FPF Reference

    Design-Rationale Record (DRR) Method

    E.9 · Stable · Governance and authoring 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: Governance and authoring pattern Status: Stable Normativity: Normative

    • one proposed normative change needs an explicit by-value account of what FPF should say, why this decision is preferred, and which neighboring patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs it affects
    • several patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs must move together and one external decision record is needed to keep one bounded coordinated change set (one mutually dependent change set) semantically complete while enduring Core text is redistributed
    • one bounded content decision question would otherwise force authors to decide the same load-bearing answer separately across several patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs
    • one deprecation, narrowing, or cross-pattern amendment must stay reviewable without reconstructing intent from patch history, chat memory, or scattered notes

    Relations

    E.9interacts withCross-Disciplinary Bias Audit
    E.9interacts withDRR Decision-Adequacy Evaluation CharacteristicSpace
    E.9interacts withDesign-Rationale Record (DRR) Method
    E.9interacts withDidactic Primacy & Cognitive Ergonomics
    E.9coordinates withQuality Improvement Loop Method
    E.9coordinates withDesign-Rationale Record (DRR) Method
    E.9coordinates withDRR Decision-Adequacy Evaluation CharacteristicSpace
    E.9outline childDRR Decision-Adequacy Evaluation CharacteristicSpace
    E.9explicit referencePublicationUnit Stability Discipline and Local Head Restoration
    E.9explicit referenceEpistemic Precision Restoration
    E.9explicit referenceUnified Lexical Rules for FPF
    E.9explicit referenceLocal-First Unification Naming Protocol
    E.9explicit referenceFPF Authoring Conventions and Style Guide
    E.9explicit referenceWording-Use Ontological Precision Restoration Architecture
    E.9explicit referenceFirst-Practical Entry and Pattern-Use Discoverability Discipline
    E.9explicit referenceExpanded Entry Disambiguation Cases
    E.9explicit referenceOntology-First Plain Technical Rewriting
    E.9explicit referenceCross-Disciplinary Bias Audit
    E.9explicit referenceDRR Decision-Adequacy Evaluation CharacteristicSpace
    E.9explicit referenceQuality Improvement Loop Method

    Content

    Use this when

    • one proposed normative change needs an explicit by-value account of what FPF should say, why this decision is preferred, and which neighboring patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs it affects
    • several patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs must move together and one external decision record is needed to keep one bounded coordinated change set (one mutually dependent change set) semantically complete while enduring Core text is redistributed
    • one bounded content decision question would otherwise force authors to decide the same load-bearing answer separately across several patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs
    • one deprecation, narrowing, or cross-pattern amendment must stay reviewable without reconstructing intent from patch history, chat memory, or scattered notes

    Not this pattern when. Do not use E.9 as the permanent location of normative Core law, as a campaign or process brief, or as the main vehicle for purely editorial Delta-0 or Delta-1 cleanup that fits the lightweight variant in CC-DRR.5. Use E.9.DA when one concrete DRR already exists and the question is whether its selected answer, selected-locus obligations, source use, lexical closure, and drafting actionability are adequate for a declared downstream authoring use.

    What goes wrong if missed

    • Core text changes without one explicit rationale account, so later readers cannot recover which alternatives were rejected or which exclusions were intentional
    • coordinated multi-pattern amendments drift apart because the temporary selected-answer account survives only in patches, handoffs, or reviewer memory
    • future repairs overfit to local wording and silently lose Pillar, taxonomy-lens, impact-graph, practical-use, or pattern-placement discipline

    What this buys

    • one external decision record that states the bounded FPF change by value before Core text is rewritten
    • one minimum kernel that keeps Problem frame, Decision, Rationale, and Consequences recoverable for later review and replay
    • one temporary convergence record for coordinated changes, while keeping enduring Core text in the selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs rather than in the DRR
    • one temporary convergence record that fixes the selected answer (the chosen content answer for the bounded content decision question) before later drafting fans out across several selected patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs

    First useful move. State the bounded FPF content decision question, the selected answer, the rationale for that answer, and the selected distribution across patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs before drafting or landing the Core text.

    Cheap stop. If the change is ordinary local wording repair, application of an already accepted pattern, or editorial cleanup that does not change FPF semantics, obligations, boundaries, names, admissible uses, or normative force, do not open a full DRR. Use the lighter governing pattern for the local repair: E.17.AUD.LHR for one overloaded local lexical head inside one publication unit, C.2.P for one episteme, publication, or source-use phrase requiring local epistemic precision restoration, E.10 for general lexical repair, F.18 only when a durable reusable name is being minted, and E.8 for authoring-form correction. Leave E.9 for bounded content decisions that need rationale by value.

    Kind-or-boilerplate diagnostic. When a DRR proposes wording for selected patterns, apply F.19 to separate boilerplate apparatus from remaining content before any wording is treated as pasteable pattern prose. If the remaining content still hides wording-use, naming, relation, claim, admissible-use, selected-locus, user-move, or flow-role precision, the DRR names the applied E.10, E.10.ARCH, F.18, or governing pattern. Process, architecture, review, or reference apparatus belongs in its own carrier, not in pasteable pattern prose.

    A DRR-proposed wording repair is not pasteable pattern prose until it carries a kind-restoration check. The DRR must show the pre-repair and post-repair object kind, relation or claim kind, slot or use-position, admissible use, and scope, or explicitly decide that the change is a semantic change rather than an editorial repair. A nicer head word, shorter phrase, or removed trigger word is not decision evidence when it narrows a graph into a sequence, turns a method into work, widens an evidence record into assurance, treats a use-position as a new kind, or otherwise changes the kind or use-position without an accepted decision. When the decision depends on slot, lens, role, method, work, evidence, assurance, gate, or decision ontology, the DRR cites the governing pattern rather than redefining that ontology locally.

    Primary EntityOfConcern in plain terms. The primary EntityOfConcern here is one external decision-rationale record for one bounded FPF content decision or one bounded coordinated change set. The minimal lens is simple: the record must keep the problem frame, decision, rationale, consequences, and impact and boundary account recoverable enough that accepted content can be distributed into the selected Core patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs without semantic invention.

    Primary working reader. The first working reader is an FPF author, reviewer, or steward who must evaluate, challenge, or land one bounded content decision. Downstream pattern readers benefit from the landed Core text; they are not the primary reader of the DRR itself.

    Problem frame

    FPF is engineered for Pillar P‑10 Open‑Ended Evolution: its normative rules must adapt as new calculi and insights arrive. But change without a record of why leads to conceptual erosion and undermines auditability. Hence FPF requires an explicit Design‑Rationale Record (DRR)—a durable conceptual record that precedes every normative change.

    Problem

    Direct edits to the Core, absent a structured rationale, trigger three systemic hazards:

    1. Lost provenance – future authors cannot infer the reasoning behind a rule; intent decays.
    2. Implicit assumptions – discarded alternatives vanish from memory, so debates resurface and churn repeats.
    3. Conceptual drift – incremental tweaks slip past the Eleven Pillars and Principle Taxonomy lenses, blurring the framework’s foundations.

    Forces

    ForceTension
    Agility vs RigourEvolve swiftly ↔ demonstrate deliberate, Pillar‑aligned decisions.
    Transparency vs EfficiencyProvide a public argument trail ↔ avoid bureaucratic drag on minor edits.
    Clarity vs ConcisenessCapture enough reasoning and coordinated implications ↔ prevent meta‑text from bloating the Core itself.

    Solution — the DRR as a structured argument and temporary convergence record

    Any proposal to add, modify or deprecate a NORM, A, D, or GOV rule MUST be accompanied by a Design‑Rationale Record. By default, a conforming DRR contains at least four conceptual components (below); these form the minimum decision kernel recoverable by any conforming DRR. A lightweight editorial variant is permitted by CC‑DRR.5.

    In this pattern, a bounded coordinated change set means one bounded group of mutually dependent content decisions whose enduring FPF expression will be distributed across several patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs. In this pattern, the selected answer means the current set of chosen content decisions for that bounded content decision question: what FPF should say, which selected patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs carry it, what stays outside, and which source-use row, evidence path, validation evidence obligation, or loss/recoverability regime applies. In this pattern, selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair is a tuple-like instruction, not one new kind: when a DRR selects a non-pattern publication, view, record, or relation to carry durable content, it must name the FPF kind named by value and reference by value, for example pattern profile, U.View, source map, source-use note, authoritySourceRef target, evidence-path record, review-finding record, or architecture-decision record. In this pattern, a temporary convergence record means one external decision record that temporarily holds the selected answer while the selected Core patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs are still being updated.

    A nontrivial DRR may therefore govern one bounded coordinated change set. In that case the DRR is the temporary convergence record for the selected answer until selected Core patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs are updated; it is not a second permanent Core-law section.

    Minimum-kernel componentGuiding questionTypical content
    Problem frameWhy are we talking about this?Problem statement, triggering insight, intended FPF use-value, scenario grounding, or external change.
    DecisionWhat will we do?Precise normative text, selected content distribution, explicit outside-current-decision disposition, or other substantive change law to enter the specification.
    RationaleWhy is this the right thing?Comparison of alternatives, Pillar check, taxonomy-lens balance, architecture/usability/SoTA grounds.
    ConsequencesWhat follows from this choice?Expected benefits, trade-offs, impacted patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, practical gains/costs, and remaining validation evidence obligation.

    Minimum decision-inspection content blocks

    A conforming DRR must also make the following decision-inspection content blocks recoverable. They may appear inside the four kernel components or inside one dedicated Decision grounds used or decision-inspection block, but they are part of substantive DRR adequacy rather than later review-only hardening.

    Decision-inspection content blockWhat must be recoverable by valueUsual location in the DRR
    Exact decision grounds and governing inheritanceExact source documents, accepted architecture records, accepted audit records, and inherited decisions that materially govern the decision, plus any remaining uncertainty not already closed by those grounds.Header or Decision grounds used, with the Problem frame or Rationale carrying the decision-relevant source use.
    Purpose, utility, and scenario groundingIntended FPF use-value, first-minute working situation, minimum scenario/anti-case grounding, and compact utility/fitness reading.Problem frame.
    Alternatives and current disposition mapMaterial alternatives plus one current disposition for each content decision question this DRR must settle: selected now, rejected now, inherited unchanged, or outside current decision with named pattern, selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, or decision record. When the accepted decision grounds or the DRR itself already names one pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair as part of the distribution question, that named pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair is already part of the current disposition map and must not remain one conditional watch item.Decision and Rationale.
    Content-distribution and outside-boundary mapFor each load-bearing selected answer: the positive content obligation each selected pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair must carry, the first subject-kind/action spine expected in drafting when a pattern is selected, which related patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs stay unamended under the current decision, and any agreement across selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs that those selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs must preserve. Outside-boundary and non-obligation material is secondary distribution control; it must be normalized, compact, and not pasteable as copied negative doctrine or precision-restoration debt for the selected pattern Solution. Pattern applications are declarations about specific claims, relations, or boundaries. Repeated content families, ordinary reference apparatus, README/ToC/E.11/I.2 navigation, package-boundary rationale, split/defer rationale, architecture placement reasoning, and phrase apparatus around simple claims stay in DRR, architecture documents, handoff, relation rows, README, ToC, E.11, I.2, or one compact local locus instead of the Solution. When proposed wording still needs precision restoration, the DRR names the selected restoration or governing pattern: E.10, E.10.ARCH, F.18, F.19, or another governing pattern. Named related patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs must be classified now, not left as tentative most likely / may need / if later touched watch prose.Decision.
    Existing-pattern sufficiency and new-pattern necessityFor each load-bearing selected answer, whether one already-existing pattern is sufficient, one already-existing selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair is sufficient, or one newly selected pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair is necessary, and why rejected options would misplace, overload, or falsely split the pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair that governs the selected answer.Decision and Rationale.
    Naming, ontology, and wrong-carrier-confusion accountHead/branch/object/move/outside-work separation, tempting wrong-pattern assignment or wrong non-pattern FPF kind-reference assignment, and any load-bearing F.18 naming obligation needed to keep the selected answer truthful by value.Problem frame, Decision, and Rationale.
    Reusable content-disposition when triggeredWhether a potentially reusable selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair remains local, is generalized now, is rejected, or is placed outside the current decision with named pattern, selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, or decision record.Decision and Rationale.
    Loss and recoverability template when source-loss or scope narrowing is declaredPreserved distinctions, dropped distinctions, admissible use, non-admissible downstream use, recoverability class, and reopen/stop rule.Decision and Consequences.
    Selected locus and related-pattern boundary accountWhy the selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs carry the content, which tempting patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs stay outside, and which governing patterns govern specific outside claims, relations, or boundaries.Decision and Rationale.
    Convergence and overlap account when several content-decision branches touch the same carrier setWhether overlap is valid convergence or one reopened architecture smell, what agreement across selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs must hold, and whether a new pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair is actually selected or refused now.Decision and Consequences.
    Selected-answer stability boundaryWhich 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.Decision and Consequences.
    Impact, practical gains, and remaining validation evidence obligationAffected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, practical gains/costs, authority or release consequences when they follow from the content decision, and the remaining validation evidence obligation that still constrains later authoring or landing.Consequences.
    SoTA and competitive-positioning account when load-bearingCurrent best-known problem-solving source lines under E.8 that discipline the decision, what problem-owning domain or practice they answer to, which official/popular/legacy alternatives they reject or bound when relevant, and what unresolved uncertainty would materially change the selected answer.Problem frame, Rationale, and Consequences.

    These decision-inspection content blocks are not separate process paperwork. A DRR that keeps only the four labels while leaving decision grounds, first-minute use question, naming, selected content distribution, pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair sufficiency or necessity, overlap handling, impact, or unresolved uncertainty implicit is structurally labeled but still substantively immature.

    Together these decision-inspection content blocks let the DRR act as one decision record for one bounded coordinated change set: enough semantic closure that later drafting distributes the selected answer into selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs rather than inventing it for the first time pattern by pattern.

    When one bounded decision coordinates several patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, or one cluster of mutually dependent pattern edits and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair edits, the DRR MAY carry additional substantive sections beyond that minimum kernel. Typical substantive additions include obligations on selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, one explicit new-pattern vs existing-pattern decision, one impact or non-goal map across selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, coverage or agreement maps across selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, convergence classification, and one provisional decision-law account by value that keeps the bounded change account semantically complete until enduring Core text is distributed.

    Such additions do not change the DRR’s kind. A DRR carrying them remains conforming only when it stays about the FPF content decision: what FPF should say, why, what is excluded, how selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs are affected, and what practical use or authoring action improves. A DRR carrying richer convergence content MUST NOT become a campaign plan, process script, baton carrier, packet checklist, staging log, or other development-process brief.

    When one selected answer could plausibly fit one already-existing pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair or require one newly proposed pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, the DRR must decide that sufficiency/necessity question by value. It is not enough to list a tentative carrier list or leave downstream drafting to discover the selected pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair later.

    When the accepted decision grounds or the DRR itself already names one pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair as part of the distribution question, that pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair is not a neutral future watch item. The DRR must classify it now either as one selected pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair with explicit obligation, one explicit boundary neighbor kept unchanged, one inherited-unchanged neighbor, or one outside-current-decision item with named pattern, selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, or decision record. Conditional or time-relative pattern prose or prose for one selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair such as most likely, may need local hardening, if later touched, watch later, or one equivalent placeholder is non-conforming there because it marks one unmade current decision rather than one explicit current disposition.

    When accepted decision grounds expose one potentially reusable selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair or neighboring source-use, evidence, assurance, validation, or architecture-decision mechanism, the DRR must not merely note that such content already exists. It must decide whether that content is generalized now, kept local with a substantive reason, rejected, or marked outside the current decision with a named pattern, selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, or decision record.

    When one selected answer involves source-loss mode, simplification, redaction, summarization, or other declared loss, the DRR must make the admissible-use template explicit by value. Explanation alone is not enough; the decision must say what remains preserved, what is dropped, which branch reading is admissible and which selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair carries it, which uses lack an admissible carrier or evidence path, what recoverability class applies, and what reopen or stop rule governs cases that exceed the declared source-loss or scope-narrowing state.

    A nontrivial DRR is mature enough for downstream authoring only when 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, and loss/recoverability regime have already been selected, rejected, inherited unchanged, or placed outside the current decision with a named pattern, selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, or decision record. If those choices are still missing, the DRR is still decision-grounding work rather than one accepted design-rationale record.

    The DRR lives outside the normative Core. An accepted DRR SHALL be landed by applying its Decision account and any stabilized enduring content to the relevant pattern or selected non-pattern Core kind-reference pair as explicit normative or informative text (the change is "in the Core"; the DRR is not). A richer DRR MAY remain the temporary convergence record while redistribution into selected Core patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs is still incomplete, but it SHALL NOT remain the permanent sole semantic carrier once landed Core text exists.

    Authors drafting from an accepted DRR MAY elaborate examples, SoTA‑Echoing, recognition sections, local wording inside the selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, and neighboring fit. They SHALL NOT silently revise the selected answer, selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, outside-current-decision boundary, reusable-content disposition, or declared loss/recoverability regime. Any such revision SHALL be handled through one successor DRR or other named successor decision record.

    A DRR may itself be improved through E.23, but the DRR remains the selected decision record, not a full pattern draft. When SoTA is load-bearing in that improvement, it must mutate the selected answer, selected-locus obligation, boundary, example, validation obligation, or reopen condition; otherwise it is rationale-only or lineage-only for the DRR.

    To preserve P‑2 Didactic Primacy without duplicating meta‑text, authors landing an accepted DRR SHOULD distill stable and reusable parts of its Rationale, Consequences, and other valid convergence sections into the appropriate informative sections of the affected pattern(s) (Rationale, Consequences, SoTA‑Echoing, Archetypal Grounding; per the Pattern Template, E.8). The full DRR remains external as provenance.

    A substantive DRR is one current content decision object. It may carry selected content obligations only when they are part of the Decision or Consequences. It MUST NOT carry next-gate state, handoff/packet state, process-order state, monolith status, future campaign planning, or one hidden promise that the same current content decision question will be decided later inside the same decision object. Any undecided remainder must be marked outside the current decision with a named pattern, selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, or decision record.

    Process-source method admission into FPF

    When a DRR imports stable method from process-source document-carried method description into FPF, it must decide the admission by value rather than treating process prose as a second canon.

    The DRR names:

    • the process-source passage or accepted source named by value process-source decision-ground item being considered;
    • the reusable FPF method recovered from that passage;
    • the current FPF pattern, section, or accepted DRR that already carries the method, if any;
    • the remaining delta that current FPF does not yet carry;
    • the selected FPF pattern chosen to carry that delta;
    • process-control material excluded from FPF pattern prose, such as role dispatch, seam state, helper behavior, Git recovery, packet transport, review transport, chat cadence, and mutable release state;
    • the source-use result for that passage or decision-ground item: quote named by value, narrowed scope, instantiated case, decision-bearing use, draft-guidance source, example-only use, or retired source use;
    • any meaning loss or addition created by that source-use result: changed scope, relation, evidence path, admissible use, non-admissible use, reader move, or recoverability condition;
    • the first improved FPF use that the admitted method gives to an author, reviewer, or downstream FPF user;
    • the current disposition: selected now, inherited sufficient, rejected now, or outside the current decision with the named evaluation pattern, accepted DRR, or accepted decision-ground item named by value.

    Reusable process-source method is not limited to semio wording or pattern-authoring language. It may enter FPF only when it is separable from local process mechanics, improves FPF use, and has one exact evaluation pattern. After the method lands in FPF, process documents should cite the selected FPF pattern instead of keeping a parallel long-form rule.

    Archetypal Grounding (System / Episteme)

    Holon flavourDRR analogueMinimum kernel illustrated
    U.System (physical)Engineering Change Order for pump motor upgrade.Context: inefficiency and plant-use problem; Decision: switch to brushless DC and update the selected control/maintenance patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs; Rationale: energy gain vs cost and authority fit; Consequences: new control schema, supplier change, validation evidence obligation.
    U.Episteme (knowledge)Foundational theory revision paper.Context: conflicting data and explanatory problem; Decision: introduce new axiom and distribute its consequences into the selected theory/teaching patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs; Rationale: explains legacy & new data, Pillar alignment, alternative rejection; Consequences: fresh predictions, update to curricula, downstream review obligation.

    Bias-Annotation

    LensBias risk in DRR useMitigation in this pattern
    GovThe DRR can become a bureaucratic approval ritual rather than a decision-rationale record.Keep CC-DRR.5 for lightweight editorial changes and require richer DRRs only when the content decision is semantically load-bearing.
    ArchA rich DRR can become a shadow specification that competes with the selected Core patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs.Treat the DRR as a temporary convergence aid; enduring content is distributed into the selected Core patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs.
    Onto/EpistAuthors can mix content decisions, evidence paths, source-use grounds, process state, and provenance into one ambiguous object.Require exact decision grounds and selected-answer boundaries while excluding process-order state, baton, packet, and mutable status state from the DRR.
    PragThe method adds work before editing Core text.Allow pointer-based DRRs and require only the selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs materially needed for the selected decision.
    DidRationale can become too internal for later authors to use.Distill stable rationale, consequences, anti-cases, and SoTA implications into informative pattern sections when the Core text is updated.

    Scope: this bias annotation is universal for FPF semantic changes governed by E.9. It does not turn project-management state, helper state, or review logistics into DRR content.

    Conformance Checklist

    IDRequirementPurpose
    CC‑DRR.1Any Δ‑2/Δ‑3 semantic change set against a NORM, A, D, or GOV pattern SHALL be backed by an accepted DRR containing at least Problem‑frame (Context), Decision, Rationale, and Consequences.Prevents undocumented semantic edits while setting a minimum kernel rather than an artificial ceiling.
    CC‑DRR.1aA 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/action spine 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. Distinctions already owned by strict distinction, an pattern that governs the specific claim/relation/boundary, or ToC/navigation loci MUST be classified as one pointer or non-carried fanout unless a documented local confusion needs a new exact stop condition. The Decision MUST apply F.19 before proposing wording for selected patterns; boilerplate apparatus stays outside pasteable pattern prose, and remaining content that still hides precision must name the applied E.10, E.10.ARCH, F.18, or governing pattern. Pattern application and selected-locus disposition MUST remain declarative content distribution, not architecture-placement memo. Owning pattern is admissible only when the owned distinction, claim boundary, relation, row shape, or naming decision is named. 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-governed phrase, the Decision MUST record a kind-restoration check: pre-repair and post-repair primary object kind, relation or claim kind, slot or use-position, admissible use, and scope. If the wording changes kind, narrows or widens the object, collapses several kinds into one head, treats a slot/use-position as a kind, or loses a live slot/use-position, the DRR MUST accept that semantic decision by value or leave the wording as a blocking finding rather than a repair. When another pattern governs that kind under repair, relation, claim, or position, the Decision cites that pattern instead of restating it.Prevents DRR wording proposals from laundering ontology changes as editorial cleanup.
    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 decide 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/move/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 DRR imports a source-borne method, architecture claim, accepted decision-ground item, or other reusable source passage, it MUST state how the source is used in the selected answer: quote named by value, narrowed scope, instantiated case, decision-bearing use, draft-guidance source, example-only use, or retired source use. It MUST also state any meaning loss or addition in scope, relation, evidence path, admissible use, non-admissible use, reader move, or recoverability condition.Blocks free paraphrase and makes source movement reviewable without turning source documents into a second canon.
    CC‑DRR.2A conforming DRR MUST include a rationale account that compares the material alternatives and assesses the selected proposal against all Eleven Pillars and the five Principle‑Taxonomy lenses (Gov, Arch, Onto/Epist, Prag, Did).Keeps evolution aligned, comparative, and cross‑disciplinary.
    CC‑DRR.3The DRR SHALL list every pattern, selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, or neighboring pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair that it supersedes, amends, excludes from the current decision, assigns to a neighboring pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, or risks impacting, together with any agreement across selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs the selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs must preserve. It MUST also make clear why the selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs carry the content, which tempting patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs stay outside, and, when several content-decision branches touch the same carrier set, whether that overlap is valid convergence or one reopened architecture smell.Maintains an explicit impact/boundary graph for coordinated changes.
    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.4An accepted DRR SHALL have its Decision account landed in the Core as the normative change. When that DRR temporarily carries richer convergence content, authors landing it SHOULD distribute any part that stabilizes into enduring FPF content into the relevant Core patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs. Authors MAY distill other DRR sections into informative pattern sections (Rationale/Consequences/SoTA‑Echoing/Grounding), but they SHALL NOT introduce new normative constraints except via explicit NORM/A/D/GOV text.Preserves Core authority while allowing a richer temporary convergence record.
    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 accepted decision)Authors drafting from an accepted DRR MAY elaborate examples, SoTA-Echoing, recognition sections, local wording inside the selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, and neighboring fit, but they SHALL NOT silently revise the selected answer, selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, outside-current-decision boundary, reusable-content disposition, or declared loss/recoverability regime. Any such revision SHALL be handled through one successor DRR or other named successor decision record.Keeps later pattern drafting from re-deciding bounded content 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.5A 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 Δ‑2/Δ‑3 lexical or authoring-sensitive changes, the DRR SHALL state the content-scope evidence 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 LAT id, run-manifest id, gate id, packet id, or other authoring-evidence citation in order to count as complete; those remain in the relevant evidence or authoring record. If later LAT or refresh evidence motivates reopening or revising the decision, that later 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 relevant evidence or authoring record.

    Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

    Anti-patternWhat it looks likeWhy it failsRepair
    Process brief disguised as DRRThe record explains baton movement, packet state, review timing, or current campaign state.It describes development process rather than the FPF content decision.Remove mutable process state and keep only the decision grounds, selected answer, alternatives, and consequences.
    Shadow specificationThe DRR becomes the only place where stable semantics, examples, source-use rules, or validation rules remain after the Core has moved.Later FPF readers cannot use the decision because it never became pattern content.Distribute enduring content into the selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs; leave the DRR as provenance.
    Four-label shellThe record has Problem frame, Decision, Rationale, and Consequences headings, but no decision grounds, use-value, alternatives, content distribution, or impact account by value.The minimum kernel is labeled but not substantively recoverable.Fill the decision-inspection content blocks needed for the decision, or use the lightweight variant only for true Delta-0 / Delta-1 edits.
    Tentative carrier listThe DRR says a pattern may need work later, is most likely affected, or should be watched if touched.A named distribution question is postponed while pretending to be decided.Classify each named pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair now: selected, rejected, inherited unchanged, or outside the current decision with a named record.
    Loss without use/reopen ruleThe decision summarizes, redacts, simplifies, or otherwise declares a source-loss mode but does not state admissible use, non-admissible downstream use, recoverability, and reopen conditions.A representation with undeclared source loss can be used as if it were the full source.Add the source-loss and recoverability template: preserved distinctions, dropped distinctions, admissible uses, non-admissible uses, recoverability class, and reopen or stop rule.
    Free paraphrase importThe DRR restates a source-borne method, architecture claim, accepted decision-ground item, or reusable source passage in smoother prose but does not say whether it quoted, narrowed, instantiated, used as decision grounds, turned into draft guidance, kept example-only, or retired the source use.The paraphrase can widen, weaken, or redirect the source while appearing to preserve it.State the source-use result and loss and addition account, or keep the passage as an quote or example-only source named by value example.
    Decorative SoTA appendixSources are listed after the fact or treated as SoTA because they are official, recent, popular, or famous, but they do not change the selected answer, boundary, or validation evidence obligation.The record looks researched while the decision remains unchallenged by current best-known practice.State what each load-bearing source makes the DRR adopt, adapt, or reject, why that source family is current for the DRR decision question under E.8, and which uncertainty would materially change the answer.

    Consequences

    BenefitsTrade‑offs / Mitigations
    Complete audit trail – every semantic normative change carries a structured “why”.Adds deliberate friction; mitigated by CC‑DRR.5 (Δ‑0/Δ‑1 lightweight) and CC‑DRR.1a (pointer‑based DRRs).
    Higher decision quality – Pillar, alternatives, scenario, and utility checks surface hidden conflicts early.Authors must do more real content work up front; the gain is less downstream reinvention and less hidden deferral.
    Institutional memory – prevents re‑litigation of rejected alternatives.DRR archive grows; index stored in a non‑normative annex.
    Executable downstream authoring - selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs, outside-boundary, reusable-content decisions, selected-answer stability, and remaining validation evidence obligation are explicit enough for later drafting/landing without semantic invention.Richer DRRs need discipline to avoid becoming shadow specs or process briefs; mitigated by CC-DRR.1b, CC-DRR.4a, CC-DRR.4b, CC-DRR.4c, and CC-DRR.4d.

    Rationale

    FPF evolves by explicit, reviewable deltas rather than silent edits. The DRR is the minimum structured argument—and, when several patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs must move together, an allowed temporary convergence record that keeps P‑10 Open‑Ended Evolution compatible with P‑1 Cognitive Elegance and P‑2 Didactic Primacy.

    E.9 sets a floor, not a ceiling: every conforming DRR must make Problem‑frame / Decision / Rationale / Consequences recoverable, but it may carry richer substantive coordination content when that prevents shadow documents or semantic invention during distribution into Core patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs. The same floor also requires the decision-inspection content that later authoring and review otherwise reconstruct manually: exact decision grounds, use-value, first-minute working situation, scenario grounding, alternatives, current disposition map, naming/ontology obligation, selected content distribution, existing-pattern sufficiency/new-pattern necessity, overlap classification, selected-answer stability, impact/boundary graph, practical payoff, and any remaining uncertainty that materially shapes the decision.

    Pointer-based DRRs (CC‑DRR.1a) prevent duplicated prose, and distribution into Core patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs (CC‑DRR.4) keeps the specification itself learnable without turning the DRR into a permanent shadow canon. Process-law ordering, gate, and handoff records stay outside because they are not part of the content answer that FPF is selecting.

    SoTA-Echoing

    E.9 aligns with contemporary architecture-decision and rationale-capture practice, but its contribution is not the existence of a decision record. ADR practice already carries compact context, decision, and consequence records. FPF uses the DRR as a decision-rationale record for one bounded FPF content decision, with enough by-value rationale to distribute durable content into selected patterns and selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs.

    Practice source familyLocal FPF invariant and practical implicationPopular shortcut rejected
    Architecture-description standards such as joint ISO, IEC, and IEEE 42010:2022Architecture work must make concerns, viewpoints, decisions, and rationale inspectable. A DRR adapts this to FPF content deltas by exposing the concerns and alternatives that shape the FPF change, not only the edited text.Reject treating a patch or edited wording as self-explanatory architecture rationale.
    Markdown ADR practice, including post-2015 lightweight ADR and MADR-style templatesContext, decision, and consequence records are useful when the change is local. A semantic FPF amendment needs enough by-value decision-ground and source-use content for later pattern drafting without reinvention.Reject treating a generic ADR template as sufficient when a multi-pattern FPF change needs Pillar, lens, naming, SoTA, distribution, or loss and recoverability content.
    Continuous and evolutionary architecture decision-record practiceDecision records are revisitable decision records for evolving systems. FPF keeps mutable process state out of the DRR and handles reopened content with a successor decision record.Reject turning the DRR into a status log, gate diary, or permanent shadow law.
    Research and design-rationale traditions around alternatives and trade-off captureRejected alternatives and trade-offs must remain recoverable enough that future authors do not re-litigate or silently reverse the selected answer. FPF adapts this through the Eleven Pillars and Principle-Taxonomy lenses.Reject recording only the selected answer while leaving why-this-not-that implicit.

    The practical gain is content-selection quality under semantic load: the DRR decides the selected answer, alternatives, losses, boundary, and selected loci before pattern drafting begins. Any durable rule, example, or content obligation that remains useful after acceptance belongs in the selected FPF pattern or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair, not in the DRR as a permanent shadow canon.

    When a DRR relies on a source document, workstream plan, campaign queue, external review packet, standard, article, ADR-like note, or prior accepted decision, it states how the source is used and the source adoption/adaptation/rejection decision, then carries the selected payload by value: adopt, adapt, reject, lineage-only, rationale-only, selected payload, rejected or non-carried payload, source loss, selected locus, non-use boundary, and reopen condition. A cited source is not FPF doctrine, child DRR, review result, gate, evidence sufficiency, or monolith landing source by citation alone.

    Relations

    • Instantiates: P‑10 Open‑Ended Evolution, P‑2 Didactic Primacy

    • Template governed by: pat:authoring/pattern‑template (E.8)

    • Interacts with: pat:guard/bias‑audit (E.5.4) via lens check

    • Complemented by: E.9.DA when one concrete DRR follows E.9 form but its adequacy for downstream drafting, host amendment, accepted-decision carry-through, source-use carry-through, or selected-locus distribution is disputed or materially relevant. E.9.DA reads the DRR decision-adequacy claim; it is not a second DRR form, review gate, or mandatory ordinary editorial step. Also complemented by pat:authoring/code-of-conduct (E.12) for etiquette in DRR debate.

    • Coordinates with: E.23 when one DRR is being improved through repeated quality-improvement passes. E.9 keeps the DRR kind and decision-record form; E.9.DA supplies the decision-adequacy object-under-improvement evaluation when adequacy is being improved; E.23 governs the repeated method rather than turning the DRR into final pattern prose.

    E.9:End

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