#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

#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 working FPF problem, selected answer, practical change, selected loci, first substantive drafting action, and nearest boundary in ordinary precise language before drafting or landing 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 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-action, or flow-role precision, the DRR names the applied E.10, E.10.ARCH, F.18, or governing pattern. Process, architecture, review, or reference boilerplate belongs in its own carrier, not in pasteable pattern prose.

Wording proposed in a DRR is not pasteable pattern prose until the selected-answer basis shows what object, relation, claim, slot, use, admissibility, or scope would change—or explicitly says that no such semantic change occurs. Apply F.19 and the concrete pattern that defines or constrains the live distinction. Do not expand ordinary wording into method, work, application, or ClaimGraph apparatus unless that exact distinction changes the decision or later reliance.

Primary EntityOfConcern in plain terms. One external decision-rationale account for one bounded FPF content decision or coordinated change set. It keeps the problem, selected answer, rationale, consequences, practical change, selected loci, and boundary recoverable enough for authoring without invention. Exact C.2.1 identity is added only when the decision or a named later reliance needs it.

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 recoverable selected answer and rationale leads to conceptual erosion, while a formally rich record can still defer the decision or distribute a harmful rule. Hence FPF uses a Design‑Rationale Record (DRR) as a durable conceptual record that fixes one bounded content decision before its normative change is distributed.

#Problem

Direct edits to the Core, or DRRs that preserve apparatus without a usable selected answer, trigger four systemic hazards:

1. Lost decision grounds – future authors cannot recover why the answer was selected, which alternative or boundary mattered, or when to reopen it.
2. Decision deferral – a polished record leaves the answer, affected loci, or first drafting action for each later author to invent again.
3. Proxy-led fanout – an abstract rule passes a schema, checklist, or unrelated replay while making an actual predecessor/proposed host harder to understand or use.
4. Conceptual and authority drift – incremental edits blur the framework's foundations, or the temporary rationale record becomes a shadow Core law, process brief, or authorization source.

#Forces

#Solution — state the decision before distributing it

Write the Decision account first in ordinary precise language. Before a reader meets a DRR identity schema, method/work account, or catalogue of alternatives, they must be able to recover, in this order:

1. the working FPF problem and why it matters now;
2. the selected answer stated positively;
3. what changes in practitioner or authoring use;
4. the selected loci and the positive obligation each one carries;
5. the first substantive drafting action; and
6. the nearest boundary, honest blocker, or reopen condition.

That short account is the primary authoring source. Add exact method, work, application, episteme-identity, source-use, assessment, or authority distinctions only when the decision or a named later reliance depends on them.

A nontrivial DRR keeps four conceptual components recoverable. These are the minimum decision kernel; the lightweight editorial variant remains available under CC-DRR.5.

In this pattern, a bounded coordinated change set is one bounded group of mutually dependent content-decision questions whose enduring FPF expression is distributed across several patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs.

The selected answer is what FPF should say, which selected loci carry it, what practical action changes, what stays outside, and which source-use, evidence, validation, or loss/recoverability conditions remain live.

A selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pair is a content-distribution instruction, not a new kind. It names an admitted FPF kind and one exact reference by value—for example a U.View, source map, source-use note, evidence-path record, review-finding record, or architecture-decision record.

A temporary convergence record holds the selected answer while several selected carriers are still being updated. It is not a second permanent Core-law section or a process-state container.

Keep a rejected alternative only when it explains the selected answer, a live boundary, or a reopen condition. Pillars and taxonomy lenses may inform the decision, but the DRR records their load-bearing effects rather than rehearsing every lens or preserving the history of discussion.

Before selecting a broad language, ontology, or authoring rule for fanout, apply it to at least one dependency-aware actual predecessor/proposed host pair. At comparable effort, compare the recognizable entry, required inputs, first action, practitioner vocabulary, formality and assurance burden, first useful result, stop or return, preserved useful ideas, and true direct consumers. Proposed pattern wording must pass the E.8 first screen and the F.19 kind-preserving plain-rewrite test. A schema, invented fact pack, unrelated lane test, checklist, or promised later review cannot substitute for this replay. If the pilot degrades use without a compensating semantic gain, repair or reject the rule before fanout.

A DRR records the selected answer; the record does not decide, authorize, perform drafting, or realize Core content. When exact identity or reliance makes the distinction material, separately identify the decision work and method, selected-answer result, C.2.1 DRR episteme, source-use relations, assessment and result, any acceptance or authority, and later realization work. An exact DRR episteme then follows C.2.1 identity by <ClaimGraph, EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme>; ordinary use does not require materializing that whole account.

#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.

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 an existing pattern or selected non-pattern kind-reference pair, or require a new one, the selected-answer decision result recorded in the DRR must state that sufficiency/necessity disposition by value. A tentative carrier list is not a decision result; later drafting must not be asked to invent the selected locus. 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 decision grounds expose a potentially reusable non-pattern carrier or neighboring source-use, evidence, assurance, validation, or architecture-decision mechanism, the selected-answer result must classify it as generalized now, kept local with reason, rejected, or outside the decision with a named owner. The DRR records that disposition; mere mention of an existing artifact is not the deciding work or result. 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 episteme lives outside normative Core. A separately governed acceptance, authority, or realization decision may rely on it, but the word accepted, a record status, review mark, or publication does not make its claims true or authorize change.

When the selected answer is separately authorized for realization, dated authoring work applies it to the selected patterns or selected non-pattern Core kind-reference pairs. The changed Core content, authoring work, result claims, checks, witnesses, publications, and any landing/release record keep their direct owners. The DRR remains external provenance and temporary convergence support; it must not remain the sole carrier of enduring semantics after those semantics are realized in Core.

Authors using a separately accepted selected answer may elaborate examples, SoTA-Echoing, recognition sections, local wording, and neighboring fit inside its declared stability boundary. A change to the selected answer, selected loci, outside boundary, reusable-content disposition, or loss/recoverability regime requires a successor decision result and DRR episteme rather than a silent edit to downstream prose.

Improvement work may apply E.23 to a DRR episteme. That work, its method applications, quality-result claims, and witnesses are separate from the DRR and do not turn the record into a pattern draft. When SoTA is load-bearing, the successor decision result must show what changed in the selected answer, locus obligation, boundary, example, validation obligation, or reopen condition; otherwise the source use remains rationale-only or lineage-only. When a campaign creates or modifies route-shaped, unfolding-shaped, first-entry, DPF, or multi-pattern path material, add a compact CampaignProblemSolutionUnfoldingCheck:

CampaignProblemSolutionUnfoldingCheck:
  campaignProblem:
  acceptedProblemSideRecordRefsOrCues:
  selectedSolutionArchitecture:
  affectedReadmeEntries:
  affectedUnfoldingFamilies:
  acceptedStartingRecordRefs[]:
  acceptedStartingStructureRefs[]:
  entryCueRefs[]:
  nextUseOrResultMap:
  unfoldingLociAddedOrChanged:
  governingPatternMapAddedOrChanged:
  patternPlacements:
  whatStayedOnlyInDRRAndMustMoveToPatternOrUnfoldingStructure:
  whatStayedOnlyInReadmeAndMustMoveToPatternOrUnfoldingStructure:
  blockedOverreads:
  rejectedUnfoldingAlternatives:
  unfoldingCarryThroughResidueAfterContentUpdate:
  refreshOrReopenTrigger:

The critical field is whatStayedOnlyInDRRAndMustMoveToPatternOrUnfoldingStructure. If it remains nonempty after host drafting, the selected answer has not been fully realized. The next authoring work moves the surviving content into the selected pattern body, unfolding block, README seed, E.11 expansion, or concrete relation locus; adding another record paragraph is not realization.

To preserve P-2 Didactic Primacy without duplicating meta-text, realization work using a separately accepted selected answer should distill stable Rationale, Consequences, SoTA-Echoing, Grounding, and other valid convergence content into the selected informative pattern loci under E.8. The DRR episteme remains external provenance; it is not itself landed or transformed into Core. A substantive DRR is one claim-bearing episteme about one bounded current content-decision question/change set. It may carry selected obligations only in its Decision or Consequences, but no route, gate, handoff, packet, monolith, mutable status, or future-campaign state. Any undecided remainder is explicitly outside the decision with a named pattern, kind-reference pair, or successor decision record.

#Process-source method admission into FPF

When a DRR considers a stable method described in a process source, it decides the FPF-admission disposition by value. The DRR records that decision and any source-use relation that matters; neither the source passage nor the record performs admission or becomes 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 use, 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)

#Bias-Annotation

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

#Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

#Consequences

#Rationale

FPF evolves through explicit, reviewable decisions rather than silent edits. The DRR is the minimum structured argument and, when several loci must move together, a temporary convergence record. This keeps P-10 Open-Ended Evolution compatible with P-1 Cognitive Elegance and P-2 Didactic Primacy. Exact method, work, result, episteme, assessment, and authority distinctions remain available when a current claim depends on them; they do not precede or replace the readable decision. 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 draws on mature decision-record and design-rationale lineages, but no listed standard or template is automatically current SoTA for every FPF decision. The DRR selects current problem-owning evidence under E.8 when that evidence is load-bearing. Its distinctive contribution is a decision-rationale record for one bounded FPF content decision, with enough by-value rationale to distribute durable content without making the record a shadow specification.

The practical gain is content-selection quality under semantic load: decision work selects the answer, alternatives, losses, boundary, and loci; the DRR episteme makes that result replayable before pattern drafting. Any durable rule, example, or obligation useful after realization belongs in the selected FPF pattern or non-pattern kind-reference pair, not in the DRR as permanent shadow canon.

When a source document, workstream plan, queue, review packet, standard, article, ADR-like note, or prior decision shapes the answer, the DRR records how it is used and which payload is selected or left behind, including any material loss, locus, non-use boundary, and reopen condition. Name the exact source episteme, publication, and source-use relation when the decision or a named later reliance depends on those identities. Citation alone creates no doctrine, child DRR, review result, gate, evidence sufficiency, or landing source.

#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 exact DRR must be checked for a declared downstream authoring use. An ordinary bounded review judges the decision and returns precise findings or repaired text; a complete coordinate result and its exact assessment identities are added only when explicitly requested or consumed by a named later reliance. E.9.DA is not a second DRR form, review gate, acceptance status, or mandatory editorial step. E.12 separately governs debate etiquette.

• Coordinates with: E.23 for repeated improvement work on a DRR; C.2.1 for DRR and evaluation-result episteme identity; C.2.P/A.10/G.6 for exact source use and provenance; A.15.1/A.6.1 for decision, assessment, and realization work/applications; F.10/G.11 for status and currentness; and E.24.PUB/C.29 for publication and representation. None of these neighboring records or results changes the E.9 selected answer by implication.

#E.9:End

Last Updated: 2026-08-04 — upstream FPF commit 67092138 (github.com/ailev/FPF)