E.9.DA:4.4 - Required decision-adequacy coordinates
Before assigning values, run the bounded omitted-question search from §4. Ask whether the DRR omitted an important question that would change its answer, content architecture, source use, consumer obligation, first drafting action, or stop. Inspect only enough of the governed problem, problem-owning practice, current sources, strongest live alternative, failure and recovery cases, and true direct consumers to answer that question.
If an important omitted question is found, state it as a substantive finding before coordinate closure and reassess every affected decision, architecture, source-use, actionability and boundary coordinate under its value rule. Do not hide it by moving to an easier use. When none is found, an ordinary clean review needs no separate ledger; a reusable result records only the checked basis and clean disposition needed by its named reliance.
| Coordinate | Evaluation question |
|---|---|
BoundedDecisionQuestionRecoverability | Can the reader recover the FPF content decision question named by value and adjacent questions outside it? |
SelectedAnswerDecisiveness | Does the DRR record the selected answer as a decision made now rather than left for drafting? |
SourceUseAndDecisionInheritanceCarryThrough | Does needed source use or accepted decision inheritance change selected answers, boundaries, obligations, cases, architecture choices, stops, or reopen conditions by value? |
AlternativeDispositionCompleteness | Are the alternatives needed to explain the selected answer, live boundary, or reopen condition closed, while irrelevant discussion history is absent from the current DRR? |
SelectedLocusObligationClosure | Are selected content responsibilities and explicit non-responsibilities assigned to selected loci named by value without unclassified selected loci, hidden ontic-candidate decisions, or precision-restoration profile defects that would become pasteable pattern prose? |
FPFContentArchitectureSelectionAdequacy | Is the selected content architecture adequate: existing pattern, new pattern, candidate ontic, direct-pattern repair, publication-boundary repair, split, merge, selected content object, branch, and the concrete pattern or relation needed for each outside claim or boundary? |
ArchitectureSourceAndViewLossClosure | Are affected structures, structure kinds, structural views, view losses, missing-structure return conditions, source-use relations, and splits among architecture decision, architecture description, publication, and ontic description decided when the decision uses them? |
DraftingActionability | Does the DRR state the working problem, positive selected answer, practical change, selected-locus obligation, first drafting action, and nearest boundary plainly? For a broad authoring rule, does the actual predecessor/proposed host replay show that entry, action, result, and effort remain at least as usable? |
LexicalAndNamingClosure | Does actual proposed wording preserve the live kind, claim, relation, ordinary meaning, and first action under E.8 and F.19, using E.10, F.18, A.6.P, C.2.P, or the concrete defining or constraining pattern only where needed? |
SoTAAndEvidenceUseInDecision | Does each decision-governing source change a decision payload, and are non-SoTA source uses bounded? |
ScopeBoundaryAndNonOverread | Are the selected decision scope, action-changing outside items, source-use or missing-structure return conditions, and lost distinctions explicit without letting precision-restoration defects or architecture-memo leakage displace the selected answer? When a specific competing reading is independently grounded and plausible, is the smallest needed correction stated? |
ConsequencesAndRegressionCoverage | Are costs, validation obligations, source-loss regressions, actual-host cases, preserved predecessor ideas, near misses, and true direct-consumer changes sufficient to protect drafting without demanding repeated full-corpus proof? |
SiblingDecisionCoordination | Is coordination with other DRRs, accepted decisions, or evaluation patterns explicit without duplication or weakening? |
AdministrativeStateAndAuthoringHistorySeparation | Are review logistics, packet state, landing, monolith placement, chat history, and authoring history kept out of decision evidence? |
CorpusEcologyAndShadowSpecResistance | Does the DRR place repeated doctrine in the concrete patterns that carry it, update true direct consumers, and avoid duplicate local variants or shadow specs? |
Coordinate separation is by repair question. One DRR section may support several coordinates, but the rationale must state the distinct property supported for each. When two heads always fail and repair together, the DRR or the evaluation pattern needs characteristic-space repair through A.19.ECS.