E.9:4 - Solution — state the decision before distributing it

Write the Decision account first in ordinary precise language. Before a reader meets a DRR identity schema, method/work account, or catalogue of alternatives, they must be able to recover, in this order:

1. the working FPF problem and why it matters now;
2. the selected answer stated positively;
3. what changes in practitioner or authoring use;
4. the selected loci and the positive obligation each one carries;
5. the first substantive drafting action; and
6. the nearest boundary, honest blocker, or reopen condition.

That short account is the primary authoring source. Add exact method, work, application, episteme-identity, source-use, assessment, or authority distinctions only when the decision or a named later reliance depends on them.

A nontrivial DRR keeps four conceptual components recoverable. These are the minimum decision kernel; the lightweight editorial variant remains available under CC-DRR.5.

In this pattern, a bounded coordinated change set is one bounded group of mutually dependent content-decision questions whose enduring FPF expression is distributed across several patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs.

The selected answer is what FPF should say, which selected loci carry it, what practical action changes, what stays outside, and which source-use, evidence, validation, or loss/recoverability conditions remain live.

A selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair is a content-distribution instruction, not a new kind. It names an admitted FPF kind and one exact reference by value—for example a U.View, source map, source-use note, evidence-path record, review-finding record, or architecture-decision record.

A temporary convergence record holds the selected answer while several selected carriers are still being updated. It is not a second permanent Core-law section or a process-state container.

Keep a rejected alternative only when it explains the selected answer, a live boundary, or a reopen condition. Pillars and taxonomy lenses may inform the decision, but the DRR records their load-bearing effects rather than rehearsing every lens or preserving the history of discussion.

Before selecting a broad language, ontology, or authoring rule for fanout, apply it to at least one dependency-aware actual predecessor/proposed host pair. At comparable effort, compare the recognizable entry, required inputs, first action, practitioner vocabulary, formality and assurance burden, first useful result, stop or return, preserved useful ideas, and true direct consumers. Proposed pattern wording must pass the E.8 first screen and the F.19 kind-preserving plain-rewrite test. A schema, invented fact pack, unrelated lane test, checklist, or promised later review cannot substitute for this replay. If the pilot degrades use without a compensating semantic gain, repair or reject the rule before fanout.

A DRR records the selected answer. When exact identity or reliance makes the distinction material, separately identify the decision work and method, selected-answer result, C.2.1 DRR episteme, source-use relations, assessment and result, any acceptance or authority, and later realization work. An exact DRR episteme then follows C.2.1 identity by <ClaimGraph, EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme>; ordinary use does not require materializing that whole account.

E.9:4.1 - Minimum decision-inspection content blocks

A nontrivial conforming DRR must also make the following decision-inspection content blocks recoverable. They may appear inside the four kernel components or inside one dedicated Decision grounds used or decision-inspection block, but they are part of substantive DRR adequacy rather than later review-only hardening.

Together these decision-inspection content blocks let the DRR act as one decision record for one bounded coordinated change set: enough semantic closure that later drafting distributes the selected answer into selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs rather than inventing it for the first time pattern by pattern.

When one bounded decision coordinates several patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, or one cluster of mutually dependent pattern edits and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair edits, the DRR MAY carry additional substantive sections beyond that minimum kernel. Typical substantive additions include obligations on selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, one explicit new-pattern vs existing-pattern decision, one impact or non-goal map across selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, coverage or agreement maps across selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, convergence classification, and one provisional decision-law account by value that keeps the bounded change account semantically complete until enduring Core text is distributed.

Such additions do not change the DRR’s kind. A DRR carrying them remains conforming only when it stays about the FPF content decision: what FPF should say, why, what is excluded, how selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs are affected, and what practical use or authoring action improves. A DRR carrying richer convergence content MUST NOT become a campaign plan, process script, baton carrier, packet checklist, staging log, or other development-process brief.

When one selected answer could plausibly fit an existing pattern or selected non-pattern kind-reference pair, or require a new one, the selected-answer decision result recorded in the DRR must state that sufficiency/necessity disposition by value. A tentative carrier list is not a decision result; later drafting must not be asked to invent the selected locus. When the accepted decision grounds or the DRR itself already names one pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair as part of the distribution question, that pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair is not a neutral future watch item. The DRR must classify it now either as one selected pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair with explicit obligation, one explicit boundary neighbor kept unchanged, one inherited-unchanged neighbor, or one outside-current-decision item with named pattern, selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, or decision record. Conditional or time-relative pattern prose or prose for one selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair such as most likely, may need local hardening, if later touched, watch later, or one equivalent placeholder is non-conforming there because it marks one unmade current decision rather than one explicit current disposition.

When decision grounds expose a potentially reusable non-pattern carrier or neighboring source-use, evidence, assurance, validation, or architecture-decision mechanism, the selected-answer result must classify it as generalized now, kept local with reason, rejected, or outside the decision with a named pattern, selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, or decision record. The DRR records that disposition; mere mention of an existing artifact is not the deciding work or result. When one selected answer involves source-loss mode, simplification, redaction, summarization, or other declared loss, the DRR must make the admissible-use template explicit by value. Explanation alone is not enough; the decision must say what remains preserved, what is dropped, which branch reading is admissible and which selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair carries it, which uses lack an admissible carrier or evidence path, what recoverability class applies, and what reopen or stop rule governs cases that exceed the declared source-loss or scope-narrowing state.

A nontrivial DRR is mature enough for downstream authoring only when material selected-answer branch choices about the EntityOfConcern, selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, outside-current-decision boundary, reusable-content disposition, and loss/recoverability regime have already been selected, rejected, inherited unchanged, or placed outside the current decision with a named pattern, selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, or decision record. If those choices are still missing, the DRR is still decision-grounding work rather than one accepted design-rationale record.

The DRR episteme lives outside normative Core. A separately governed acceptance, authority, or realization decision may rely on it, but the word accepted, a record status, review mark, or publication does not make its claims true or authorize change.

When the selected answer is separately authorized for realization, dated authoring work applies it to the selected patterns or selected non-pattern Core kind-reference pairs. The changed Core content, authoring work, result claims, checks, witnesses, publications, and any landing or release record remain distinct; apply the relevant pattern to each claim. The DRR remains external provenance and temporary convergence support; it must not remain the sole carrier of enduring semantics after those semantics are realized in Core.

Authors using a separately accepted selected answer may elaborate examples, SoTA-Echoing, recognition sections, local wording, and neighboring fit inside its declared stability boundary. A change to the selected answer, selected loci, outside boundary, reusable-content disposition, or loss/recoverability regime requires a successor decision result and DRR episteme rather than a silent edit to downstream prose.

Improvement work may apply E.23 to a DRR episteme. That work, its method applications, quality-result claims, and witnesses are separate from the DRR and do not turn the record into a pattern draft. When SoTA is load-bearing, the successor decision result must show what changed in the selected answer, locus obligation, boundary, example, validation obligation, or reopen condition; otherwise the source use remains rationale-only or lineage-only. When a campaign creates or modifies route-shaped, unfolding-shaped, first-entry, DPF, or multi-pattern path material, add a compact CampaignProblemSolutionUnfoldingCheck:

CampaignProblemSolutionUnfoldingCheck:
  campaignProblem:
  acceptedProblemSideRecordRefsOrCues:
  selectedSolutionArchitecture:
  affectedReadmeEntries:
  affectedUnfoldingFamilies:
  acceptedStartingRecordRefs[]:
  acceptedStartingStructureRefs[]:
  entryCueRefs[]:
  nextUseOrResultMap:
  unfoldingLociAddedOrChanged:
  governingPatternMapAddedOrChanged:
  patternPlacements:
  whatStayedOnlyInDRRAndMustMoveToPatternOrUnfoldingStructure:
  whatStayedOnlyInReadmeAndMustMoveToPatternOrUnfoldingStructure:
  blockedOverreads?: [only exact readings admitted by `F.19`'s grounded-contribution test]
  rejectedUnfoldingAlternatives:
  unfoldingCarryThroughResidueAfterContentUpdate:
  refreshOrReopenTrigger:

The critical field is whatStayedOnlyInDRRAndMustMoveToPatternOrUnfoldingStructure. If it remains nonempty after host drafting, the selected answer has not been fully realized. The next authoring work moves the surviving content into the selected pattern body, unfolding block, README seed, E.11 expansion, or concrete relation locus; adding another record paragraph is not realization.

To preserve P-2 Didactic Primacy without duplicating meta-text, realization work using a separately accepted selected answer should distill stable Rationale, Consequences, SoTA-Echoing, Grounding, and other valid convergence content into the selected informative pattern loci under E.8. The DRR episteme remains external provenance; it is not itself landed or transformed into Core. A substantive DRR is one claim-bearing episteme about one bounded current content-decision question/change set. It may carry selected obligations only in its Decision or Consequences, but no route, gate, handoff, packet, monolith, mutable status, or future-campaign state. Any undecided remainder is explicitly outside the decision with a named pattern, kind-reference pair, or successor decision record.

E.9:4.1a - Process-source method admission into FPF

When an author considers a stable method described in a process source, the author decides the FPF-admission disposition by value. The DRR records that decision and any source-use relation that matters; neither the source passage nor the record becomes a second canon.

The DRR names:

• the process-source passage or accepted process-source decision-ground item being considered, named by value;
• the reusable FPF method recovered from that passage;
• the current FPF pattern, section, or accepted DRR that already carries the method, if any;
• the remaining delta that current FPF does not yet carry;
• the selected FPF pattern chosen to carry that delta;
• process-control material excluded from FPF pattern prose, such as task dispatch, seam state, helper behavior, Git recovery, packet transport, review transport, chat cadence, and mutable release state;
• the source-use result for that passage or decision-ground item: quote named by value, narrowed scope, instantiated case, decision-bearing use, draft-guidance source, example-only use, or retired source use;
• any meaning loss or addition created by that source-use result: changed scope, relation, evidence path, admissible use, non-admissible use, reader use, or recoverability condition;
• the first improved FPF use that the admitted method gives to an author, reviewer, or downstream FPF user;
• the current disposition: selected now, inherited sufficient, rejected now, or outside the current decision with the named evaluation pattern, accepted DRR, or accepted decision-ground item named by value.

Reusable process-source method is not limited to semio wording or pattern-authoring language. It may enter FPF only when it is separable from local process mechanics, improves FPF use, and has one exact evaluation pattern. After the method lands in FPF, process documents should cite the selected FPF pattern instead of keeping a parallel long-form rule.