#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. Name the exact bounded FPF decision question and the dated decision/authoring work applying DRRMethod; then make the selected-answer result, rationale, consequences, source-use relations, and selected distribution recoverable in one C.2.1 DRR episteme before downstream Core drafting begins.

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 includes a kind-restoration check. The record must expose the pre/post object, relation, claim, slot, use, admissibility, and scope readings—or explicitly record a semantic rather than editorial change. Nicer wording is not decision evidence when it narrows a graph into a sequence, turns method into work, widens evidence into assurance, or changes a kind/use relation. The DRR cites each direct governor; it does not redefine slot, lens, role, method, work, evidence, assurance, gate, or decision ontology.

Primary EntityOfConcern in plain terms. For one DRR episteme, the EntityOfConcern is the exact bounded FPF content-decision question or coordinated change set. Its ClaimGraph states the selected-answer decision result, rationale, consequences, distribution, exclusions, and reopen boundary. The DRR record, method, decision work, acceptance status, assessment, and later Core realization are not that EntityOfConcern.

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

#Solution — apply the DRR method and constitute a decision-rationale episteme

E.9 specifies a reusable DRRMethod : U.Method for making one bounded FPF content decision inspectable. This pattern text is a MethodDescription-like episteme about that method; it does not perform decision work. A system under an exact role assignment performs dated decision/authoring U.Work, enacts DRRMethod, and binds the exact question, alternatives, grounds, sources, selected loci, and intended downstream authoring use through direct relations or A.6.1 application bindings.

Keep these objects distinct:

1. the exact bounded FPF content-decision question or coordinated change set;
2. DRRMethod and this method-description episteme;
3. dated decision/authoring work, performer assignment, enacted method, and exact application bindings;
4. the selected-answer decision result produced by that work;
5. one C.2.1 DRR episteme whose ClaimGraph states the selected answer, grounds, rationale, consequences, distribution, exclusions, and reopen boundary about the exact decision question/change set;
6. source epistemes/publications and exact C.2.P or other direct source-use relations; A.10/G.6 provenance when reliance requires it;
7. witnesses, comparison tables, source maps, or calculation traces used to replay the decision basis;
8. any E.9.DA assessment work, check applications, adequacy-result claim, witnesses, and record;
9. any separate acceptance, authority, status, gate, permission, release, or reliance result; and
10. later drafting/realization work plus the enduring Core content it changes.

The DRR episteme records the selected-answer result; it does not choose by being filled, perform the work, make sources authoritative, prove adequacy, accept itself, authorize a change, or realize the answer in Core. A favorable E.9.DA result likewise states the decision-adequacy conclusion for one declared downstream use and neither changes the recorded decision nor performs realization.

A minimally explicit application is recoverable as:

DRRMethodApplication:
  DecisionQuestionOrChangeSetRef:
  DecisionWorkRef:
  PerformerRoleAssignmentRef:
  DRRMethodRef:
  MethodApplicationAndBindingRefs:
  SelectedAnswerDecisionResultRef:
  DRREpistemeRef:
  EffectiveReferenceScheme:
  SourceEpistemeOrPublicationRefs:
  ExactSourceUseRelationRefs:
  WitnessOrComparisonRefs:
  IntendedDownstreamAuthoringUse:
  NotCarried:

The DRR episteme is identified under C.2.1 by its exact <ClaimGraph, EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme> triple. Its EntityOfConcern is the bounded decision question/change set, not the DRR carrier, method, work occurrence, campaign, or later Core text. A changed selected answer, rationale claim, distribution obligation, loss/recoverability regime, or effective scheme identifies another DRR episteme; a changed rendering, filename, publication form, carrier, route state, or status display does not.

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 the decision result recorded by value: what FPF should say, which selected patterns or selected non-pattern FPF kind-reference pairs carry it, what stays outside, and which source-use, evidence, validation, or loss/recoverability conditions apply.

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

A temporary convergence record is the DRR episteme while several selected carriers are still being realized. It can hold the selected-answer claim and distribution obligations for replay; it is not a second permanent Core-law section or process-state container.

For a nontrivial semantic change, decision work applying DRRMethod produces a DRR with at least four conceptual components. These are the minimum decision kernel; the lightweight editorial variant remains available under CC-DRR.5.

#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.

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 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 direct-governor relation; 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 decision/authoring work applying DRRMethod considers stable method described in a process-source episteme, its selected-answer result states the FPF-admission disposition by value. The DRR records that result and exact source-use relations; neither source passage nor record performs admission or becomes a second canon.

The DRR ClaimGraph designates:

• 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 decision work and reviewable result epistemes rather than silent edits. DRRMethod is the minimum reusable method for producing the structured selected-answer result; the DRR episteme makes that result inspectable. For coordinated changes it may serve as temporary convergence support, preserving P-10 Open-Ended Evolution alongside P-1 Cognitive Elegance and P-2 Didactic Primacy without becoming decision work, adequacy evaluation, authority, or shadow Core. 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.

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 decision work relies on a source document, workstream plan, queue, review packet, standard, article, ADR-like note, or prior decision, the DRR records the exact source episteme/publication, source-use relation, and adopt/adapt/reject disposition plus selected/non-carried payload, loss, locus, non-use boundary, and reopen condition. 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 episteme must be evaluated for a declared downstream authoring use. E.9.DA supplies the characteristic space and evaluation rules; dated assessment work applies them and produces a separate adequacy-result claim, witness set, and optional record. It 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 7ba40a95 (github.com/ailev/FPF)