STR.10:11 - SoTA-Echoing

How can affordable action remain accountable to its actual consequences? Adapt the judgement requirement in Rapp, Olbrich and Packard’s 2026 article to the full commitment: available means and affordable loss still need appraisal. This changes sections 4.1, 4.3 and 4.5. The serious insufficient default counts only immediate sponsor spending. The source is a conceptual argument, not a universal method for valuing every affected party’s loss.

PSD.9 and PSD.11 supply attributed values and compatible consequence comparison. Adopt their separation of protected conditions from compensable objectives and of consequence claims from actual effects. C.11.DUA adds the requirement-merits comparison without removing present force; this changes section 4.4 and the reserve example. A simple direct comparison remains preferable when it already covers the consequential differences.

The OECD’s 2025 policy-experimentation discussion informs the separation of temporary inquiry from later continuation or phase-out. Adapt that point in section 4.5 without importing a policy process as a universal business procedure. Reopen the method choice when an omitted bearer, transferred cost, protected condition or exit effect can reverse the comparison.