#DRR Decision-Adequacy Evaluation CharacteristicSpace

E.9.DA · Stable · Part E - The FPF Constitution and Authoring Guides

#About this pattern

This is a generated FPF pattern page projected from the published FPF source. It is canonical FPF content for this ID; it is not a FPF Reference product feature page.

#How to use this pattern

Read the ID, status, type, and normativity first. Use the content for exact wording, the relations for adjacent concepts, and citations to keep active work grounded without pasting the whole specification.

Status: Core.

Use E.9.DA when one exact DRR must be checked for decision adequacy under a declared FPF authoring use: pattern drafting, host amendment, selected-locus distribution, accepted-decision carry-through, source-use carry-through, scope-boundary decision, split decision, or architecture-hold decision. Add exact C.2.1 episteme identity only when the judgement or a named later reliance depends on it. E.9.DA supplies the object-specific evaluation questions and reusable coordinate meanings.

#Relations

#Content

#Problem frame

Use E.9.DA when one exact DRR must be checked for decision adequacy under a declared FPF authoring use: pattern drafting, host amendment, selected-locus distribution, accepted-decision carry-through, source-use carry-through, scope-boundary decision, split decision, or architecture-hold decision. Add exact C.2.1 episteme identity only when the judgement or a named later reliance depends on it. E.9.DA supplies the object-specific evaluation questions and reusable coordinate meanings.

Use E.21 to judge an authored pattern version, E.19 to review an FPF pattern edition or bounded subset for admission or refresh, F.19 for ordinary wording repair with E.10 as cue and unresolved-meaning route, and C.16, A.17, A.18, and A.19 for measurement-law questions. Those questions are outside this DRR-adequacy evaluation.

First useful move: read the exact DRR in its declared authoring use and state its working problem, selected answer, practical change, first drafting action, and boundary. When it selects a broad authoring rule, inspect the actual predecessor/proposed host effect before opening any optional assessment or result apparatus.

What goes wrong if missed: a formally valid DRR may still be too weak for drafting. It may summarize sources instead of deciding, mention neighbours without obligations, hide rejected alternatives, leave trigger words unresolved, or omit the first drafting action.

Primary EntityOfConcern in plain terms: one exact DRR checked for one declared FPF authoring use and qualification window. Assessment work, a reusable coordinate result, witnesses, records, status use, assurance, acceptance, and later repair are separate only when those objects are actually current.

#Problem

E.9 defines the DRR decision method and ordinary minimum form, plus exact decision-work/result and C.2.1 identity when a current claim or named reliance needs them. It does not by itself establish whether one exact DRR is decision-bearing enough for a declared downstream use. Without E.9.DA, reviewers can approve headings, source volume, or clean prose while the pattern author still has to invent missing decisions.

Recurring failures:

1. The decision question is broad or implicit.
2. The selected answer is a summary rather than a decision.
3. Alternatives, rejected options, and outside-decision items are not closed.
4. Receiving loci are named but not assigned content obligations or non-obligations.
5. The selected FPF content architecture is explicit but wrong.
6. Source use is copied without saying what changed in the accepted decision.
7. Architecture descriptions, views, graphs, packets, or notes are treated as the FPF decision.
8. Administrative state becomes adequacy evidence.
9. Ordinal adequacy values become repair targets, so the DRR gains source rows, locus tables, boundary catalogues, or review proof while the selected answer and first drafting action do not become more decisive.

#Forces

#Solution

Judge semantic adequacy before constructing evaluation apparatus. Read the exact DRR in its declared authoring use and ask whether a practitioner or author can recover the working problem, selected answer, practical change, selected loci, first drafting action, and boundary without inventing decisions or decoding avoidable formality.

For an ordinary bounded review, the sufficient result is:

• the exact DRR and declared authoring use;
• substantive findings, repaired DRR text, or the unchanged checked DRR when the review is clean;
• the actual predecessor/proposed host evidence when the DRR selects a broad language, ontology, or authoring rule;
• the first drafting action or first repair; and
• the stop or reopen condition.

That result may remain readable prose. It needs no assessment-work record, application object, aggregate result episteme, precision-profile record, witness package, or evidence-use package merely for symmetry.

Use the complete coordinate table when a complete reusable evaluation was explicitly requested or when a named later reliance needs stable coordinate values. Materialize the exact characteristic-space configuration, semantic evaluation Method, A.6.1 application, result episteme, witnesses, or evidence-use relations only when that receiving use depends on their identities.

The semantic Method, A.6.1 application, and dated Work are independently conditional. A reusable coordinate result can exist without any of them. A receiving claim may use a semantic Method without asserting Work, and it may use an exact application and its actual bindings without asserting Work. If dated U.Work is asserted, the Method and application become required parts of that E.9.DA branch; every precise performer first has an A.13 core and A.15.1 independently admits the Work. F.6 follows only when the result also needs precise assignment-bound attribution.

Before assigning coordinates, make one bounded content-first search for an important question the DRR omitted. Inspect the governed problem, the problem-owning practice, current sources, the strongest live alternative, failure and recovery cases, and true direct consumers. If an omitted question would change the answer, architecture, source use, consumer obligation, first drafting action, or stop, return it as a substantive finding before completing the coordinate judgement.

In every branch, keep the checked DRR, evaluation specification, action or Work, application, result, record, evidence use, status use, authority, and later repair distinct. A compact result omits identities that its receiving use does not consume. Omitting those refs does not make facts required by an asserted Work claim optional.

For a broad language or ontology rule, DraftingActionability, LexicalAndNamingClosure, and the precision-restoration reading consume the actual-host comparison between the predecessor and proposed versions. The DRR's promise, a table-completeness check, a different lane test, or an invented fact pack is not evidence of practitioner use. Formal precision and plain comprehensibility are both required; neither compensates for loss of the other.

#Local names and kind settlement

The following names support only the complete reusable-result branch. An ordinary bounded review need not instantiate them. When the branch is opened, each name resolves to the existing FPF object or reference stated here; none names an authority or mandatory record.

These names are local evaluation positions and refs. They are not release state, review status, project evidence, gate result, assurance, work, publication, or pattern-quality values.

#Optional exact evaluation application, Work, result, and record

DRRDecisionAdequacyEvaluationConfiguration:
  DRRVersionRef: <exact C.2.1 DRR episteme>
  DRRDeclaredAuthoringUse: <drafting | amendment | distribution | source-use carry-through | accepted-decision carry-through | split or hold decision>
  RequiredAuthoringUseSource: <review request | accepted decision | E.22 question frame>
  ClaimScopeRef: <exact U.ClaimScope>
  DRRSelectedLocusDispositionMap: <locus -> selected responsibility, explicit non-responsibility, sibling decision, or outside-decision disposition>
  DRRDecisionAdequacyQualificationWindow: <source, edition, neighbour, currentness window>
  EffectiveCoordinateFloorMap: <default every required coordinate -> 3; any higher floor declared before evaluation;
    source for each value: E.9.DA default | exact raising source>
  DRRDecisionAdequacyCharacteristicSpaceRef: <exact A.19 space>
  DRRDecisionAdequacyEvaluationSpecRef: <this E.9.DA specification edition>
  SemanticEvaluationMethodRef?: <exact U.Method; include only when the receiving claim uses its identity;
    required when AssessmentWorkAdmission is present>
  DRRDecisionAdequacyEvidenceBasis: <checked loci and explicitly missing or unchecked loci;
    for a reusable result, include the bounded omitted-question search basis>

DRRDecisionAdequacyAssessmentApplication?:
  EvaluationConfigurationRef:
  A6_1ApplicationAndBindingRefs: <exact application, actual checked-object and configuration inputs,
    coordinate-result outputs, and aggregate-result output used by this application>
  WorkApplicationRelationRef?: <include only when a separately defined relation between this
    application and admitted Work is current and its predicate obtains>
  ReturnedCoordinateResultRefs:
  AggregateResultRef:

AssessmentWorkAdmission?: <omit when no dated U.Work is asserted;
  when present, every non-optional field below is required>
  AssessmentApplicationRef: <same exact A.6.1 application>
  AssessmentWorkRef: <one dated U.Work independently admitted under A.15.1>
  AssessmentWorkInterval:
  AssessmentContainingSystemRef: <exact U.System>
  SemanticEvaluationMethodRef: <exact U.Method>
  EnactedMethodRef: <same SemanticEvaluationMethodRef>
  EvaluatorSystemRef: <the admitted U.System that actually performs the Work>
  EvaluatorA13CoreBasisRef: <exact local agential kind and criterion, classification,
    obtaining assignment, scope, working situation, window, and adequate core evidence;
    add a characteristic profile only when its own receiving use consumes it>
  EvaluatorSystemRoleAssignmentSpeciesRef: <the declared assignment species and all
    identity-bearing participant positions used by EvaluatorA13CoreBasisRef>
  EvaluatorSystemRoleAssignmentRef: <the same obtaining assignment occurrence with all
    declared participant values>
  AssignmentHolderCheck: <the occurrence holder is EvaluatorSystemRef>
  AssignmentPredicateCheck: <the declared assignment predicate obtains for all declared
    participant values>
  AssignmentInterval: <the uninterrupted interval in which the species predicate obtains>
  AssignmentCoverageCheck: <AssessmentWorkInterval is covered by AssignmentInterval>
  PerformedUnderAssignmentRef?: <include only when precise assignment-bound attribution is
    current; cite the direct case fact that EvaluatorSystemRef performed AssessmentWorkRef
    under the same EvaluatorSystemRoleAssignmentRef, then use F.6 after holder equality,
    the declared species and participants, the assignment predicate, and interval coverage
    above obtain>
  AdditionalEvaluatorSystemRoleClassificationRef?: <optional additional neighbouring A.2
    and C.3.2 claim, not the classification already required by the A.13 core; neither the
    assignment nor Work establishes it>

DRRDecisionAdequacyResultEpisteme:
  EntityOfConcern: <same exact DRRVersionRef>
  EffectiveReferenceScheme:
  ClaimGraph:
    DeclaredAuthoringUse:
    RequiredAuthoringUseSource:
    QualificationWindow:
    EffectiveCoordinateFloorMap: <map and source>
    CoordinateTable: <all coordinates, values, adjacent-value rationales, evidence loci>
    BoundedOmittedQuestionSearch: <checked basis and any answer-changing question found>
    PrecisionRestorationProfile?: <only when the requested reusable result or named reliance consumes it>
    KindRestorationChecks?: <for repairs that can change FPF-governed meaning when this result consumes the exact check>
    OnticCandidateDisposition: <when triggered>
    CampaignProblemSolutionUnfoldingCheck: <when triggered>
    DRRDecisionAdequacyStatus:
    FirstDraftingActionOrFirstRepair:
    MostExpansiveNonAdmissibleOverread?: <only when an independent local ground makes one competing reading plausible and action-changing>
    StopOrRepairCondition:
    ReopenIf:
  WitnessRefs:
  EvidenceUseRelationRefs:

An optional DRRDecisionAdequacyRecordRef may package refs to the configuration, semantic Method when used, assessment application when used, Work admission when asserted, result episteme, witnesses, evidence-use relations, publication, and currentness. Establish any assessment application or Work through its own applicable conditions. Coordinate claims, evidence use, assurance, F.10 status use, acceptance, and downstream authorization each need their own basis.

When a viewpoint or grounding claim matters to the reliance, name its basis separately. Evaluator identity, record packaging, and source labels do not by themselves give the result that viewpoint or grounding.

[E.22](/generated/patterns/E.22) may frame whether the evaluation is floor-only, exceptional-improvement, trade-off, open-question, absorption, or proposal-producing and may raise a floor before evidence is judged. Keep the required authoring use fixed after evidence appears. [E.23](/generated/patterns/E.23) governs later repeated improvement work on the checked DRR after result claims or findings exist.

#Ordinal coordinate scale and effective floor

When a complete reusable coordinate evaluation is produced, each ordinal value is a content-evaluation claim about the exact checked DRR under the declared use and window. In an ordinary bounded review, the same scale may guide judgement without materializing a measure, Work record, result episteme, assurance, acceptance, or reward.

The default effective floor is 3 sufficientlyExpressedForDeclaredUse for every required E.9.DA coordinate. The required authoring use comes from the review request, an accepted decision, or an E.22 question frame; the E.9.DA default supplies the floor when that source did not raise one before evaluation. A source may raise the whole floor or named coordinate floors before evidence is judged. The evaluator may not lower a floor, narrow the use or selected loci, or shorten the qualification window after seeing the result in order to make the DRR admissible. A diagnostic use with a lower target may report values, but it cannot yield admissibleForDeclaredAuthoringUse.

#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 lower every affected decision, architecture, source-use, actionability, and boundary coordinate. 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 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.

#Result-row discipline and calibration

Use the question-to-ground and result-acceptance operation in E.22:4.3 within this evaluation.

A complete reusable E.9.DA coordinate result uses this table shape. An ordinary bounded review may use the coordinates as probes and return substantive findings or repaired text without creating the table:

For values 1..4, explain why the lower adjacent value would understate the evidence and the higher adjacent value would overstate it. For 0, explain why 1 would overstate the evidence and what would raise the value or reopen it. For 5, explain why 4 would understate the evidence and what would lower the value or reopen it.

A prose summary, heading checklist, two-column coordinate-and-value table, or table without an EvidenceLocus is not a complete reusable coordinate result. It may still be a valid ordinary bounded review when it precisely states the checked DRR, required use and source, effective floor, substantive finding, repaired text or clean unchanged result, first action, and stop or reopen condition. Missing or unchecked evidence lowers any reusable coordinate that needs it. An answer-changing omitted question lowers every coordinate whose decision, architecture, source-use, actionability, or boundary claim depends on the missing answer; it is not an extra coordinate or a compensable checklist item.

Common calibration points:

#Local result status and stop condition

The following are local conclusions for the exact checked DRR, required authoring use, effective floor, and qualification window. They may be stated in an ordinary bounded result; a C.2.1 aggregate result episteme is needed only when a named later reliance needs that exact reusable object. They are not review decisions, gates, permissions, assurance levels, or work states.

The status rule is noncompensatory. A strong value on one coordinate cannot offset another required coordinate below its effective floor. An unresolved architecture blocker yields holdForArchitectureDecision regardless of the other values; a required split yields splitDecisionRequired; an easier or different use yields newFrameRequired. Otherwise any below-floor required coordinate yields repairBeforeDrafting. State the required-use source, effective floor, and floor source in either result form so another evaluator can reproduce the conclusion.

A result carrying admissibleForDeclaredAuthoringUse states the first drafting action, stop or return, and reopen condition. A non-ready result states the first repair, split boundary, or architecture question. Add a non-admissible reading only when an independent local ground makes it plausible and action-changing; any later gate or authorization uses a separately defined receiving relation.

#Compact result form

An ordinary bounded result is deliberately short:

E.9.DA bounded review:
  Exact DRR:
  Required authoring use and its source:
  Effective floor and source: <E.9.DA default 3 | predeclared higher floor and exact raising source>
  Actual-host evidence: <required only when a broad authoring rule is selected>
  Substantive result: <findings, including any answer-changing omitted question | repaired text | unchanged checked DRR when clean>
  Status:
  First drafting action or first repair: <include the applicable stop or return condition>
  Most expansive non-admissible overread?: <only when one is locally warranted>
  Reopen if:

This is sufficient when no named later use needs a reusable coordinate result. A clean focused review may point directly to the unchanged DRR and needs no separate clean ledger for the bounded omitted-question search. An inspect-repair-verify pass points to the repaired text and focused verification.

When a complete reusable coordinate evaluation is explicitly required, or a named later reliance needs exact result identity, extend rather than replace the bounded result:

E.9.DA reliance-bearing result:
  Exact DRR and effective ReferenceScheme:
  Required authoring use, its source, and qualification window:
  Effective coordinate floor map and source:
  CharacteristicSpace and evaluation-spec refs:
  Semantic evaluation Method ref, only when used by the receiving claim:
  A.6.1 assessment application and actual binding refs, only when used:
  A.13 performer-core and A.15.1 Work refs, only when dated U.Work is asserted:
  F.6 attribution refs, only when precise assignment-bound attribution is asserted:
  Evidence basis checked, including the bounded omitted-question search:
  Coordinate table: <Coordinate | Value | ShortRationale | EvidenceLocus>
  Precision-restoration reading and triggered exact checks:
  Witness and evidence-use refs actually used by the reliance:
  Status, first action or repair, bounded overread, and reopen condition: <include stop or return; overread only when independently grounded>

Only this reliance-bearing branch requires every coordinate and the exact identities its receiving use consumes. Method, application, and Work refs remain independently conditional; asserting dated U.Work requires the Method, application, every precise performer's A.13 core, and independent A.15.1 admission from the branch in 4.2. F.6 is additionally required only when the result asserts precise assignment-bound attribution. A downstream status use, assurance, E.19 admission, authority, or drafting permission remains a separate claim with its own defining or constraining pattern.

#Structured finding row when reuse needs it

E.9.DA finding:
  DRR version: <DRRVersionRef>
  Declared authoring use: <DRRDeclaredAuthoringUse>
  Coordinate or status affected: <all affected coordinates, statuses, or stop conditions>
  DRR locus: <section, row, alternative, source-use row, accepted-decision row>
  Value or status effect: <value, status, floor, or stop impact>
  Correction direction: <selected answer | selected locus | source-use payload | architecture choice | example | boundary | stop or reopen>
  Closure test: <what changed DRR text would show>

Use this row when a transferable structured finding is required. An ordinary bounded review may instead place the same precise diagnosis and repair direction in its one handoff or repaired text. Labels such as weak DRR, needs more evidence, or architecture unclear remain too vague in either form. Record one independently repairable defect once and name all affected coordinates or statuses; keep their distinct values and rationales.

When [E.22](/generated/patterns/E.22), [E.23](/generated/patterns/E.23), absorption, or exceptional-improvement framing requests improvement, below-floor coordinate-result claims support finding rows and subsequent repair work. Above-floor coordinates receive proposal rows only for substantive non-dominated decision-content opportunities inside the declared authoring use: a more decisive selected answer, source payload mutation, selected-locus obligation, architecture split or merge decision, rejected-alternative closure, first drafting action, regression case, or deletion or relocation of apparatus that would otherwise become pattern prose. Do not treat every value below 5 as a defect. A 4 may be the correct stop value only with loci showing why further decision-content movement is dominated, unavailable, or outside scope.

#Worked slices

Filled ordinary case — an overbroad wording DRR. Exact DRR DRR-ROLE-TRIGGER-03@2 selects this answer for an E.10 amendment and its named consumers: “replace every bare role with system role.” The required use is authoring input for that amendment; the review request supplies the use, and the E.9.DA default floor is 3. Before assigning coordinates, the evaluator checks the wording problem, system-role practice, the strongest meaning-recovery alternative, misuse and recovery cases, and the actual predecessor A.6.5 consumer. A.6.5:1 and A.6.5:4.1 expose the omitted question: does each occurrence denote a local system-role kind, or does it denote a relation-participant meaning, a declaration-local slot, an assignment, or an ordinary non-terminological use? That question changes the selected answer.

The ordinary result is repairBeforeDrafting. The blanket replacement would turn several distinct objects and uses into one term. First repair the DRR so it selects meaning recovery: write system role where the text denotes the local kind, and name an assignment, participant meaning, SlotKind, or ordinary use where that is the actual subject. Reopen when the revised DRR distinguishes those uses, names its true consumers, and the actual-host replay preserves precision and readability. This ordinary result uses the compact branch.

Small reliance-bearing extension. Suppose a named later comparison needs one stable result episteme, E9DA-Result-ROLE-03@1, but no Method, application, or Work identity. The complete result would still cover every coordinate; the following one-row excerpt shows the required grain and the near-floor distinction:

The effective floor is 3, so this row contributes to repairBeforeDrafting; another high coordinate cannot compensate. The result's bounded search basis names the wording problem, actual host, strongest meaning-recovery alternative, and the omitted question above. No unused Method, application, Work, witness, or evidence-use reference is added.

Adequate multi-locus DRR. The DRR selects the precision-restoration move, assigns positive responsibilities to selected loci, states the first drafting action, carries source payload into examples and conformance, and closes only the alternatives needed to explain the answer. The reviewer can judge it from that content and the actual-host replay. A reliance-bearing evaluation may additionally publish coordinate values and an aggregate result, but the ordinary judgement does not wait for that apparatus.

Architecture-impact DRR. A checked DRR cites diagrams, graphs, dashboards, or architecture notes. Review the exact DRR against the relevant E.9.DA questions: did it settle the architecture or structure claim, structural-view relation, preserved and lost structure, missing-structure return condition or source-use relation, selected loci, and publication boundary? A description locates material; it is neither the architecture, the decision, nor the assessment result. Open exact Method, application, Work, and result identities only when the reliance uses them; do not open one because another is present.

#Bias annotation

This pattern biases FPF toward decisions before drafting. The bias is useful because missing decisions become expensive once they fan out into pattern hosts.

The bias is bounded. Small editorial decisions can use E.9 directly. Ordinary DRR review judges the decision, bounded omitted-question search, and first action without manufacturing assessment records. When a named later reliance needs an exact reusable result, Method, application, and Work remain independently conditional; if Work is asserted, the evaluator System, enacted Method, Work, application, assignment, result, evidence use, and receiving status remain distinct. Pattern quality remains under E.21, repeated improvement under E.23, and wording repair under F.19, with E.10 for cues and unresolved meanings.

#Conformance checklist

#Common anti-patterns and repairs

#Consequences

#Rationale

The cheapest place to repair a missing FPF decision is the DRR, before uncertainty fans out into hosts. A direct semantic judgement over the exact DRR, the bounded omitted-question search, and any triggered actual-host replay is the ordinary result. A complete coordinate table and exact evaluation/result identities are valuable only when a separately requested reusable evaluation or named later reliance needs them. The two result forms preserve the observed trade-off between concise usable decision records and detail needed for a specific reliance; neither form substitutes for decision content.

#SoTA-Echoing and source use

The current-best source set spans empirical decision-document use, rationale-completeness risk, multi-dimensional evaluation, and proxy optimization. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 is deliberately kept as a narrow current-standard reference; the feedback, MCDA, Pareto, Goodhart, and Campbell traditions remain lineage where the current rows or neighbouring FPF patterns carry the present answer. A new publication date, official status, citation count, or popular template does not by itself reopen any row.

#Relations

#E.9.DA:End

Last Updated: 2026-09-10 — upstream FPF commit a87d0ef4 (github.com/ailev/FPF)