#DRR Decision-Adequacy Evaluation CharacteristicSpace

E.9.DA · Stable · Definitional pattern · Normative · 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.

Type: Definitional pattern Status: Stable Normativity: Normative

Use E.9.DA when one DRR must become reliable enough for a declared FPF authoring use: pattern drafting, host amendment, receiving-locus distribution, accepted-decision carry-through, source-use carry-through, narrowing decision, split decision, or architecture-hold decision.

#Relations

#Content

#Problem frame

Use E.9.DA when one DRR must become reliable enough for a declared FPF authoring use: pattern drafting, host amendment, receiving-locus distribution, accepted-decision carry-through, source-use carry-through, narrowing decision, split decision, or architecture-hold decision.

Use it especially when the DRR already follows E.9 section shape but authors still disagree about whether the decision is decisive enough, carried by value, lexically exact enough, and actionable enough for pattern-host writing.

Not this pattern when. Use E.9 to write the DRR kind and minimum decision-rationale form. Use E.21 when the evaluated object is one authored FPF pattern version and the live claim is pattern quality. Use E.19 when the evaluated object is one FPF pattern admission or refresh review. Use E.10 when the live problem is lexical trigger repair in the DRR text. Use C.16, A.17, A.18, and A.19 when the live problem is measurement legality, Characteristic and Scale discipline, or a general CharacteristicSpace.

First useful move. Name the bounded DRR version being evaluated, the declared DRR authoring use it is meant to carry, and the first pattern-drafting decision that would fail if the DRR stayed vague.

Pattern-version handoff. If the evaluated object is one FPF pattern version, do not start with E.9.DA. Start with the E.21 fast reader move loop: name <PatternVersionRef> for <WorkingReaderScope> under <IntendedUse> within <QualificationWindow>, then read only the pattern's Problem frame and Solution until the first admissible action-guiding move is recoverable. Open E.9.DA only when the live blocker is whether an upstream DRR is decision-bearing enough for the pattern authoring use.

Improvement-oriented quality-read question framing. An E.9.DA read may cite an E.22 QualityReadQuestionFrame when the caller needs to distinguish drafting-floor adequacy, exceptional decision-adequacy improvement, Pareto trade-off inspection, open-question discovery, or returned-finding absorption. If no purpose is declared, the ordinary default is a floor read for the declared downstream authoring use, not maximal DRR improvement.

Ordinary-cost posture. E.9.DA is not a preliminary audit before every pattern-quality read, admission review, or local wording repair. It opens only when a DRR decision-adequacy claim is live and a downstream author would otherwise have to invent a missing decision.

Cheap stop. If the DRR only records a small local editorial decision and no downstream pattern drafting or cross-pattern distribution depends on it, do not create a full adequacy read. Apply E.9 directly and run E.10 only for live wording.

What goes wrong if missed. A formally valid DRR can still be too weak for drafting: it may summarize sources instead of deciding, leave neighbour patterns as unclassified receiving loci, hide rejected alternatives, use broad trigger words as if they were exact kinds, or omit the practical drafting action that the decision is supposed to enable.

What this buys. E.9.DA gives authors and reviewers one compact way to say whether a DRR is admissible for the declared authoring use, admissible only after narrowing, still needs repair before drafting, must split into several decisions, or must hold for architecture decision.

Governed object in plain terms. The governed object is the DRR decision-adequacy claim for one exact DRR version under one declared authoring use.

Primary working reader. The first reader is an FPF author, reviewer, or steward who must decide whether pattern drafting can rely on the DRR without inventing missing decisions. The downstream reader is the pattern author who will turn the accepted decision into user-facing FPF pattern text.

#Problem

E.9 defines the kind and content obligations of a DRR, but it is not itself a stop rule for improving one concrete DRR. In practice, weak DRRs often pass a shape check and still fail for the declared authoring use.

Recurring failures:

1. Decision summarization. The record describes source material but does not select what FPF should say.
2. Disposition gaps. Selected, rejected, inherited, and outside-decision alternatives are not closed by value.
3. Neighbour drift. Related patterns are mentioned but not assigned exact amendment, non-amendment, or receiving-locus obligations.
4. Drafting inactionability. Pattern authors cannot tell which sections, names, examples, checks, or relations to write.
5. Lexical under-typing. Words such as basis, support, quality, architecture, profile, source, view, decision, adequacy, or readiness carry load without recovered kind, relation, or admissible use.
6. Scope fog. The DRR leaves one content decision partly unmade while implying that pattern drafting may settle it.
7. Source theatre. Sources, reviews, audits, standards, benchmarks, or SoTA references are listed but do not change the selected answer, boundary, example, validation obligation, or reopen condition.
8. Pattern-quality confusion. Authors try to evaluate the DRR as if it were an E.21 pattern-quality object under evaluation, or treat a passed E.19 pattern review as proof that the upstream DRR was adequate.
9. Architecture-by-addressing. The DRR names exact receiving loci, but does not judge whether the selected FPF content architecture is adequate: existing pattern vs new pattern, split vs merge, pattern body vs selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, or neighbour-governed vs local content.
10. Hidden source loss. The DRR compresses, extracts, summarizes, clusters, diagrams, graphs, or dashboard-renders source material without saying which distinctions were preserved, lost, non-admissible for downstream use, or recoverable only by returning to the fuller source.

#Forces

#Solution

State the scoped decision-adequacy read as a DRRDecisionAdequacyRead, not as one score.

#Architectural position

E.9.DA is a local characteristic-space pattern for DRR decision adequacy. It specializes existing FPF architecture and does not create a general quality ontology, a review gate, or a second DRR form.

It reads whether one DRR version can serve one declared authoring use:

• drafting one or more FPF pattern hosts;
• amending one existing pattern;
• distributing one accepted decision across selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs;
• carrying source-use or accepted-decision payload into receiving loci;
• deciding whether drafting must stop for DRR repair, decision split, or architecture decision.

E.9.DA governs only these questions:

1. Which exact DRR version is being read?
2. For which declared authoring use, receiving-locus disposition map, and read qualification window?
3. Which hard blockers make coordinate comparison meaningless?
4. Which decision-adequacy coordinates are active?
5. Which DRR loci justify those coordinate readings?
6. Which DRRDecisionAdequacyStatus follows?
7. What repair, narrowed use, split, or architecture decision is required before drafting can rely on the DRR?

It does not govern:

• writing the DRR form itself (E.9);
• writing pattern bodies (E.8);
• evaluating pattern-quality claims (E.21);
• running pattern admission or refresh reviews (E.19);
• general lexical repair (E.10, A.6.P, C.2.P);
• measurement legality or arbitrary quality-family unpacking (C.16, A.17, A.18, A.19, C.25, C.16.P);
• project evidence, assurance, gate, work, release, safety, security, or compliance claims.

#Name ontology, local name classes, and E.10 closure

E.9.DA introduces local authoring-plane names. They are not kernel U.* types, operational gates, assurance records, evidence roles, release states, or durable cross-pattern names unless a separate FPF decision promotes one through F.18.

Local names may be reused outside E.9.DA only as thin echoes pointing back to this pattern. A name that becomes durable across several patterns needs an F.18 card, a glossary or UTS posture when applicable, and a new decision record that states the cross-pattern kind.

The names above survive the E.10 replacement-candidate anti-umbrella rule because each one names a local field, local authored adequacy-read record, local characteristic-space specialization, or local value set with an explicit governed object and non-use boundary. A replacement candidate that would reintroduce basis, support, route, kind, record, quality, source, view, mapping, or another context-free head is not accepted unless the same ontology is recoverable by value.

#Architectural relation and governing-neighbour boundary

E.9.DA answers exactly one adequacy question: whether one E.9-governed DRR version is decision-bearing enough for the declared FPF authoring use. When a neighbouring claim is live, E.9.DA names the exact evaluation pattern and its limited relation instead of becoming the neighbouring pattern.

#DRRDecisionAdequacyRead

DRRDecisionAdequacyRead := <DRRVersionRef, DRRDeclaredAuthoringUse, DRRReceivingLocusDispositionMap, DRRReadQualificationWindow, DRRDecisionAdequacyEligibilitySet, ActiveDecisionAdequacyCoordinates, DRRCoordinateLocusRefs, DRRSourceUseDischargeMap?, DRRDecisionAdequacyStatus, StopOrRepairCondition>

Field roles:

DRRReceivingLocusDispositionMap rows use these dispositions: amended, receivesContentObligation, governsOnly, outsideCurrentDecision, siblingDecision, and intentionallyUnamended. Each row states at least one exact locus reference and either a selected content obligation or an explicit non-obligation and outside-current-decision boundary.

DRRSourceUseDischargeMap? rows use content-role source postures: landedCoreAuthority, acceptedDecisionSource, acceptedPlanningSource, reviewReturnSource, sourcePublication, externalSource, lineageOnly, rationaleOnly, livingOrRefreshableNonSoTASource, and rejectedSource. Process provenance such as workstream, campaign queue, review packet, or architecture queue belongs in exact source references or process files, not in FPF-level source-posture names. A source, plan, review packet, architecture queue, ADR-like note, standard, benchmark, or article does not become FPF doctrine merely by being cited.

#DRRDecisionAdequacyEligibilitySet

A first-pass E.9.DA read always checks these hard filters when the corresponding load is live:

#Ordinal coordinate scale

DRRDecisionAdequacyEvaluationCharacteristicSpace is the declared characteristic space for DRR decision-adequacy reads. It uses ordinal coordinates. The default scale is the neutral zero-based six-value ordinal scale reused from E.21.

A coordinate value in DRRDecisionAdequacyEvaluationCharacteristicSpace is an ordinal DRR decision-adequacy reading, not a U.Measure by default. It becomes a measurement claim only when a neighbouring C.16, A.17, A.18, or A.19 declaration explicitly supplies the measurement template, scale, unit, comparability mode, and evidence role. Otherwise the value is an evidence-backed ordinal judgement over the exact DRR text and declared authoring use.

The scale is zero-based because true absence is not a weak positive value. It uses six ordinal values rather than ten because the read is ordinal: the values distinguish absence, mere naming, partial expression, sufficiency, well-expressed form, and exceptional expression without pretending to have decimal-grade precision. The labels are intentionally domain-neutral. They describe degree of expression of whichever coordinate is being read; they do not import a substantive property such as robustness, completeness, correctness, architectural soundness, evidence strength, drafting usability, or review maturity into every coordinate.

The scale normalization rule is: all active E.9.DA coordinates use the same neutral ordinal value set and the same content-evidence test before any comparison. A coordinate-specific named scale may be used only when a more specific neighbouring C.16, A.17, A.18, or A.19 construction is live; it does not silently translate into the default ordinal value set, and the read must state any declared comparability or non-comparability relation. Otherwise no arithmetic mean, percentage score, hidden normalization, maturity ranking, or single total order is admissible.

Scale orthogonalization does not mean inventing coordinate-specific value labels such as robust, safe, mature, strong, complete, or well-architected. The value labels stay neutral; the coordinate name and reading carry the subject matter. Orthogonality is achieved by separating the decision properties being read and by stating activation conditions, failure modes, and repair questions for each coordinate.

The ordinal value of a coordinate is a content reading. FPFContentArchitectureSelectionAdequacy = 3 means the selected content architecture is sufficiently expressed for the declared authoring use; it does not mean "not yet externally reviewed." FPFContentArchitectureSelectionAdequacy = 5 means that same coordinate is exceptionally expressed in the current DRR text; it does not mean "already landed." The same DRR text in a campaign file, review packet, copied excerpt, or monolith-adjacent carrier should receive the same coordinate value unless the text, DRRVersionRef, declared authoring use, source set, or DRRReadQualificationWindow changes.

For admissibleForDeclaredAuthoringUse that authorizes downstream drafting, host amendment, or multi-locus distribution, the default declared floor is 4 wellExpressedForDeclaredUse on every active coordinate. This default floor does not apply to ordinary-cost first pass, small local editorial DRRs, non-ready statuses, or a narrowed read whose DRRDeclaredAuthoringUse explicitly lowers the reliance claim. If a different floor is declared, the read states DeclaredAdequacyFloor, why it is sufficient for the narrowed authoring use, and the prohibited broader use.

#Coordinate value evidence test

A coordinate value is justified by content evidence, not by the label alone. The ordinary 4 wellExpressedForDeclaredUse test is:

1. the coordinate names the exact DRR decision property being read;
2. the DRR text contains direct loci for that property;
3. at least one positive case and one boundary or anti-case exercise the property when the declared authoring use reaches beyond one local edit;
4. receiving-locus relations or non-use boundaries protect the property from overread;
5. SoTA, source material, review findings, standards, benchmarks, expert claims, or internal FPF architecture changes at least one selected answer, receiving-locus obligation, validation obligation, worked case, architecture choice, stop condition, or reopen condition when the coordinate depends on those materials;
6. the coordinate evidence does not depend on review completion, landing state, monolith placement, release state, or steward acceptance.

A 5 exceptionallyExpressedForDeclaredUse value requires the 4 test plus additional content evidence in the DRR itself: multiple reinforcing loci, heterogeneous cases or anti-cases where the coordinate changes the result, explicit non-use boundary, and no hidden authoring-cost, neighbour-ripple, source-loss, shadow-spec, or proxy-for-value loss. Absence of completed downstream pattern prose, review, landing, or release is not evidence against 5; only missing or weak DRR decision content for the declared use can lower the coordinate.

3 sufficientlyExpressedForDeclaredUse means the coordinate is usable for the declared authoring use but lacks one or more conditions required for 4 or 5. Coordinate value and locus references remain distinct: a value says the declared expression degree for the coordinate; DRRCoordinateLocusRefs say why that reading is justified.

#Decision-content evidence vs reputation signals

Coordinate values read DRR decision content for the declared authoring use. Reviewer praise, reviewer acceptance, reviewer-clean packets, number of reviews, steward acceptance, campaign progress, landing state, monolith placement, release inclusion, source volume, citation volume, popularity, adoption, awards, prior use, or absence of those signals is not a decision-adequacy value and does not raise or lower a coordinate by itself.

Such signals may only point to exact DRR content evidence. A reviewer finding may change SelectedAnswerDecisiveness when it identifies an undecided alternative, or may change FPFContentArchitectureSelectionAdequacy when it identifies a wrong split, merge, or receiving-locus decision. The coordinate changes because the DRR decision content changed or was shown to be weak, not because a review event occurred.

Absence of review, use, landing, release, or steward acceptance is not evidence against 4 or 5. Only missing or weak DRR decision content for the declared authoring use can lower the coordinate. The same DRR text under the same DRRVersionRef, DRRDeclaredAuthoringUse, source set, receiving-locus disposition map, and DRRReadQualificationWindow should receive the same coordinate value whether it is new, reviewed, landed, praised, ignored, or copied into another carrier.

#SoTA decision-mutation rule

When SoTAAndEvidenceUseInDecision, SourceUseAndDecisionInheritanceCarryThrough, or DRRSourceUseDischargeMap? is active, a source, standard, review, audit, benchmark, expert claim, or prior accepted decision is decision-bearing only if the DRR states:

1. exact source or accepted-decision reference;
2. currentness posture: currentSoTA, livingOrRefreshableNonSoTASource, lineageOnly, localAcceptedDecision, rationaleOnly, or rejectedPopularPractice;
3. stance: adopt, adapt, reject, or lineageOnly;
4. exact DRR payload changed: selected answer, receiving-locus obligation, rejected alternative, non-use boundary, worked case, conformance item, validation obligation, architecture split or merge choice, StopOrRepairCondition, or reopen condition;
5. most expansive unsupported overread blocked.

Here currentSoTA has the E.8 meaning: current best-known problem-solving practice for the governed problem. A source, standard, benchmark, review, or expert claim is not currentSoTA merely because it is official, recent, popular, widely adopted, highly cited, or familiar; if it does not carry the current best-known answer, the posture is lineage-only, living or refreshable but not SoTA-bearing, local accepted decision, rejected popular practice, or rationale-only for this read.

If no payload changes, the material is rationale-only or lineage-only for this read. It must not raise a coordinate value, justify admissibleForDeclaredAuthoringUse, or become an unstated FPF decision.

#Decision-adequacy coordinates

The default coordinate menu is activation-normalized. Inactive coordinates are outside the current read; they are not passes or hidden failures.

Coordinate heads in E.9.DA:4.5 are local decision-adequacy characteristic heads inside DRRDecisionAdequacyEvaluationCharacteristicSpace. They do not become general FPF characteristics, numeric measures, maturity dimensions, or measurement templates unless a neighbouring C.16, A.17, A.18, or A.19 declaration makes that live.

The coordinate set is orthogonalized by repair question, not by distinct vocabulary alone. ReceivingLocusObligationClosure reads whether exact loci and obligations are assigned. FPFContentArchitectureSelectionAdequacy reads whether those selected loci and split or merge choices are architecturally adequate. DraftingActionability reads whether a pattern author can turn the accepted decision into sections, names, examples, checks, and relations. The same DRR section may be cited by several coordinates, but a value cannot be raised in one coordinate by evidence that only repairs another coordinate. When two proposed coordinates always fail and repair together, merge them or state the subreadings; when they fail independently and require different repairs, keep them separate.

#DRRDecisionAdequacyStatus

DRRDecisionAdequacyStatus is an admissible-use posture for the DRR decision-adequacy claim. It is not a project gate, release state, assurance level, or pattern-quality result.

#Ordinary-cost first pass

For ordinary authoring use, the first pass is intentionally smaller than the full work order.

1. Name the exact DRRVersionRef, the declared DRRDeclaredAuthoringUse, and the first pattern-drafting decision that would fail if the DRR stayed vague.
2. Check only the live hard blockers needed for that first failure: bounded decision question, selected answer, and downstream action recoverability. Add source-use, receiving-locus, lexical, or architecture blockers only when that load is live.
3. If the DRR is only a small local editorial decision with no downstream pattern drafting or cross-pattern distribution, stop without minting DRRDecisionAdequacyRead; use E.9 directly and run E.10 only for live wording.
4. If one live hard blocker fails, return repairBeforeDrafting with one first repair locus and the downstream pattern-writing use that would fail. Do not open a full coordinate table merely to confirm the same defect.
5. Open the full E.9.DA:4.7 work order only when multi-pattern distribution, stop closure, contested architecture selection, source and SoTA inheritance, sibling-decision coordination, or high-risk neighbour overread is live.

#Work order for using the pattern

1. Name DRRVersionRef, DRRDeclaredAuthoringUse, DRRReceivingLocusDispositionMap, and DRRReadQualificationWindow.
2. Apply the activated DRRDecisionAdequacyEligibilitySet rows first.
3. If an eligibility row fails, repair the DRR, narrow the read, split the decision, or hold for architecture decision before coordinate comparison.
4. Select active coordinates from E.9.DA:4.5.
5. Check coordinate orthogonalization: each active coordinate must have a distinct failure mode, distinct repair question, or explicit subreading.
6. Assign each active coordinate an ordinal value using only DRR text and content evidence, not administrative state.
7. Repair active coordinates below the declared floor, narrow the use, or set a non-ready status.
8. Run E.10 only over load-bearing new or repaired names, status values, coordinate heads, examples, stop conditions, and finding or result wording introduced or changed by the read. If wording is ordinary and no relation-like, epistemic, publication, source-transfer, naming, evidence, work, gate, or decision load remains, stop at local rewrite.
9. If the read claims admissibleForDeclaredAuthoringUse, state the first drafting move and the most expansive non-admissible overread.

Reopen the smallest live locus when later source use, accepted-decision inheritance, receiving-locus obligation, lexical closure, source-return condition, architecture decision, architecture description, publication split, or first drafting move changes enough to alter an active coordinate, an eligibility row, or DRRDecisionAdequacyStatus. Do not reopen the whole adequacy read only because review, landing, or chat state changed.

Before declaring a stop, ask what became worse while the visible coordinates improved: authoring cost, first-use cost, neighbour-pattern cost, source-loss risk, shadow-spec risk, repeated restoration doctrine, retrieval confusion, migration cost, durable-name fanout, and chance that pattern authors will still invent hidden decisions. If one of those losses can change admissible DRR use, express it through an active coordinate, a narrowed use, or a non-ready status rather than hiding it outside the read.

When the same DRR version is being improved through repeated passes, use E.23 for the repeated quality-improvement method. E.9.DA supplies the DRR decision-adequacy coordinates, values, source-use mutation checks, receiving-locus obligations, status, and stop or repair meanings; it does not govern row-atomic absorption across passes, method-family selection, or stop, narrow, continue, switch method, or hold decisions.

Self-application is bounded. E.9.DA may be used to read a DRR about E.9.DA, but that read still evaluates the DRR decision-adequacy claim, not the pattern text. A pattern-quality read of the E.9.DA pattern text remains a separate E.21 use. If E.9.DA self-application exposes a content defect, repair the pattern text or narrow the declared authoring use; if it exposes an architecture defect, use holdForArchitectureDecision.

#Replayable adequacy read

A carrier, review packet, monolith position, chat, release note, or steward acceptance can locate material. It cannot change an E.9.DA read unless the DRR text, declared authoring use, receiving-locus disposition map, read qualification window, source-use stance, accepted-decision carry-through, or active content loci change.

#Finding sentence grammar

A conforming E.9.DA finding has this grammar:

E.9.DA finding:
  DRR version being evaluated: <DRRVersionRef>
  Declared authoring use: <DRRDeclaredAuthoringUse>
  Finding category: <eligibility blocker | coordinate reading | status payload | stop-condition failure | architecture-neighbour conflict | bounded non-use | neighbouring-pattern handoff>
  Exact E.9.DA locus: <EligibilitySet row | coordinate | status | stop clause | boundary row>
  Exact DRR loci: <DRRCoordinateLocusRefs>
  Effect: <status, coordinate, floor, or stop impact>
  First admissible repair or bounded non-use: <repair locus | narrowed use | split boundary | architecture hold | bounded non-use>

Vague labels such as weak DRR, not ready, needs more evidence, architecture unclear, not enough SoTA, or review failed are nonconforming until rewritten into this grammar.

#Result capsule

A short E.9.DA result may be stated without a full report when the ordinary-cost first pass is enough.

E.9.DA result:
  DRR: <DRRVersionRef>
  Declared authoring use: <DRRDeclaredAuthoringUse>
  Status: <DRRDecisionAdequacyStatus>
  First drafting move or first repair: <...>
   Most expansive non-admissible overread: <...>
  Reopen if: <smallest changed locus or condition>

This capsule is a local statement of the adequacy read. It is not a review record, gate result, release evidence, assurance, or pattern-quality status.

#Archetypal Grounding

Tell. A DRR is not good enough because it has headings. It is good enough for drafting when a pattern author can rely on its selected answer, receiving-locus obligations, boundaries, source-use posture, architecture choice, and examples without inventing a missing decision.

Show, weak DRR. A DRR about precision restoration says that E.10, A.6.P, and C.2.P are relevant, and notes that architecture terms may need repair. It does not decide whether there is a new architecture-structure branch, what name it has, which existing patterns lose repeated repair prose, or which regression cases test the split. E.9.DA returns repairBeforeDrafting because SelectedAnswerDecisiveness, ReceivingLocusObligationClosure, and DraftingActionability are below the floor.

Show, adequate DRR. The same DRR selects C.30.P - Architecture-Structure Precision Restoration, assigns E.10 the shared recovery sequence, assigns branch ontology to A.6.P, C.2.P, C.30.P, and C.16.P, states which evaluation patterns are slimmed, rejects a separate LanguagePrecisionRestoration pattern, and gives regression cases. E.9.DA can return admissibleForDeclaredAuthoringUse for pattern-host drafting.

Show, system-facing and episteme-facing paired grounding. A system-facing DRR says that an architecture diagram, graph, or ADR-like note will guide a structure amendment. E.9.DA requires the DRR to state the architecture claim or structure claim, described or grounding object when live, structural view relation, preserved and lost structure, selected receiving loci, non-use boundary, and first drafting move. An episteme-facing DRR says that a source, seminar, review, standard, or SoTA article will shape a pattern. E.9.DA requires source posture, selected payload, rejected payload, non-use boundary, and receiving-locus disposition. In both cases, the description or source locates material; it is not itself the FPF decision.

Show, SoTA-heavy DRR. A DRR for a quantum-like modeling lens carries literature, seminar material, reviewer findings, and FPF neighbour decisions. It is not adequate merely because the sources are numerous. It becomes adequate when the selected answer states which mathematical-lens claims enter the new pattern, which claims remain non-use, which terms require E.10, A.6.P, or C.2.P repair, which evaluation patterns get concrete SoTA, examples, and conformance obligations, and why the selected pattern split is the right FPF content architecture. SoTAAndEvidenceUseInDecision, SourceUseAndDecisionInheritanceCarryThrough, ReceivingLocusObligationClosure, and FPFContentArchitectureSelectionAdequacy are active.

Show, causal DRR. A DRR for counterfactual realizability and causal use touches a new causal pattern plus evidence, assurance, benchmark, dispatch, and fairness neighbours. It is adequate only if it decides the causal-use vocabulary, the selected FPF content architecture, the receiving-locus obligations, the non-admissible overreads, and the exact status sets and value sets that downstream hosts may use. A clean external review of a smaller host subset does not by itself make the wider DRR adequate for a wider declared authoring use.

Show, architecture-impact DRR. A DRR for architecture precision restoration touches architecture and structure language, structural views, graphs, diagrams, dashboards, publication faces, and source plans. FPFContentArchitectureSelectionAdequacy and ArchitectureSourceAndViewLossClosure are active because the DRR must distinguish the architecture or structure claim from its description, state which structure kinds and views are live, state what view losses are admissible, and block the overread that a graph, diagram, dashboard, or ADR-like note is the architecture itself.

Near-miss, small edit. A DRR fixes one typo or one local Plain-register sentence with no semantic change and no downstream drafting obligation. E.9.DA should not force a full read. The admissible result is to use E.9 lightweight form, run E.10 on the changed wording when load-bearing wording is live, and avoid minting DRRDecisionAdequacyRead.

#Bias-Annotation

This pattern biases FPF toward decision explicitness before drafting. The bias is intentional: missing decisions are cheaper to repair in a DRR than after they have been dispersed into several pattern hosts.

The bias is bounded. E.9.DA must not turn every small wording cleanup into a heavy decision audit, must not require all possible coordinates when the declared authoring use is narrow, and must not treat administrative state as evidence of decision adequacy.

Lens posture:

• Ontology: exact governed object, evaluation pattern, and decision boundary are privileged over broad labels.
• Epistemology: source and review material matters only when it changes a decision, boundary, source-use posture, validation obligation, or reopen condition.
• Pragmatics: the first pattern-drafting move and non-admissible overread must be visible.
• Aesthetics: concise rationale is preferred after required decisions are recoverable.
• Ethics: broad readiness claims and vague rejection labels are blocked when downstream authors would be forced to invent hidden decisions or repair direction.

#Conformance Checklist

| CC-E9DA-15 (Pattern-version boundary). | If the evaluated object is an authored FPF pattern version, the read SHALL start in E.21; E.9.DA may be opened only for the upstream DRR decision-adequacy blocker that affects that pattern authoring use. | Preserves the boundary between DRR decision adequacy and pattern quality, and prevents pattern evaluation from becoming DRR bureaucracy. | | CC-E9DA-16 (SoTA mutation binding). | A load-bearing source, standard, review, audit, benchmark, expert claim, or accepted decision SHALL change a selected answer, receiving-locus obligation, rejected alternative, non-use boundary, worked case, conformance item, validation obligation, architecture choice, stop condition, or reopen condition; otherwise it is rationale-only or lineage-only for the read. | Blocks decorative source lists and source theatre. | | CC-E9DA-17 (Currentness and lineage split). | Current SoTA under E.8, living or refreshable source, lineage-only material, local accepted decision, rationale-only material, and rejected popular practice SHALL be distinguished when source currentness can change a coordinate or status. Official status, source recency, popularity, citation volume, adoption, awards, or familiar terminology do not make a source currentSoTA unless the DRR states why it carries the current best-known answer for the governed problem. | Prevents old lineage, fresh standards, or popular practice from masquerading as current decision material. | | CC-E9DA-18 (No certification by adequacy read). | E.9.DA SHALL NOT be used as safety, security, compliance, assurance, gate, release, work, or project-world certification. | Keeps DRR decision adequacy from becoming false external authority. | | CC-E9DA-19 (Distributed receiving-locus traceability). | A conforming multi-locus read SHALL use DRRReceivingLocusDispositionMap and classify content obligation, non-obligation, governing-neighbour relation, sibling decision, and first drafting implication for each live locus. | Prevents address completion without content disposition. | | CC-E9DA-20 (Architectural governing-neighbour boundary). | If authoring, pattern quality, review, lexical repair, measurement, naming, evidence, assurance, gate, release, work, safety, security, compliance, architecture, publication, graph view, or source-use claims are live, the read SHALL name the exact evaluation pattern and the limited E.9.DA relation. | Prevents E.9.DA from becoming an orchestration hub or shadow authority. | | CC-E9DA-21 (Replayable adequacy read). | A conforming read SHALL be replayable from DRRVersionRef, declared authoring use, qualification window, source-use stance, receiving-locus disposition map, and exact DRR loci; carrier, chat, landing, review, or release state alone SHALL NOT change the read. | Preserves content-based adequacy and repeatability. | | CC-E9DA-22 (No orchestration hub). | E.9.DA SHALL NOT prescribe process execution, handoff sequence, work queue, review workflow, authoring pipeline, gate sequence, or release path. It may state candidate evaluation patterns, first repair locus, first drafting move, narrowed use, split boundary, or architecture hold as outputs. | Keeps declarative pattern application separate from process planning. | | CC-E9DA-23 (Finding grammar). | An E.9.DA finding SHALL use the grammar in E.9.DA:4.7b or an equivalent explicit structure. | Prevents vague adequacy judgements from becoming reviewer authority. | | CC-E9DA-24 (No vague rejection). | A non-ready E.9.DA result SHALL NOT stop at weak DRR, not ready, needs more evidence, architecture unclear, not enough SoTA, or review failed. It SHALL name the exact DRR locus, exact E.9.DA eligibility row or coordinate, status effect, and first admissible repair, narrowed use, split boundary, architecture hold, or bounded non-use. | Keeps authoring repairable and prevents opaque stewardship. | | CC-E9DA-25 (No reputation or adoption adequacy). | A DRR adequacy read SHALL NOT raise or lower coordinate values from reviewer praise, reviewer acceptance, reviewer-clean packet status, number of reviews, steward acceptance, campaign progress, landing state, monolith placement, release inclusion, source volume, citation volume, popularity, adoption, awards, prior use, absence of use, or absence of review. A signal may affect a coordinate only after it is rewritten into replayable DRR decision-content evidence for the exact DRRVersionRef, declared authoring use, source set, receiving-locus disposition map, read qualification window, and coordinate. | Prevents administrative and reputation medals from replacing decision-content adequacy. |

#Anti-Patterns

#Consequences

#Rationale

E.9.DA is placed beside E.9 because the governed object is a decision-rationale record, not an authored pattern body. The pattern reuses the neutral ordinal scale and no-scalarization discipline of E.21, but it does not make a DRR a pattern-quality object under evaluation.

The selected name uses DA for decision adequacy. It avoids .Q because Q is already loaded by quality-term restoration and Q-Bundle practice. This prevents a naming collision between "quality" as a subject-domain term and "adequacy read" as an evaluation posture.

The default floor of 4 wellExpressedForDeclaredUse matches the shared pattern-quality readiness floor only when the DRR is claimed as ready for drafting, host amendment, or multi-locus distribution. The coordinates differ because the object differs. A pattern must be action-guiding for users; a DRR must be decision-bearing for downstream authors.

#SoTA-Echoing

#Relations

| E.19 | Governs pattern admission and refresh reviews. An E.19 finding may expose that an upstream DRR did not decide enough; E.9.DA then reads that DRR, while E.19 keeps the pattern-review finding. | | E.10 | Governs lexical trigger scan and closure for load-bearing names, coordinates, status values, examples, stop conditions, and finding or result wording introduced or repaired by the read. | | A.6.P and C.2.P | Receive relation-like, episteme, publication, or source-transfer precision restoration when E.10 selects those readings. | | F.18 | Governs durable naming when a local E.9.DA name is promoted beyond this pattern-local read. | | C.16, A.17, A.18, A.19, C.25 | Govern measurement, Characteristic and Scale discipline, characteristic spaces, and Q-Bundle normal form when the adequacy read becomes a measurement or quality-family claim. | | C.16.P | Receives characteristic-scale precision restoration when words such as coordinate, score, quality, strong, axis, dimension, or metric hide the live characteristic and scale construction. | | Architecture-facing FPF patterns | When a DRR affects architecture-facing FPF content, E.9.DA reads whether source-use posture, affected structures, structure kinds, architecture structural views, view losses, source-return conditions, splits among architecture decision, architecture description, and publication, and graph, view, or ADR non-use boundaries are decision-bearing enough for drafting. It does not run an architecture workstream, select campaign order, or make architecture descriptions into evidence, gates, assurance, release, or project decisions. |

#E.9.DA:End

Last Updated: 2026-05-29 — this section last modified in upstream FPF commit 2e112078 (github.com/ailev/FPF)