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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.