
• any live inquiry alternative has been resolved sufficiently to support the choice, and the result retains any inquiry reason or limitation needed by this decision or its recipient;
• the next question is explicit: choose now, reject current set, probe again, or reroute.

An inactive inquiry item adds no placeholder or omission account to this tuple or finish condition.

If the case remains tied or underdetermined under the current basis, say that directly and keep the tie-set explicit. A lawful ChoiceResult may still be probe again or reroute, but it must not pretend that one winner already exists when the current basis has not earned that conclusion.

If those conditions are still missing, the pattern has not yet answered the choice question even if the terminology already sounds sophisticated.