#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 C.2.1 DRR episteme must be assessed 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. E.9.DA supplies the object-specific evaluation characteristic space and result rules; it does not itself perform that assessment.

#Relations

#Content

#Problem frame

Use E.9.DA when one exact C.2.1 DRR episteme must be assessed 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. E.9.DA supplies the object-specific evaluation characteristic space and result rules; it does not itself perform that assessment.

Not this pattern when the evaluated object is one authored pattern version, one admission or refresh review, one local wording repair, or a measurement-law problem. Use E.21, E.19, E.10 and its precision-restoration neighbours, or C.16, A.17, A.18, and A.19 for those objects.

First useful move: identify the exact checked DRR episteme, declared authoring use, U.ClaimScope, selected-locus disposition map, qualification window, and E.9.DA evaluation configuration. When an actual result is required, identify the evaluator system, role assignment, semantic evaluation method, dated assessment work, and A.6.1 application/bindings before constituting coordinate-result claims.

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 C.2.1 DRR episteme version assessed for one declared FPF authoring use and qualification window. The assessment work, result episteme, witness/evidence set, optional record, status use, assurance, acceptance, and later repair are separate objects.

#Problem

E.9 defines DRRMethod, the decision-work/selected-answer boundary, and the minimum C.2.1 DRR episteme form. It does not by itself establish whether one exact DRR episteme is decision-bearing enough for a declared downstream use. Without E.9.DA, assessors tend to 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

E.9.DA declares the reusable DRR decision-adequacy evaluation CharacteristicSpace, its object-specific evaluation specification, ordinal scale, result-shape rules, and local admissible-use result values. It is a specialization of A.19.ECS; it does not itself inspect a DRR, perform assessment work, assign a value, create evidence use, issue assurance, authorize drafting, or repair the DRR.

For an actual evaluation, keep these objects independently recoverable:

1. one exact C.2.1 DRR episteme version as the checked object;
2. the declared downstream authoring use, U.ClaimScope, qualification window, selected-locus disposition map, and checked evidence basis;
3. the selected U.CharacteristicSpace, this E.9.DA evaluation-specification episteme, every coordinate/scale binding, and the local result-form and status-value rules;
4. one separately identified semantic evaluation U.Method used for the assessment;
5. dated assessment U.Work, its evaluator U.System, exact obtaining U.RoleAssignment, enacted method, and A.6.1 application/bindings;
6. the per-coordinate result claims and one C.2.1 aggregate decision-adequacy-result episteme when a durable result is needed;
7. witnesses, source or comparator refs, exact A.10 evidence-use/provenance relations, and any B.3 assurance result;
8. an optional evaluation-record episteme that packages those refs without performing the assessment or creating its results;
9. any F.10 status value, status-use/interpretation relation, acceptance, gate, authority, reliance, publication, or currentness claim; and
10. later E.23 improvement or other DRR repair work and its changed DRR episteme.

There is no partial conforming E.9.DA result. Once assessment work applies this evaluation for the declared use, the aggregate result episteme states a value, adjacent-value rationale, and evidence locus for every coordinate in E.9.DA:4.4, the checked evidence basis, and the local result status. Missing fields, sources, selected-locus decisions, architecture decisions, comparators, or currentness bases lower the coordinate that needs them and can yield repair, split, or hold; an unfinished table or prose impression remains assessment material rather than a result.

Each coordinate-result claim is a quality ascription about the exact checked DRR episteme. It names that bearer, effective ReferenceScheme, characteristic and scale value, evaluation rule or probe, comparison/calibration frame when used, U.ClaimScope, declared use and qualification window, assessment application, and evidence locus. Evaluator system and any viewpoint episteme remain distinct; the result does not acquire a viewpoint or grounding merely from the evaluator, record, or source labels.

#Local names and kind settlement

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.

#Evaluation application, result, and optional 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>
  ClaimScopeRef: <exact U.ClaimScope>
  DRRSelectedLocusDispositionMap: <locus -> selected responsibility, explicit non-responsibility, sibling decision, or outside-decision disposition>
  DRRDecisionAdequacyQualificationWindow: <source, edition, neighbour, currentness window>
  DRRDecisionAdequacyCharacteristicSpaceRef: <exact A.19 space>
  DRRDecisionAdequacyEvaluationSpecRef: <this E.9.DA specification edition>
  SemanticEvaluationMethodRef: <exact U.Method used by assessment work>
  DRRDecisionAdequacyEvidenceBasis: <checked loci and explicitly missing or unchecked loci>

DRRDecisionAdequacyAssessmentApplication:
  AssessmentWorkRef: <dated U.Work>
  EvaluatorSystemRef:
  EvaluatorRoleAssignmentRef:
  EnactedMethodRef: <same SemanticEvaluationMethodRef>
  A6_1ApplicationAndBindingRefs:
  EvaluationConfigurationRef:
  ReturnedCoordinateResultRefs:
  AggregateResultRef:

DRRDecisionAdequacyResultEpisteme:
  EntityOfConcern: <same exact DRRVersionRef>
  EffectiveReferenceScheme:
  ClaimGraph:
    DeclaredAuthoringUse:
    QualificationWindow:
    CoordinateTable: <all coordinates, values, adjacent-value rationales, evidence loci>
    PrecisionRestorationProfile:
    KindRestorationChecks:
    OnticCandidateDisposition: <when triggered>
    CampaignProblemSolutionUnfoldingCheck: <when triggered>
    DRRDecisionAdequacyStatus:
    FirstDraftingActionOrFirstRepair:
    MostExpansiveNonAdmissibleOverread:
    StopOrRepairCondition:
    ReopenIf:
  WitnessRefs:
  EvidenceUseRelationRefs:

An optional DRRDecisionAdequacyRecordRef may package refs to this configuration, assessment application/work, result episteme, witnesses, evidence-use relations, publication, and currentness. Filling or publishing that record does not perform the work, assign the coordinate values, make evidence relevant, confer assurance, create an F.10 status use, accept the DRR, or authorize downstream drafting.

[E.22](/generated/patterns/E.22) may frame whether the evaluation is floor-only, exceptional-improvement, trade-off, open-question, absorption, or proposal-producing. It neither performs the assessment nor assigns the result. [E.23](/generated/patterns/E.23) governs later repeated improvement work on the checked DRR after result claims or findings exist; it does not retroactively become the E.9.DA assessment.

#Ordinal coordinate scale

Each ordinal value is a content-evaluation result claim about the exact checked DRR episteme under the declared evaluation configuration. It is not a U.Measure, assessment work, witness, record field, F.10 status use, assurance, acceptance, or reward for review, landing, popularity, citation volume, or absence of visible defects.

#Required decision-adequacy coordinates

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

An E.9.DA result uses this table shape:

A prose summary, heading checklist, two-column coordinate-and-value table, or table without an EvidenceLocus named by value is not an E.9.DA result. It is draft evaluation material. Missing or unchecked evidence lowers the coordinate that needs it; it does not make the coordinate inactive.

Common calibration points:

#Local result status and stop condition

The following are closed values asserted in the aggregate decision-adequacy-result episteme for its exact checked DRR/use/window. They are not F.10 status uses, review decisions, gates, permissions, assurance levels, or work states. A receiver that relies on or maps one value must state its own exact status-use/interpretation or evidence-use relation.

A result carrying admissibleForDeclaredAuthoringUse states the first drafting action and most expansive non-admissible overread. newFrameRequired is not a pass for the current declared use. Non-ready result values state the first repair, split boundary, or architecture question; the result episteme neither performs that repair nor imposes a gate without a separately governed receiving relation.

#Compact result form

E.9.DA result episteme:
  ResultRef: <DRRDecisionAdequacyResultRef>
  EntityOfConcern: <exact DRRVersionRef>
  EffectiveReferenceScheme:
  Declared authoring use: <DRRDeclaredAuthoringUse>
  ClaimScopeRef:
  Qualification window: <window>
  Evaluation configuration: <CharacteristicSpaceRef, EvaluationSpecRef, SemanticEvaluationMethodRef>
  Assessment work and A.6.1 application refs:
  Evidence basis checked: <DRRDecisionAdequacyEvidenceBasis>
  Precision-restoration profile: <DRRPrecisionRestorationProfile>
  Status: <local DRRDecisionAdequacyStatus value>
  Coordinate table: <Coordinate | Value | ShortRationale | EvidenceLocus for every required coordinate>
  Witness refs and exact evidence-use relation refs:
  First drafting action or first repair: <...>
  Most expansive non-admissible overread: <...>
  Reopen if: <smallest changed locus or condition>

The coordinate table may be short, but the result episteme is complete only when every coordinate and required identity/configuration field is recoverable. No result is constituted from a prose summary, two-column table, applied-finding count, review acceptance, absent failure rows, or missing evidence loci. A downstream F.10 status use, B.3 assurance, E.19 admission decision, authority, or drafting permission is a separate governed claim.

#Finding row

E.9.DA finding:
  DRR version: <DRRVersionRef>
  Declared authoring use: <DRRDeclaredAuthoringUse>
  Coordinate or status affected: <coordinate | status | stop condition>
  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>

Vague labels such as weak DRR, needs more evidence, or architecture unclear are not findings until rewritten into this row. A finding row is one actionable evaluation-result claim or a row cited by the aggregate result episteme; writing it neither performs assessment work nor repairs the checked DRR.

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; they do not themselves repair the DRR. 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

Weak precision-restoration DRR. A checked DRR episteme says E.10, A.6.P, and C.2.P are relevant, but does not decide whether a new branch exists, what name it has, which repeated prose moves, or which regression cases test the split. Its aggregate assessment result assigns lower values to SelectedAnswerDecisiveness, SelectedLocusObligationClosure, FPFContentArchitectureSelectionAdequacy, and DraftingActionability.

Adequate multi-locus DRR. The checked DRR episteme records a selected precision-restoration pattern, responsibilities for selected loci, rejected alternatives, first drafting actions, and source-use payload carried into examples and conformance. Dated assessment work enacts the selected semantic evaluation method; the A.6.1 application returns value bindings, and the separate aggregate result episteme can state admissibleForDeclaredAuthoringUse without the DRR containing final pattern prose. A separately governed receiving decision determines whether drafting proceeds.

Architecture-impact DRR. A checked DRR episteme cites diagrams, graphs, dashboards, or architecture notes. Assessment work applies the E.9.DA configuration to determine whether its decision claims 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 decision nor the assessment result.

#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. Once an E.9.DA assessment application is current, dated assessment work enacts the selected method, A.6.1 bindings return coordinate values, and a separate result episteme states the claims compactly; the pattern and optional record perform none of those acts. Pattern quality remains under E.21; repeated improvement remains under E.23; wording repair remains under E.10 and precision-restoration neighboring patterns named by value.

#Conformance checklist

#Common anti-patterns and repairs

#Consequences

#Rationale

The cheapest place to repair missing FPF decisions is the DRR, before pattern prose spreads uncertainty across several hosts. A compact complete result episteme is better than a heavy preliminary audit: dated assessment work enacts the method, A.6.1 application bindings return coordinate values, and the result episteme states every coordinate claim, first repair, and bounded stop. The evaluation specification, optional record, and favorable local status neither perform nor authorize repair.

#SoTA-Echoing

#Relations

#E.9.DA:End

Last Updated: 2026-08-04 — upstream FPF commit 8b727cba (github.com/ailev/FPF)