| CC-DRR.0 (ordinary decision first, exact distinctions when material) | The working problem, selected answer, practical change, loci, first drafting action, and nearest boundary are recoverable before optional method/work/application or episteme apparatus. If identity or named reliance changes the claim, the relevant method, work, result, record, source use, assessment, authority, and realization remain distinct. | Keeps the DRR usable without losing exact distinctions when they matter. |
| CC-DRR.0a (optional exact DRR identity) | When exact DRR identity is needed, its ClaimGraph, bounded decision-question/change-set EntityOfConcern, and effective ReferenceScheme are recoverable; carrier, rendering, route state, status, or later Core edit is not an identity constituent. | Preserves a recoverable claim episteme without making every ordinary DRR start from the schema. |
| CC-DRR.0b (actual-host replay for broad rules) | A broad language, ontology, or authoring rule has one dependency-aware actual predecessor/proposed host replay before fanout. The replay compares entry, inputs, action, vocabulary, formality and assurance burden, result, stop, useful predecessor ideas, and true direct consumers at comparable effort; proxy evidence does not substitute. | Prevents a clean-looking abstract rule from degrading real pattern use at scale. |
| CC-DRR.0c (positive decision and restrained alternatives) | The current DRR carries the positive selected decision. A rejected alternative remains only when it explains the answer, a live boundary, or a reopen condition; Pillar and taxonomy-lens effects are recorded only where they changed the decision. | Prevents negative catalogues and ritual completeness from displacing the authoring source. |
| CC‑DRR.1 | For a Delta-2 or Delta-3 semantic change, the DRR SHALL make Problem frame, Decision, Rationale, and Consequences recoverable before Core drafting. Any exact decision-work/application account or authority to realize the answer is added only when that identity or reliance is current and remains a separate governed claim. | Prevents undocumented semantic edits without imposing the high-reliance account on ordinary use. |
| CC‑DRR.1a | A DRR whose proposed change is expressed as a new or revised pattern written in the standard template (E.8) MAY satisfy that minimum kernel by pointing to the corresponding pattern sections rather than duplicating prose. | Avoids “double writing” while keeping the argument recoverable. |
| CC‑DRR.1b (rich convergence content is permitted) | A DRR that coordinates several patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, or mutually dependent pattern and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair changes, MAY include additional substantive sections beyond the minimum kernel—for example obligations on selected patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, explicit new-pattern vs existing-pattern decisions, boundary/non-goal maps, coverage or agreement maps across selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, convergence classification, or one provisional decision-law account by value—provided that the DRR stays about the FPF content decision and MUST NOT become process management. | Allows one semantically sufficient convergence record for coordinated changes without forcing mid-distribution invention or extra shadow documents. |
| CC-DRR.1c (exact decision grounds are recoverable) | A conforming DRR MUST make its exact decision grounds and governing inheritance recoverable by value, either in one dedicated Decision grounds used section or one equivalent header with exact source-use and rationale fields. Routing, status, and provenance records do not count unless their substantive content still governs the decision by value. | Prevents anti-telephone drift and keeps the decision inspectable against its real source-use and inheritance grounds. |
| CC-DRR.1d (problem-frame adequacy) | The Problem frame MUST make the intended FPF use-value, first-minute working situation, minimum scenario/anti-case grounding, compact utility/fitness reading, and any load-bearing current SoTA, competitive-positioning, or inherited-decision justification recoverable by value. | Prevents a DRR from being formally labeled but pragmatically under-specified. |
| CC-DRR.1e (current disposition map and content obligations) | The Decision MUST name the selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs and the positive content obligations each selected pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair must carry by value, including the first subject kind and action guidance expected in drafting when a pattern is selected. For every load-bearing selected answer and for every content decision question explicitly assigned to this DRR by accepted decision grounds, the Decision MUST record one current disposition now: selected now, rejected now, inherited unchanged, or outside current decision with named pattern, selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, or decision record. Boundary and non-obligation lists MUST NOT be handed to later drafting as copied negative doctrine. Content already carried by an explicit strict-distinction claim, a pattern that defines or constrains the specific claim, relation, or boundary, or a ToC/navigation locus MUST be classified as one pointer or non-carried fanout unless a documented local confusion needs a new exact stop condition. The author MUST apply F.19 before proposing wording for selected patterns; boilerplate stays outside pasteable pattern prose, and remaining content that still hides precision must name the applied E.10, E.10.ARCH, F.18, F.19, or governing pattern. Pattern application and selected-locus disposition MUST remain declarative content distribution, not architecture-placement memo. A named pattern is admissible only when its exact contribution to the distinction, claim boundary, relation, row shape, or naming decision is stated. When one pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair is already named as part of that distribution question, the Decision MUST NOT leave it in conditional or time-relative pattern prose or prose for one selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair such as most likely, may need, or if later touched. | Stops hidden deferral, including conditional/time-relative carrier-list wording, prevents tentative carrier-list prose from replacing real content decisions, and prevents DRR boundary maps from becoming local subject-Solution noise. |
| CC-DRR.1e2 (kind-restoration for proposed wording). | When the DRR proposes changed wording for an FPF-qualified phrase, compare the pre-repair and post-repair object kind, relation or claim kind, live ontic slot or relation position, use, admissible scope, and practitioner action. If the wording changes kind, narrows or widens the object, collapses several kinds, treats a slot or use relation as a kind, or loses a live distinction, the DRR MUST record the accepted semantic decision by value or leave the wording as a blocking finding. When another pattern defines or constrains the live distinction, state its concrete contribution and cite it; require an exact claim-bearing episteme or ClaimGraph only when the receiving use depends on that identity. | Prevents DRR wording proposals from laundering ontology changes as editorial cleanup without imposing unused formal identity. |
| CC-DRR.1f (reusable-content disposition when triggered) | When accepted decision grounds expose a potentially reusable selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair or neighboring source-use, evidence, assurance, validation, or architecture-decision mechanism, the DRR MUST record whether it is generalized now, kept local with reason, rejected, or placed outside the current decision with named pattern, selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, or decision record. | Prevents unexamined inheritance of local source-use publications, evidence records, assurance records, validation views, or architecture-decision relations. |
| CC‑DRR.1g (source-loss and recoverability template when triggered) | If the decision declares a source-loss mode, simplification, redaction, summarization, or other source-to-rendering loss, the DRR MUST make explicit the preserved distinctions, dropped distinctions, admissible uses, non-admissible downstream uses, recoverability class, and reopen or stop rule. | Prevents rhetorical smoothing from masquerading as stable content. |
| CC‑DRR.1h (naming and ontology adequacy) | A conforming DRR MUST make the selected head, branch, object, governed action, and outside-work separation recoverable by value and MUST expose any tempting wrong-pattern assignment or wrong non-pattern FPF kind-reference assignment or load-bearing F.18 naming obligation that materially affects the decision. | Prevents semantically important naming and typing choices from being rediscovered later during pattern drafting. |
| CC‑DRR.1i (existing-pattern sufficiency or new-pattern necessity is explicit) | When a load-bearing selected answer could plausibly belong in one already-existing pattern, one already-existing selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, or one newly proposed pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, the DRR MUST make that sufficiency/necessity judgement by value and MUST explain why rejected options would misplace, overload, or falsely split the pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair that governs the selected answer. | Prevents carrier selection from being rediscovered during downstream drafting. |
| CC‑DRR.1j (selected-answer stability boundary is explicit) | The Decision or Consequences MUST make clear which elements of the selected answer are fixed now for later FPF drafting and which later elaborations may strengthen wording, examples, source-use rows, or validation evidence without reopening the selected answer. | Prevents later drafting from silently widening or re-deciding the accepted answer. |
| CC-DRR.1k (source-use result is explicit). | When a source-borne method, architecture claim, accepted ground, or reusable passage shapes the decision, the DRR MUST state how it is used: quoted by value, narrowed, instantiated, decision-bearing, draft guidance, example-only, or retired. It also states any material meaning loss or addition in scope, relation, evidence path, admissible use, reader use, or recoverability. Name the exact source episteme, publication, and source-use relation when the decision or a named later reliance depends on those identities. | Blocks free paraphrase without making every source use start from a ClaimGraph or turning the source into a second canon. |
| CC‑DRR.2 | The Rationale compares only material alternatives and records the load-bearing effects of the relevant Pillars and Principle-Taxonomy lenses. It MUST NOT preserve a ritual paragraph for every Pillar or lens when that item did not change the answer, boundary, or reopen condition. | Keeps cross-disciplinary alignment without turning completeness into a negative catalogue. |
| CC‑DRR.3 | The DRR SHALL name the selected loci, the positive obligation each carries, and every true direct consumer whose meaning must move in the same increment. It names a tempting outside locus only when that exclusion explains the answer, boundary, or reopen condition; it does not build an exhaustive impact catalogue. | Preserves dependency closure while keeping the positive decision readable. |
| CC‑DRR.3a (practical and validation consequences are explicit) | The Consequences account MUST expose the practical change in use, practical gains/costs, affected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, and any remaining content-scope validation evidence obligation or authority/release consequence that still constrains the selected decision by value. | Prevents consequences from collapsing into generic optimism or process-order prose. |
| CC-DRR.3b (SoTA shapes the decision when load-bearing) | When SoTA or competitive positioning is load-bearing, the DRR MUST make the current SoTA source-use line recoverable under E.8, state why it is current best-known problem-solving practice for the DRR decision question rather than merely official, recent, popular, or familiar, and state any uncertainty that would materially change the decision. A literature overview that does not shape the selected answer, boundary, or validation evidence obligation is non-conforming. | Keeps SoTA from becoming decorative appendix material or prestige-source substitution. |
| CC‑DRR.4 | When a separately authorized selected answer is realized, dated authoring work SHALL incorporate its normative Decision content into the selected Core loci and MAY distill rationale/consequences/SoTA/grounding into informative loci. The DRR records the answer; it neither authorizes nor performs realization, and no new normative constraint may be invented outside the recorded answer. | Preserve Core authority and the record/work/result boundary. |
| CC-DRR.4a (separate-law content proliferation is blocked) | If the DRR needs compact law/check content, it SHOULD keep that content as one decision-law section or as obligations on selected existing amendment targets. It MUST NOT mint a separate law sheet, profile, selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, or checklist unless that separate selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair is selected by value and shown not to duplicate the DRR or the selected amendment targets. | Prevents unnecessary separate source-use, validation, or shadow-law proliferation. |
| CC‑DRR.4b (current decision object remains singular) | A conforming DRR MUST remain one current content decision object. It MUST NOT carry process-order/gate/handoff/process state, mutable status, or hidden same-decision future-planning language; any undecided remainder MUST be marked outside the current decision with named pattern, selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, or decision record. | Keeps the DRR ontologically about the FPF decision rather than about the development container. |
| CC-DRR.4c (downstream authoring stays inside the separately accepted decision) | Realization work MAY elaborate examples, SoTA-Echoing, recognition, wording, and neighboring fit inside the selected stability boundary, but SHALL NOT revise the selected answer, loci, outside boundary, reusable-content disposition, or loss/recoverability regime. Such a revision needs a successor decision result and DRR episteme. | Keep later drafting from re-deciding by drift. |
| CC-DRR.4d (major decision gaps are not left to drafting-time invention) | A conforming DRR MUST NOT leave 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, or loss/recoverability regime to be discovered case-by-case during later pattern drafting or drafting for one selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair. Those choices MUST already be selected, rejected, inherited unchanged, or placed outside the current decision with named pattern, selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, or decision record. | Ensures the DRR actually coordinates one bounded change set rather than serving as a thin preface to later rediscovery. |
| CC‑DRR.5 | A DRR for minor, non‑substantive edits (Δ‑0/Δ‑1; e.g., typos, wording clarity, didactic rearrangements) MAY use a lightweight variant containing Problem‑frame (Context) + Decision only (“no semantic change”), provided it does not alter semantics. | Avoids bureaucratic drag on editorial work. |
| CC‑DRR.6 (evidence boundary) | For a material pattern change, the DRR SHALL state the content-scope or validation-evidence obligation that bears on the decision, and it MAY summarize already available decisive evidence by value when that evidence materially shapes the chosen content. The DRR SHALL NOT need a change-account id, run-manifest id, gate id, packet id, or authoring-evidence citation in order to count as complete; those remain in the relevant source, evaluation, authoring, review, or landing result. If later source, authoring, or refresh evidence motivates reopening or revising the decision, that evidence belongs in a successor DRR or other named successor decision record rather than being retrofitted into the accepted DRR. | Keeps the DRR a design-rationale record while preserving re-runnable evidence in the record that actually owns it. |