C.11:9 - Consequences

Benefits	Trade-offs / Mitigations
Keeps decision doctrine distinct from search, candidate-pool policy, and planning.	The same working episode now needs an explicit question split across choice, pool policy, and planning rather than one blurred rationality account.
Makes evidential, causal, and subjunctive branches comparable in one place.	The pattern becomes more explicit about dependence language and therefore needs tighter lexical discipline.
Keeps bounded-resource probing inside the doctrine rather than as one afterthought.	Fast-path use now carries a slightly richer inventory before the doctrine feels natural under pressure.
Keeps active-inference and quantum-like repairs visible without letting them silently replace the whole core.	Those lines stay load-bearing only when they change the actual `ChoiceResult`, unfinished state, or reroute logic; heavier formal packages still remain outside this body.
Makes the choice result explicit through one `ChoiceResult` record instead of one general statement that the case is complex.	Each decision record has to show why `choose now`, `reject current set`, `probe again`, or `reroute` is lawful, which removes rhetorical room to sound informed without committing to one result.
Makes downstream work cleaner because search, pool policy, publication, and enactment can receive one explicit output instead of one blurred upstream “decision happened” claim.	Reroutes now require one named next subject pattern and one reusable part of the record instead of one vague upstream claim that deliberation happened somewhere.
Lets one comparison stay open honestly through one explicit tie-set or `probe again` result instead of forcing a fake winner.	Some outcomes will look less rhetorically decisive because the pattern refuses to hide unfinished comparison under elegant prose.