Published

Decision / Rationale

vr.wm-knw-010 · wm-knw-010-decision-rationale

Govern the decision as an inspectable knowledge object: the issue to be resolved, the objectives and constraints that frame it, the alternatives considered, the criteria and evaluation applied, the selected outcome and its disposition, together with the rationale, evidence citations, authority, lifecycle, provenance and access governance that let a machine agent understand, reconstruct and reuse the choice.

World Models Information and virtual systems INF.KNW.DEC

Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Classifiers What it is Why it exists Distinguishing features What robots and AI may and may not do Moral aspects Owners Links to other meta-models Identity and identifiers Direct properties Recognition Capabilities and actions Hazards and failure modes Standards and interfaces Context of use Sources

Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Filled

9 bundles · 18 layers · 39 findings · 175 questions

Decision framing and identity How a specific decision is identified, typed against a jurisdictional profile, and framed by its question, objectives, context, constraints and the rules it relies upon.

Decision identity and classification

Stable identification of the decision content, discrimination between its expressions, and its classification against a decision type and jurisdictional profile.

Decision identity and version discriminator

How one governed decision is stably identified, how successive expressions of the same decision are discriminated, how the identity of the decision content is kept distinct from the identity of the record that carries it, and how supersession and alternate jurisdictional identifiers are recorded.

Which authoritative master-system identifier designates this decision, and which registry mints and resolves it? identity
What version discriminator distinguishes this expression of the decision from earlier or later expressions of the same decision? identity
Is the identifier scoped to the decision content itself or to the record that carries it, and how is that distinction represented? composition
Which prior decision, if any, does this decision supersede, amend, reaffirm or reverse, and by which identifier? relationship
Which external or jurisdictional identifiers are carried as labelled alternate identifiers for this decision? interoperability

Decision type, jurisdictional profile and required content

Classification of the decision against a controlled decision-type scheme, binding of the jurisdictional or institutional profile that governs its required content, and declaration of the content elements that profile makes mandatory.

Which decision type does this record instantiate, and under which controlled classification scheme is that type published? classification
Which jurisdiction, regulatory regime or institutional profile governs the content this decision must carry? requirement
Does the decision produce legal or similarly significant effects for an identified natural person, and is it based solely on automated processing? requirement
Which content elements must be present for a decision of this type and profile to be treated as complete? validation
How is this decision type distinguished from a legal judgment or from an executable business rule covering the same subject matter? definition

Decision question, objectives and context

What the decision is being asked to settle, what it is intended to achieve, and the context, dependencies and affected subjects within which it is taken.

Decision question, triggering issue and admissible answer space

The single question the decision answers, the admissible answers to that question, the problem or issue that made the decision necessary, and whether the question decomposes into required sub-decisions.

What single question does this decision answer, stated so that a recorded answer can be checked against it? definition
What is the admissible answer space for that question, and is it an enumerated set or an open expression? constraint
What problem, need or issue made this decision necessary, and which upstream item raised it? relationship
Is this an atomic decision, or does it decompose into sub-decisions that must be settled for the answer to hold? composition

Objectives, success factors and expected effects

The objectives the decision is intended to achieve, the critical success factors any acceptable option must satisfy, the indicators expected to be affected and the horizon over which effects are expected.

Which objectives is the decision intended to achieve, expressed specifically enough to be measurable? requirement
Which critical success factors must any acceptable option possess for the objectives to be delivered? constraint
Which performance indicators or outcome measures are expected to be affected, and in which direction? measurement
By when are the desired effects expected to be realised, and over what appraisal period are they assessed? temporal

Decision context, dependencies and affected subjects

The subjects, populations, assets or system elements the decision affects, the extent over which it applies, the input data and upstream decisions it depends on, the concerns it addresses and the assumptions declared about its context.

Which subjects, populations, assets or system elements are affected by this decision? relationship
Over what geographic, organisational or system extent does the decision apply? spatial
Which input data, upstream decisions and knowledge sources does this decision depend on? composition
Which concerns or stakeholder interests does the decision pertain to, and which of them does it leave unaddressed? relationship
Which assumptions about the context are declared, and which of them are known to be unverified? quality

Constraints and applied decision rules

The binding conditions any outcome must satisfy and the declarative rules the decision relies on to map inputs to admissible outcomes.

Binding constraints and admissibility conditions

The hard conditions any selected alternative must satisfy, their declared values and units, the separation of binding constraints from soft preferences, and the treatment of an alternative that violates one.

Which hard constraints must any selected alternative satisfy, and which external requirement does each constraint cite? constraint
Which constraints express a budgetary, temporal or capacity limit, and what value and unit does each carry? measurement
Which stated conditions are soft preferences rather than binding constraints, and how is that distinction recorded? classification
What happens to an alternative that violates a binding constraint, and can a waiver admit it despite the violation? exception

Applied decision rules and conflict-resolution policy

The declarative rules the decision relies on to map stated inputs to admissible outcomes, the declared policy for overlapping rules, the versioned reference to any external rule source, and whether the outcome was rule-determined or discretionary. Statement-level only: executing the rules is the work of a decision service outside this model.

Which decision rules map the stated inputs to admissible outcomes for this decision? requirement
When several rules match, which conflict-resolution or hit policy is declared, and does it yield a single result or several? constraint
Which external executable rule, policy or model is cited as the source of the applied rules, and at which version? interoperability
How is a discretionary outcome, where no rule determines the answer, distinguished from a rule-determined one? classification

Alternatives, screening and evaluation The candidate alternatives placed under consideration including any required baseline, the screening that determines eligibility, the criteria and weights used for comparison, and the recorded evaluation results.

Candidate alternatives and eligibility

Registration of the alternatives under consideration, including any profile-required baseline, and the screening that admits or excludes each from detailed evaluation.

Candidate alternative set and mandatory baseline

The alternatives placed under consideration, how each is identified and described, whether a no-action or business-as-usual baseline is present as the profile requires, and how variants of one alternative are distinguished from genuinely distinct alternatives.

Which candidate alternatives were placed under consideration, and how is each identified within this decision? identity
Is a no-action, business-as-usual or do-minimum baseline included, and if not, on what stated basis is it absent? requirement
How are variants of the same alternative distinguished from genuinely distinct alternatives? classification
What does each alternative commit to doing, described in terms sufficient for it to be evaluated against the declared criteria? definition

Eligibility screening and recorded exclusion

The screening or mandatory criteria that decide whether an alternative proceeds to detailed evaluation, the recorded reason for each exclusion, the stage at which it occurred, and the conditions under which an excluded alternative could be reinstated.

Which screening or mandatory criteria decide whether an alternative is eligible for detailed evaluation? validation
Which alternatives were eliminated from detailed study, and what reason is recorded against each? exception
Which recorded screening stage does each exclusion cite, and was the exclusion by filter rating, mandatory-criterion failure or constraint violation? process
Can an excluded alternative be reinstated, and what would have to change for that to happen? constraint

Criteria and evaluation results

The declared basis for comparing alternatives and the recorded results of applying it, including aggregation, ranking and sensitivity.

Evaluation criteria, measures, scales and weights

The criteria against which alternatives are compared, each with its measure, scale, unit and direction of preference; the separation of mandatory pass-or-fail criteria from compensatory trade-off criteria; and the weighting scheme where one is used, including the declared weighting method.

Which criteria compare the alternatives, and what measure, scale and unit does each criterion use? measurement
Are the declared criteria mutually independent and non-overlapping, and how was that checked? validation
What weight does each criterion carry, and by which declared weighting method were the weights derived? decision
Which criteria are mandatory pass-or-fail and which are trade-off criteria whose shortfall can be compensated? classification
Are any criteria monetised, and if so under which appraisal convention and price base? interoperability

Evaluation results, comparison and sensitivity

The recorded result of each alternative against each criterion for one evaluation round, any aggregation and ranking derived from those results, the sensitivity of the ranking to changed scores, weights or assumptions, the evidence cited by reference in support of results, and the status of contested or provisional results.

What result does each alternative achieve on each declared criterion, in the criterion's own measure? measurement
What ranking or comparison follows from the recorded results, and by which aggregation was it derived? decision
How sensitive is the ranking to plausible changes in scores, weights or declared assumptions? quality
Which evidence items are cited in support of each recorded result, and what role does each citation play? evidence
Which recorded results are contested, provisional or adjusted for known bias? validation

Selection, disposition and stated consequences The alternative selected, the disposition and explicit outcome statement that answers the decision question, and the conditions, reservations and consequences the decision states as part of its own content.

Decision outcome and attached conditions

The explicit answer to the decision question with its disposition and applicability, and the conditions, unresolved matters and consequences stated as part of the decision.

Selected alternative, disposition and outcome statement

Which alternative is selected, the disposition the decision reaches, the explicit outcome statement that answers the decision question, the declared onset and applicability of effect, the factors expressly balanced, and any explained divergence from the evaluation ranking.

Which alternative is selected, and is the disposition an approval, refusal, deferral, partial approval or a declared variant of a registered alternative? decision
What is the explicit outcome statement, phrased as a direct answer to the recorded decision question? definition
From when does the decision take effect, and for how long or until what event does it apply? temporal
Which factors were expressly balanced in reaching this selection, including any consideration of overriding policy? relationship
How does the selection relate to the ranking produced by the evaluation, and is any divergence explained or a preferable alternative named separately? classification

Attached conditions, unresolved matters and stated consequences

The conditions, mitigations and safeguards attached to the outcome as part of the decision itself, the matters expressly left unresolved or reserved, the consequences and accepted risks the decision states, the declared reopening or review triggers, and the new concerns or follow-on decisions the decision raises.

Which conditions, mitigations or safeguards are attached to the outcome as part of the decision itself? requirement
Which matters are expressly left unresolved, deferred or reserved for a later decision? exception
Which consequences does the decision state will follow, including accepted risks and residual trade-offs? quality
Which review or reopening trigger is declared, and what event would cause the decision to be revisited? event
Which new concerns or follow-on decisions does this decision raise? relationship

Stated reasons and argument structure The reasons offered for a decision and the argument that connects premises, inference schemes and conclusions to the recorded outcome, including contrastive reasons for not selecting alternatives and any explicitly asserted causal or counterfactual reasoning.

Stated reasons and rejection reasons

The rationale statement issued with a decision, the discrete reason records that compose it, and the contrastive reasons recorded for alternatives that were not selected.

Rationale statement and constituent reasons

The holistic statement of reasons issued with a decision together with the discrete, independently citable reason records that compose it. Each reason carries its type, its polarity relative to the recorded outcome, an optional asserted weight on a named scale, and the party asserting it. The statement explains the decision; it does not restate the decision problem, option set or criteria, which the `core` split owns.

What distinguishes the rationale statement issued with a decision from the individual reason records that compose it? definition
How is each reason identified so that it can be cited independently of the decision narrative? identity
What type does each reason carry, and does it argue for or against the recorded outcome? classification
What relative weight or priority is asserted for a reason, and on which named scale is it expressed? measurement
Which party asserted the reason, and on what stated basis of authority? authority

Reasons recorded for rejecting alternatives

Contrastive reasons attached to alternatives that were considered but not selected: the ground of rejection, any recorded condition whose change would have made the alternative selectable, and whether the rejection is stated as final for this decision or as a deferral. The alternatives themselves, their definitions and their evaluation against criteria are owned by the `core` split and are referenced, not restated.

Which non-selected alternative does a rejection reason attach to, without restating that alternative's definition? relationship
On what ground was the alternative not selected: infeasible, dominated, non-compliant, outside appetite or deferred? classification
What condition, if it had been different, is recorded as having made the rejected alternative selectable? constraint
Does the record qualify the rejection as final for this decision or as deferred for later reconsideration? state

Argument structure and inference

How premises, conclusions, inference-scheme references, critical questions and asserted conflict relations are represented, and how explicitly asserted causal or counterfactual reasoning is recorded without being upgraded beyond what was stated.

Premises, conclusions and inference-scheme references

The argument connecting reasons to the recorded outcome, represented with the inference itself as a first-class element rather than as an implicit edge. Covers the role each element plays (premise, conclusion, context, exception), the inference scheme referenced for each step, recorded critical questions and their responses, the support status of each premise, and asserted conflict relations. The model records asserted inference only and performs no validity or entailment evaluation.

How are premises and conclusions distinguished within a recorded argument, and how is the inference between them represented as a first-class element? composition
Which inference scheme is referenced for each inference step, and where is that scheme catalogue governed? classification
Which critical questions or exceptions attached to the referenced scheme are recorded, and are they answered? validation
How are asserted support relations distinguished from asserted conflict relations between argument elements? relationship
Is a given premise recorded as assumed, as axiomatic, or as still requiring support? state

Asserted causal and counterfactual reasoning

Records causal and counterfactual reasoning only where the decision record explicitly asserts it: the causal statement, the strength qualifier used, the antecedent varied in a counterfactual and the outcome claimed to follow, the evidential basis cited, and any competing explanation or confounding considered. The model never upgrades an observed association into an asserted cause, and no consulted standard supplies a normative structure for counterfactual rationale, so this finding is carried as an assertion record with declared limits.

Does the record explicitly assert a causal relation, or does it assert only an association observed in the cited material? definition
For an asserted counterfactual, which antecedent is varied and what outcome is claimed to follow from varying it? constraint
What evidential basis is cited for the causal assertion, and is that basis experimental or observational? evidence
What does the record state about competing explanations or confounding that were considered before the causal claim was made? quality

Grounding, appraisal and epistemic qualification How rationale elements bind to governed claims and evidence, how the decision authority's own appraisal of that evidence is recorded separately from the evidence body's certainty grade, and how assumptions, dependencies, uncertainty, trade-offs, sensitivity and contestation are qualified.

Claim and evidence bindings

Reference bindings from rationale elements to governed claims in WM-KNW-007 and governed evidence in WM-KNW-008, carrying the role, citation type, locator and stance but never a copy of the referenced content.

Claim references used as premises and conclusions

Bindings that place a governed claim into an argument role, pin the claim version relied on when the reasoning was asserted, and mark any local paraphrase as a restatement. Claim identity, wording, revision and verification status remain in WM-KNW-007; this finding owns only the binding and the role the claim plays in one argument.

Which governed claim does each premise or conclusion slot reference, and by which identifier? identity
What role does a referenced claim play in this argument: premise, conclusion, context or exception? composition
How is a locally paraphrased restatement of a claim distinguished from the governed claim it references? definition
How does this record express which claim version the reasoning relied on, given that claim revision is governed elsewhere? temporal

Evidence citation bindings

Bindings from a reason or premise to a governed evidence item in WM-KNW-008, carrying the citation type drawn from a governed vocabulary, a locator pinpointing the relevant part of the cited resource, the stance of the citation, and whether the citation was made by the decision author or inherited from an intermediate source. Evidence content, acquisition, custody and grading remain in WM-KNW-008.

Which governed evidence item does a citation bind to, and how is an unresolvable reference recorded? identity
What is the type of the citation act: cited as evidence, cited as authority, cited as quoted, disagreed with or refuted? classification
How is the specific part of the cited resource pinpointed rather than the resource being cited as a whole? evidence
Does the citation support the reason it is attached to, counter it, or supply context only? relationship
Was the citation asserted by the decision author, or inherited from an intermediate document that cited the source? provenance

Appraisal, assumptions and confidence

The decision-local appraisal of cited evidence, the assumptions and dependencies the reasoning rests on, and the confidence and uncertainty qualifiers attached to reasons, inferences and the rationale as a whole.

Decision-local appraisal of cited evidence

The decision authority's own judgement of how far cited evidence bears on this decision: the weight given to it here, the sufficiency judgement recorded for the reason it supports, and the stated preference where bodies of evidence conflict. The evidence item's intrinsic certainty grade and the grading methodology belong to WM-KNW-008 and are carried by reference; this finding never re-grades evidence and never asserts that the appraisal is correct.

What weight did the decision authority give this evidence for this decision, and how is that kept separate from the evidence item's own certainty grade? measurement
Which certainty or quality grade is carried by reference from the evidence model, and which appraisal is asserted locally? quality
On what stated basis was the cited evidence judged sufficient or insufficient to support the reason it is cited for? evidence
Where cited evidence conflicts, how does the record state which body of evidence was preferred and why? decision

Assumptions, dependencies and defeat conditions

Statements the reasoning rests on that are recorded as assumed rather than supported, the external conditions, inputs and third-party commitments the reasoning depends on, the conditions under which an assumption would be considered defeated, the period or context for which it is asserted to hold, and the party recorded as responsible for its continued validity. This model records assumptions; it does not monitor, test in production or enforce them.

Which statements are recorded as assumptions rather than as supported premises, and how is that marking made explicit? definition
On what external condition, input, dataset or third-party commitment does the recorded reasoning depend? relationship
Under what stated condition would an assumption be considered defeated? constraint
For what stated period or context is the assumption asserted to hold? temporal
Who is recorded as responsible for an assumption's continued validity, given that this model performs no monitoring? authority

Uncertainty and confidence qualifiers

Confidence qualifiers attached to reasons, inferences and the rationale as a whole: the scale used, whether the qualifier is about the evidence, the inference or the outcome holding in practice, the stated limits of knowledge beyond which the reasoning should not be relied on, and how a verbal qualifier maps to any numeric range. The model records the qualifier as asserted and does not compute or validate calibration.

What confidence qualifier is attached to the rationale as a whole, and on which named and published scale is it expressed? measurement
Is the qualifier a statement about the evidence, about the inference, or about the outcome holding in practice? definition
What are the stated limits of knowledge beyond which the recorded reasoning should not be relied on? constraint
How is a calibrated verbal qualifier mapped to a numeric range, and is that mapping published with the record? interoperability

Robustness and contestation

Recorded trade-offs and sensitivity of the reasoning to its inputs, and the counterarguments, counter-evidence, objections, dispositions and dissenting or minority positions recorded against it.

Trade-offs and sensitivity of the reasoning

What was traded against what, which disbenefits are recorded as accepted, which inputs or assumptions would change the recorded outcome and within what range, any switching value at which the preferred option would change, and whether the varied inputs are disclosed well enough for a qualified third party to reproduce the finding. This model records the results and the disclosure; it does not run the analysis.

Which benefits and disbenefits were traded against each other, and which disbenefits are recorded as knowingly accepted? composition
Which inputs or assumptions, if changed, are recorded as changing the outcome, and over what stated range were they varied? measurement
What switching value or threshold is recorded at which the preferred option would change? constraint
Are the varied inputs and method disclosed well enough for a qualified third party to see how the result was reached? validation
Does the record state that no sensitivity analysis was performed, and what reason is given? exception

Counterarguments, objections and dissent

Counter-arguments and counter-evidence recorded against a reason or inference, who raised them, how each was dispositioned in the rationale, which argument elements are marked defeated by a recorded challenge, and any minority or dissenting position preserved as an attributed statement rather than folded into the majority rationale. Adjudication authority, approval workflow and role assignment stay with the `governance` split.

What counter-argument or counter-evidence is recorded, and which reason or inference does it attack? relationship
Who raised the objection and in what stated capacity, without this model assigning their role? provenance
How was the objection dispositioned in the rationale: accepted, rebutted, undercut or left open? state
Is a minority or dissenting position preserved as an attributed position rather than merged into the majority rationale? definition
Which argument elements are marked as defeated by a recorded challenge, and what does that marking not change? constraint

Explanation and reasoning provenance Explainable decision traces and bounded, audience-scoped explanation renditions produced from the recorded rationale, together with the provenance of the reasoning itself and the separation of authored rationale from machine-generated explanation.

Decision traces, renditions and reasoning provenance

The ordered trace from inputs to recorded outcome, the bounded renditions produced for declared audiences with their faithfulness and omission statements, and the provenance of the reasoning including authorship mode and generating agent.

Explainable decision trace and bounded explanation renditions

The ordered sequence of reasoning steps recorded as the trace from inputs to the recorded outcome, and the audience-scoped explanations produced from it. Each rendition declares its audience, what was omitted or replaced by a reference, the rationale revision it renders, and an assertion that it reflects the recorded reasoning rather than a post-hoc narrative. A rendition is an explanation, not an audit record: audit trails and access logging are owned by the `governance` split.

What ordered sequence of reasoning steps is recorded as the trace from inputs to the recorded outcome? process
For which audience is a rendition produced, and what does the record state was omitted or replaced by a reference for that audience? requirement
How is a rendition asserted to reflect the recorded reasoning rather than a plausible reconstruction of it? quality
What are the declared bounds of the trace: which steps are recorded in full, which are summarised, and which are not captured at all? constraint
How is each issued rendition identified and linked back to the rationale revision it renders? identity

Reasoning provenance and authored versus generated rationale

Who or what produced the recorded reasoning: whether it was authored by a person, generated by a software agent, or generated then edited; which agent, model version and configuration produced any machine-generated text; what prior rationale, template or precedent it was derived from; and the separation of the time the reasoning was asserted from the time the record was observed or ingested. Machine-generated explanation must be labelled so that it is never read as an authored reason.

Was the rationale authored by a person, generated by a software agent, or generated and then edited by a person? provenance
Which software agent, model version and configuration produced a machine-generated explanation? identity
At what time was the reasoning asserted, and at what time was the record of it observed or ingested? temporal
From which prior rationale, template or precedent was this reasoning derived? relationship
How is machine-generated explanation labelled so that a reader cannot mistake it for a reason asserted by the decision authority? requirement

Decision authority, mandate and participation Establishes who was competent to take the decision, under which mandate and delegation, who is accountable for the resulting record, who participated in which declared role, and what integrity conditions applied to that participation.

Mandate, deciding authority and accountable roles

The competence chain: the authority that decided, the instrument that empowered it, the delegations exercised beneath it, and the standing roles accountable for the decision record afterwards.

Deciding authority and mandate binding

Identifies the body, office or role that took the decision and binds it to the mandate instrument, its subject and jurisdictional limits, its validity window and its succession path. Records the authority as an attributable agent rather than as free text.

Which authoritative master-system identifier designates the body or office that took this decision, and under which mandate instrument did it act? authority
What subject-matter, monetary or jurisdictional limits does the mandate place on this authority, and what is the recorded consequence of acting outside them? constraint
Over which validity window was the mandate in force at the instant the decision was taken? temporal
Which alternate or successor authority becomes responsible if the deciding body is dissolved, merged or renamed? ownership

Delegation, sub-delegation and proxy representation

Records the chain from the mandate holder to the person or system that actually exercised the decision, with the ceiling and validity window on each step, whether sub-delegation was permitted, and how a vote or act exercised on behalf of another participant is captured.

Which delegation or sub-delegation steps link the mandate holder to the agent that actually exercised this decision? relationship
What ceiling applies to each delegation step, and is further sub-delegation permitted at that step? constraint
How is a delegation revoked or withdrawn, and what is the effect on decisions already taken under it? authority
When an act or vote was exercised on behalf of another participant, how is that representation recorded? process

Owner, steward, custodian and reviewer assignment

Assigns the standing accountabilities over the decision record after it is taken: who owns it, who maintains its governance metadata, who holds physical or logical custody of its projections, and who is obliged to review it. Distinguishes accountability for governance metadata from accountability for the substance of the decision.

Who is the accountable owner of this decision record, and how does that accountability differ from those of the steward, custodian and reviewer? ownership
Which role is answerable for the accuracy of the governance metadata as distinct from the correctness of the decision itself? quality
How is a role assignment transferred when the holder leaves, and from which instant does the successor's accountability run? lifecycle
Which role holds the authority to release this decision to a wider audience or to publish it? authority

Participation, decision rule and integrity of participation

Who took part in which declared capacity, under which decision rule and participation threshold, and what was declared, determined and acted upon regarding conflicts of interest.

Participant roster, declared roles and applicable decision rule

Captures the participants and their declared roles, the entitlement to vote or object, the decision rule that governed the taking of the decision, the mode of proceeding, and the attestation that any required participation threshold was met.

Which participants took part, in which declared roles, and which of them were entitled to vote or formally object? relationship
Which decision rule applied — unanimity, qualified or simple majority, consensus, silence or written procedure — and where is that rule prescribed? requirement
Was the participation threshold or quorum asserted as satisfied, by whom, and on what stated basis? validation
How is a decision taken by written or silence procedure distinguished from one taken in a convened sitting? process
How is an abstention or formal objection referenced without reproducing the dissent record owned by the reasoning area? event

Declared interests, conflict determination and recusal

Records interests declared by participants before or during the decision, who determined whether a declared interest was disqualifying, the recusal or mitigation action taken, and the effect of recusal on the applicable participation threshold.

Which interests were declared by participants in relation to this decision, and against which register entry was each declaration recorded? constraint
Who determined that a declared interest was disqualifying, and what recusal or mitigation action followed? decision
How does a recusal change the participation threshold or decision rule applied to the affected item? constraint
For how long must interest declarations and conflict determinations remain retrievable after the decision is closed, and under what lawful basis? retention

Approval, status lifecycle and change control How the decision moved from submission through review to approval or ratification, which validity state it holds and why, how it may be reviewed, appealed, reconsidered or reopened, and how its versions, changes and content provenance are controlled.

Submission, approval, status and reconsideration

The approval pipeline binding, the controlled status and validity model with its effective dating and conditions, and the triggers and windows for review, appeal, reconsideration and reopening.

Submission, review and approval stage binding

Records which governance stages the decision passed, which are mandatory before it can take effect, and the identifier of the external approval or ratification activity that evidences each stage. Distinguishes approval from ratification and from non-binding endorsement.

Which submission, review, approval and ratification stages did this decision pass, and which of them are mandatory before it can take effect? process
Which external approval activity record evidences each stage, and which identifier binds the two? interoperability
What distinguishes approval from ratification and from non-binding endorsement in this governance context? definition
What happens to the decision when a mandatory stage is skipped, completed out of order, or completed by an unauthorised party? exception

Status, validity and conditional effectiveness

Holds the controlled status of the decision and its permitted transitions, the separation of approval, publication and effective instants, the conditions attached to a conditional decision and who confirms them, and identifier-only references to follow-up implementation or monitoring obligations.

Which status does this decision hold now, and which controlled vocabulary defines the permitted values and the legal transitions between them? state
From which instant is the decision effective, and how does that differ from the instants at which it was approved and published? temporal
Which conditions precedent or subsequent must hold for a conditional decision to become or remain effective, and who confirms their satisfaction? constraint
Which follow-up implementation or monitoring obligations are attached by reference, and which model owns their execution? relationship
What causes automatic expiry as opposed to explicit revocation or suspension, and how is each distinguished in the record? lifecycle

Review, appeal, reconsideration and reopening

Defines what triggers a scheduled or event-driven review, who may appeal or seek reconsideration to which forum within what time limit, on what grounds a closed decision may be reopened and what status it then takes, and how a review outcome is linked to the original decision without overwriting it.

What triggers a scheduled or event-driven review of this decision, and by which due instant must the review occur? event
Who may appeal or request reconsideration, to which forum, and within what time limit from which starting instant? authority
On what grounds may a closed decision be reopened, and which status does it hold while reopened? exception
How is the outcome of a review, appeal or reconsideration linked to the original decision without overwriting it? relationship

Version history and provenance of decision content

The authoritative version chain with supersession and consolidation, the append-only ledger of governance changes with attributable agents and separated time axes, and the provenance of the governed decision content itself.

Version identity and append-only change ledger

Establishes which version is authoritative, which prior versions it supersedes or consolidates, and an append-only ledger of governance changes recording the acting agent, the reason, the authority relied on, the significance of the change and the separated event, observation and ingestion instants.

Which version of this decision is authoritative now, and which prior versions does it supersede, consolidate or repeal? identity
For each ledger entry, which agent made the change, for what stated reason, and under which authority? provenance
How are event time, observation time and ingestion time recorded separately for a single ledger entry? temporal
Which changes are editorial and which are substantive enough to require re-approval or a new version? classification

Provenance of the governed decision content

Records which agents generated, revised and attested the governed content in which qualified roles, from which prior drafts or decisions it was derived, how cited claim and evidence records are referenced without restatement, and whether the record was created natively or imported.

Which agents generated, revised and attested the governed decision content, and in which qualified roles did they act? provenance
From which prior decisions, drafts, submissions or precedents was this decision derived? composition
How are cited claim and evidence records referenced so that their content is not restated in this model? interoperability
How is an imported or migrated decision distinguished from one created natively in this Dimension? identity

Access, integrity and defensible disposition How the decision and its governance metadata are classified for access and disclosure, how their integrity is anchored and linked to external audit trails, and how they are retained, held and defensibly disposed of.

Access classification, disclosure and integrity assurance

The classification and disclosure schedule for each part of the decision, the exemptions and partial-access rules that apply, and the fixity, sealing and audit-linkage facts that make the record's integrity demonstrable.

Access classification, exemptions and disclosure schedule

Sets the access class for the decision and, separately, for its rationale and governance metadata; records the exemption grounds relied on to withhold, whether partial access by redaction is possible, when an embargo lapses, what register-level metadata stays discoverable, and which personal data must be minimised before disclosure.

What access classification applies, and does it differ between the decision outcome, the rationale and the governance metadata? access
Which exemption grounds justify withholding, and can partial access be granted by releasing the parts not covered by them? exception
When does an embargo lapse so that the decision becomes proactively publishable? temporal
Which register-level metadata remains discoverable even when the content itself is withheld? classification
Which personal data in participant and interest records must be minimised or masked before disclosure? privacy

Fixity, sealing and audit linkage

Records the digest algorithm and value sealing each governed version, who computed it, which signature, seal or timestamp-token reference evidences non-repudiation of the approval, how a failed verification is reported without altering the sealed version, and which external system holds the audit trail.

Which digest algorithm and value seal each governed version, and which agent computed them at which instant? security
Which signature, seal or timestamp-token reference evidences non-repudiation of the approval? evidence
How is a failed integrity verification reported without altering the sealed version? validation
Which external audit or event-log system holds the trail for this record, and which identifier links the two? interoperability

Retention, legal hold and defensible disposition

The retention schedule binding and its trigger, the legal hold state, the authorisation and evidence for disposition, the surviving tombstone facts and the archival transfer path for records of permanent value.

Retention binding, legal hold and defensible disposition

Binds the decision record to a retention schedule and its start trigger, records whether a legal hold is in force and by whom, states which facts survive when deletion is authorised and which model executes disposition, evidences destruction or transfer, and identifies records of permanent value destined for archival transfer rather than destruction.

Which retention schedule and issuing authority govern this decision record, and which event starts the retention clock? retention
Is a legal hold or disposition freeze in force, who imposed it, and when was it released? state
When deletion is authorised, which facts survive in the tombstone and which model or Dimension policy executes the disposition? lifecycle
How is destruction, transfer or migration evidenced so that the disposition remains defensible? evidence
Which decisions are appraised as being of permanent value and transferred to an archival authority rather than destroyed? decision

Classifiers Filled

Family: World Models
Category: Information and virtual systems
Entry kind: aggregate
Navigation path: NAV.INF.KNW.DEC
Domain: INF.KNW.DEC
Industry: Cross-industry
Tags: decisionrationaleinf.knw.dec

What it is Filled

WM-KNW-010 governs the content of a decision taken on a specific occasion and the reasoning offered for it, independently of storage format and access interface. It covers stable decision identity and version discrimination; decision type and jurisdictional profile; the decision question, objectives, context and affected subjects; constraints and the decision rules relied upon; the candidate alternative set including any required no-action baseline; eligibility screening and recorded exclusion; criteria, measures, scales and weights; evaluation results, comparison and sensitivity; the selected alternative, disposition, explicit outcome statement, attached conditions and stated consequences; the rationale and argument structure that justify the outcome together with citations to evidence; the participants, roles and authority basis under which the decision was taken; and the lifecycle, provenance, access, retention and quality governance of decision content. It does not govern the activity that produced the decision, the document that carries it, the legal instrument that may enact it, the evidence items it cites, any executable rule or decision service, or downstream implementation.

In scope

Stable decision identity, version discriminator and supersession links between decisions
Decision type, jurisdictional profile binding and profile-required content elements
The decision question, its admissible answer space and the problem or issue that triggered it
Objectives, critical success factors and expected effects on declared indicators
Decision context, dependencies on input data and upstream decisions, and affected subjects
Binding constraints, admissibility conditions and the decision rules relied upon, stated declaratively
The registered candidate alternative set, including a no-action or business-as-usual baseline where a profile requires one
Eligibility screening and recorded reasons for excluding alternatives from detailed evaluation
Evaluation criteria, measures, scales, preference directions and weighting schemes
Recorded evaluation results, aggregation, ranking and sensitivity findings
The selected alternative, disposition, explicit outcome statement, effect onset and applicability
Conditions, reservations, accepted risks, stated consequences and follow-on decisions
Rationale, argument structure and explanation linking the outcome to objectives, criteria and cited evidence
Participants, roles, delegation and the authority basis on which the decision was taken
Decision-content lifecycle states, revision history, provenance, access classification, retention and quality governance

Out of scope

The decision-making or approval activity itself, including convening, deliberation, voting and approval execution (WM-ACT-024)
The document or record container that renders, files, publishes or preserves the decision (WM-REC-010)
The legal judgment as a binding legal instrument, its enforceability and its citation regime (WM-POL-021)
Generic claim assertion, truth-value and claim-conflict machinery (WM-KNW-007)
Evidence items themselves, their appraisal, integrity and chain of custody (WM-KNW-008)
Executable rules, policies, decision services and rule engines, and their runtime evaluation or enforcement
Audit-trail records produced by an external audit or logging service
Implementation, delivery and change execution that follows a decision (WM-ACT-032)
Domain-specific decision rule content such as clinical protocols, credit scorecards, procurement award formulas or sentencing guidelines
Mathematical decision-analysis method definitions such as utility theory, AHP, ELECTRE or PROMETHEE, which bind only as optional external methods

Why it exists Filled

Distinguishing features Filled

Treats the decision as an inspectable knowledge object: issue, alternatives, criteria, outcome and rationale.
Unlike the approval activity, it records what was decided and why, not how the meeting ran.
Unlike a legal judgment, it is not itself a binding legal instrument.
Unlike an executable rule, it does not evaluate or enforce anything.

What robots and AI may and may not do Filled

Must not

Record a decision as approved without recorded authority.
Change an approved version in place.
Erase decision content when supersession or tombstoning is required.
Present its own analysis as the decision made.
Copy content owned by referenced models.

Only with a human decision

Making the decision.
Revoking or superseding an approved decision.

May

Frame a decision and register alternatives.
Declare criteria and weights and evaluate alternatives.
Bind reasons to claims and evidence citations.
Re-check assumptions and flag when they change.

Moral aspects Filled

People affected by decisions have an interest in knowing the reasons.
Rationale records can reveal the views of named participants and need careful access.
Alternatives rejected for biased reasons should be visible to review.

Who is affected

People affected by the decision
Decision makers and participants
Reviewers and auditors

Owners Filled

Steward

The adopting Dimension must name one accountable decision-governance owner package and its owning organisational unit before any governance record is created; unowned governance records are invalid.

Roles

Decision authority: Take the decision within the mandate and record the authority and mandate binding; Attest satisfaction of the applicable decision rule and participation threshold; Authorise status transitions such as suspension, revocation and reopening; Determine whether a declared interest is disqualifying where the rules assign that determination to the chair or presiding office
Governance owner: Own the decision record as a governed asset and account for its completeness; Maintain the authority and delegation register entries relied on by the decision; Approve role handovers and nominate custodians and reviewers; Declare the jurisdictional profiles applied to the record
Records steward: Maintain the accuracy of governance metadata, including status, effective dating and version chain; Write and quality-check lifecycle ledger entries and errata; Bind the record to the correct retention schedule item and trigger; Prepare disposition requests and record the evidence returned
Custodian: Hold and protect a stored projection of the record; Compute and store digests over the declared canonical form and report verification outcomes; Execute or relay disposition instructions to the executing records authority; Preserve tombstones and integrity references after content removal
Reviewer or appeal forum: Conduct scheduled and triggered reviews by the recorded due instant; Receive appeals and reconsideration requests within the applicable window; Record the review outcome and its relation to the original decision without overwriting it; Refer matters to a judicial forum where the escalation tier requires it
Access and disclosure authority: Set and revise access classifications and exemption grounds; Approve partial access and the redaction profile applied; Release the decision proactively when an embargo lapses; Apply personal-data minimisation before any disclosure

Links to other meta-models Filled

child

WM-KNW-007 Claim - Register the decision under its knowledge parent. Generic assertion identity, truth-value, endorsement and claim-conflict machinery stay with the parent; this model adds only decision-specific specialisation, namely the alternative set, criteria, evaluation and disposition.
WM-KNW-007 - Registry-declared parent. Decision rationale is a specialisation of governed assertion content: premises and conclusions are references to claims that WM-KNW-007 identifies, versions and verifies. This model adds only the argument role a claim occupies, the version pinned at reasoning time and any marked local restatement; it never issues claim identity, changes claim wording or records claim verification status.

references

WM-KNW-008 Evidence - Bind evidence cited in support of an evaluation result or a declared assumption, carrying the evidence identifier and the role of the citation. Evidence appraisal, sufficiency, integrity and chain of custody remain with the target and are never reproduced here.
WM-ACT-024 Decision-making / approval activity - Reference the activity that produced and approved the decision, so that participants, deliberation, quorum and approval execution can be resolved. This model carries the reference and any decision-specific binding parameters only; the activity's lifecycle and execution semantics stay with the target.
WM-REC-010 Document / record - Reference the record that expresses, files or publishes this decision content, following the Work and Expression separation from Manifestation and Item. Rendering, formatting, publication, preservation and record-level retention execution stay with the target.
WM-ACT-032 Change request - Carry the back-reference from a decision to the change request it resolves, matching the incoming relation in the ledger. The request's own lifecycle, prioritisation and the implementation, monitoring and compliance work that follows the decision belong to the target.
WM-KNW-008 - Decision rationale cites evidence. This model carries the evidence reference, the citation type, the locator into the cited resource, the citation stance and the decision-local appraisal of how far the evidence bears on this decision. Evidence identity, acquisition, chain of custody, intrinsic certainty grading and evidence retention remain in WM-KNW-008 and are carried by reference; a referenced certainty grade is read and reproduced unchanged with its read time, never recomputed here.
WM-ACT-032 - Incoming registry-declared relation: a change request is resolved by a decision and references the decision record. This model exposes stable rationale identifiers so that such a reference can resolve, and nothing more. Change-request intake, triage, workflow and closure are owned by WM-ACT-032, and no function here advances or evaluates a change request.
WM-ACT-024 - Binds each approval, ratification or endorsement stage to the external activity record that evidences it. This model stores the binding identifier, stage code and outcome; activity initiation, assignment, execution and completion remain owned by the target.
WM-REC-010 - Names the record that carries the decision and the authority that executes retention, transfer and destruction. This model states the retention binding, hold state, disposition authorisation and tombstone content; repository placement and physical execution remain owned by the target.
WM-POL-021 - References a judicial or tribunal judgment that determines an appeal against the decision. Court composition, pleadings, orders, remedies and judicial reasoning are not modelled here.
Policy and executable-rule models (WM-POL family) - A decision may be constrained by, or may establish, a policy or executable rule. Only the reference, its binding role and any decision-specific parameters are held here; rule authoring, runtime evaluation, obligation discharge and enforcement remain external and are never inferred from the reference.

aligned

WM-POL-021 Legal judgment - Where the decision is judicial, align the outcome content to the judgment's decision section and its background and motivation structure. The judgment's binding legal force, enforceability and citation regime remain with the target; alignment asserts no conformance.
OMG Decision Model and Notation (DMN) version 1.5 - Align framing vocabulary to DMN element names for interchange: question, allowedAnswers, informationRequirement, knowledgeRequirement, supportedObjective, impactedPerformanceIndicator and decision table hitPolicy. Alignment only; no conformance is claimed, DMN identifiers are document-scoped and do not satisfy the identity priority, and execution of DMN decision logic stays with a decision service.
OMG Structured Assurance Case Metamodel (SACM) 2.3, Argumentation package - Alignment target for argument structure: claims, argument reasoning, asserted inference, asserted evidence and counter-argument or counter-evidence links. Mapping is asserted at the level of element roles only; no conformance is claimed and the alignment does not import SACM's assurance-case lifecycle or its notation.
Argument Interchange Format (AIF) core ontology - Alignment target for representing inference, conflict and preference as first-class nodes and for scheme forms carrying premises, conclusions, exceptions and presumptions. Used to justify first-class inference elements and scheme references; AIF's dialogue extensions are outside this model's scope.
W3C PROV-O - Alignment target for reasoning provenance: attribution of rationale to a person or software agent, association with a generating activity, derivation from prior rationale, and generation time. Adopting the vocabulary does not transfer any responsibility, access or retention semantics to this model.
CiTO, the Citation Typing Ontology - Alignment target for the citation-type vocabulary used in evidence bindings, including cited as evidence, cited as authority, supports, disagrees with and refutes. Citation types characterise the citing act only and are never interpreted as evidential weight or quality grades.
W3C Web Annotation Data Model - Alignment target for locators that pinpoint the cited part of a resource using quotation, position or fragment selectors, and for creator, created, generator and generated provenance on annotations. Used to reference precisely without copying cited content into this model.
Goal Structuring Notation Community Standard, Version 3 - Alignment target for separating assumption from supported goal, justification from claim, and solution as a reference to evidence, and for the dialectic notions of challenge and defeated as argument-level annotations. No claim is made that a rationale record constitutes a GSN-conformant assurance case.
GRADE certainty-of-evidence framework as rendered in the ACIP GRADE Handbook - Alignment target for carrying a referenced certainty grade and for distinguishing the grading of a body of evidence from a decision-local appraisal. Grading domains, methodology and the act of grading remain with the evidence model; this model reproduces the grade with its framework identifier and read time.
ISO 15489-1:2016 records management concepts and principles - Aligns authoritativeness, metadata, assigned responsibilities, records controls and appraisal-driven disposition. Alignment only: no conformance is claimed, since conformance depends on the adopting Dimension's records system and policy.
W3C PROV-O provenance ontology - Maps attribution, qualified association with roles, delegation, revision, derivation and invalidation onto local provenance and delegation structures for interchange. Local semantics prevail where they diverge.
ELI ontology version 1.5 - Maps in-force status, consolidation, amendment and repeal relations and authority attribution onto the local status and supersession model where the decision is a normative instrument. The ELI identifier, when assigned, ranks as a governed global identifier and does not displace the master-system identifier.
W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0 - Maps issuer attribution, validity windows and revocation or suspension status onto the local authority and status model where a decision is projected as a verifiable credential. Credential formats and proof mechanisms remain a projection concern.
OASIS Akoma Ntoso v1.0 Part 1 XML Vocabulary - Maps FRBR-style work, expression, manifestation and item identification, lifecycle events, temporal data and top-level person, role and organisation references onto local version identity and participation structures for legislative and deliberative contexts.

composes

Jurisdictional appraisal and record-of-decision profiles (HM Treasury Green Book, US NEPA record-of-decision pattern) - Bind an optional jurisdictional profile that adds required content elements, such as a mandatory business-as-usual baseline, recorded reasons for eliminating alternatives, identification of a preferable alternative and declared mitigation conditions. Profiles are opt-in per decision type; none is a global default and the NEPA pattern is cited as historical.

extends

WM-KNW-007 - Specialises the parent knowledge-assertion model for the decision subject by adding decision-specific mandate, participation, approval and validity-state governance. Generic assertion identity, claim typing and evidential binding machinery stay in the parent and are not restated here.

neighbor

WM-ACT-024 Decision-making / approval activity - This model governs decision content. DMN's Decision element only points at decisionMaker, decisionOwner, usingProcess and usingTask by reference, and ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 places decision management as a process. Convening, deliberation, voting and approval execution therefore belong to the activity model and are referenced, never reproduced here.
WM-REC-010 Document / record container - Akoma Ntoso separates the abstract Work and its Expression from the Manifestation and Item that carry it. Decision content is the governed subject here; rendering, filing, formatting, publication and preservation of the carrying record belong to the record model.
WM-POL-021 Legal judgment - A judgment is a legal instrument with binding force, its own citation regime and a judgmentBody whose introduction, background, motivation and decision sections are editorially structured. This model captures the decision content a judgment may express, not the instrument's legal effect.
WM-KNW-007 Claim (registry parent) - A claim asserts that something is the case. A decision selects among registered alternatives and produces a disposition. Generic assertion identity, truth-value and claim-conflict machinery stay with the parent model; only decision-specific specialisation is modelled here.
WM-KNW-008 Evidence - Cited evidence is bound by identifier with a stated role in an evaluation result. Evidence appraisal, integrity, sufficiency and chain of custody remain with the evidence model; NASA's guidance on assumptions and their supporting evidence is used only to justify the citation binding.
Executable rule, policy or decision service - DMN decision logic, business knowledge models and decision tables are executable artefacts deployed and run by a decision service. This model records the rules relied upon, their declared hit policy and a versioned reference to the source rule, and never owns runtime evaluation, enforcement or the engine's execution trace.
WM-ACT-032 Change request - A change request may be resolved by a decision; the decision carries a back-reference to the resolved issue. The request's own lifecycle, prioritisation and the implementation of the change belong to that model, as does the monitoring and compliance work that a record of decision may direct.
WM-KNW-010 rationale, participation and governance areas (same model) - Argument structure, explanation, participants and authority basis, and the lifecycle, provenance, access, retention and audit governance of decision content are governed by the other areas of this same model. The decision-core structures supply their subject matter by reference and do not restate them.

parent

WM-KNW-007

What else AI and robots need to interact with it Filled

Capabilities and actions required Filled

Frame the decision: Establish the governed decision record: mint or bind its identifier, classify it against a decision type and jurisdictional profile, state the decision question and admissible answer space, record the triggering issue, objectives and critical success factors, and declare context dependencies and binding constraints.
Register a candidate alternative: Add a candidate alternative to the decision's alternative set with its own identifier, kind code and description, including registration of a no-action or business-as-usual baseline where the bound profile requires one.
Declare the evaluation criteria and weights: Record the criteria against which alternatives will be compared, each with its measure, scale, unit and preference direction, the separation of mandatory pass-or-fail criteria from compensatory ones, and the weighting scheme with its declared method or an explicit statement that no weighting is used.
Evaluate and compare the alternatives: Record, as governed decision content, one evaluation round: eligibility screening results with reasons for exclusion, per-criterion results for admitted alternatives, any aggregation and ranking, sensitivity findings, and citations to evidence. Running an executable rule set or decision service to produce those results is outside this model.
Record the selected decision outcome: Record the selected alternative, the disposition, the explicit outcome statement answering the decision question, the declared effect onset and applicability, the factors expressly balanced, any explained divergence from the ranking, and the attached conditions, unresolved matters and stated consequences.
Bind a reason to governed claims and evidence citations: Attach claim references and evidence citation bindings to a reason or premise, recording citation type, locator and stance, and reporting any reference that does not resolve in its owning model.
Assemble premises, inference and conclusion into an argument structure: Record an argument as premises, a first-class inference element carrying a scheme reference, and a conclusion, together with asserted support and conflict relations and any critical-question responses.
Re-check declared assumptions and sensitivity statements: Compare declared assumptions, dependencies and sensitivity statements against the current state of the inputs and references they name, and annotate each with a status so that stale reasoning is visible.
Record an objection, counter-evidence or dissenting position: Capture an objection or counter-argument against a named reason or inference, with its attribution, any counter-evidence binding, and an appended disposition where one has been stated.
Produce a bounded, audience-scoped explanation rendition: Generate an explanation for a declared audience from a named rationale revision, attaching the omission set, the faithfulness assertion and the provenance of any machine-generated text.
Register deciding authority and mandate binding: Create or update the register entry that binds a deciding authority to a mandate instrument, its scope limits and its validity window, and attach that binding to a decision.
Record or revoke a delegation step: Add a delegation or sub-delegation step with its ceiling, validity window and sub-delegation permission, or revoke an existing step and record the retrospectivity of the revocation.
Declare an interest and record a recusal: Capture a participant's declared interest, the determination made on it and any resulting recusal or mitigation action, together with its effective instant.
Attest satisfaction of the decision rule: Record the presiding authority's own assertion that the applicable decision rule and participation threshold were satisfied, with the counted and required figures as asserted.
Bind an approval or ratification act: Attach an identifier-only reference to an external approval, ratification or endorsement activity record for a named governance stage and record the stage outcome.
Apply a governed status transition: Move the decision from one governed status to another — including to effective, conditional, suspended, superseded, revoked, expired or reopened — recording the acting authority, ground, effective instant and any successor reference.
Open a review, appeal or reopening: Open a review, appeal or reconsideration against the decision, recording the trigger or appellant, the competent forum, the applicable window and the status held while the matter is open.
Classify access and schedule disclosure: Set or revise the access class for each addressed part of the decision, record the exemption grounds and redaction profile, and set embargo and proactive-publication instants.
Impose or release a legal hold: Record the imposition or release of a legal hold or disposition freeze over the decision record, with the imposing authority, ground, scope and instants.
Request disposition or tombstoning: Request a disposition outcome for the decision record — retain, destroy, transfer, migrate or tombstone — with its authorisation, and record the evidence returned by the executing custodian.
Seal a version and verify its integrity: Compute and store the digest over the declared canonical form of a governed version, attach any signature or timestamp-token reference, and later verify a retrieved projection against the stored digest.

Sources Filled

DMN 1.5 XML Schema (DMN15.xsd) — normative machine-readable file - Object Management Group (OMG)
About the Decision Model and Notation Specification Version 1.5 - Object Management Group (OMG)
IEEE/ISO/IEC 42010-2022 — International Standard for Software, systems and enterprise: Architecture description - IEEE Standards Association with ISO and IEC
IEEE/ISO/IEC 15288-2023 — Systems and software engineering: System life cycle processes - IEEE Standards Association with ISO and IEC
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation) - European Union (published via EUR-Lex)
The Green Book (2026): appraisal and evaluation in central government - HM Treasury (United Kingdom)
Use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in options appraisal of economic cases (Green Book supplementary guidance) - HM Treasury (United Kingdom)
NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, Section 6.8 Decision Analysis - National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
40 CFR 1502.14 — Alternatives including the proposed action (2024 CFR annual edition) - U.S. Government Publishing Office, for the Council on Environmental Quality
40 CFR 1505.2 — Record of decision in cases requiring environmental impact statements (2024 CFR annual edition) - U.S. Government Publishing Office, for the Council on Environmental Quality
Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations (interim final rule) - Council on Environmental Quality (United States)
Akoma Ntoso Version 1.0 Part 1: XML Vocabulary - OASIS
The Argument Interchange Format (AIF) Specification - ARG-tech / AIF Technical Committee
PROV-O: The PROV Ontology - World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Structured Assurance Case Metamodel (SACM), Version 2.3 - Object Management Group (OMG)
NISTIR 8312: Four Principles of Explainable Artificial Intelligence - National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) - European Parliament and Council of the European Union
CiTO, the Citation Typing Ontology - SPAR Ontologies (Semantic Publishing and Referencing)
Goal Structuring Notation Community Standard (Version 3) - Safety-Critical Systems Club (SCSC), Assurance Case Working Group
ACIP GRADE Handbook, Chapter 7: GRADE Criteria Determining Certainty of Evidence - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 296 - European Union
OMB Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis - Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President of the United States
Web Annotation Data Model - World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
ISO 15489-1:2016 Information and documentation — Records management — Part 1: Concepts and principles - ISO/TC 46/SC 11 Archives/records management
Universal Electronic Records Management (ERM) Requirements - National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), United States
Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0 - World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5: Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations - National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), United States
RFC 3339: Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
RFC 2026 (BCP 9): The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3 - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents - European Parliament and Council of the European Union
ELI ontology (European Legislation Identifier) - Publications Office of the European Union
Council Decision of 1 December 2009 adopting the Council's Rules of Procedure (2009/937/EU) - Council of the European Union
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation), consolidated text - European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Open questions

Re-resolve all 33 source URLs, organisations, editions and version pins against live publishers, and reconcile the DMN 1.5 dating, the Green Book 2026 edition, the CiTO 2.8.2 modification date and the NIST SP 800-53 catalog release before any conformance-adjacent statement is published.
Obtain the paywalled normative texts — ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010-2022 and 15026-2 on rationale and assurance cases, ISO 16175-1:2020 and the ISO 23081 records-metadata series — so that the records-metadata entity model and the architecture-rationale requirements rest on the most specific standard rather than on inference from ISO 15489-1 and NARA.
Retrieve the OECD conflict-of-interest guidance or an equivalent cross-domain source, since the participation and conflict-of-interest structure currently rests on one EU procedural instrument plus a data-protection instrument and is declared a gap.
Search for, or explicitly refute the existence of, a normative structure for counterfactual and causal rationale and for governed reason-weighting and aggregation semantics; until then weights remain asserted values that must not be summed or compared across decisions.
Reconcile planning/VERCY-MODEL-RELATIONS.csv with the drafted boundaries by registering the WM-KNW-007 parent relation and the WM-REC-010, WM-ACT-024 and WM-POL-021 references, or by removing the ownership assignments that depend on them.
Publish an artefact-kind discriminator registry covering the comparison matrix, sensitivity record, dissent record and explanation rendition, and settle whether dissent-record sequences are scoped to the decision master record or to the dissenting party.
Add a governed function that records a constituent reason and issues the statement of reasons, closing the one artefact in the model that has no producing function, and re-check function-to-artefact coverage across all 14 artefacts afterwards.
Consult records, access and decision-governance regimes from Asia-Pacific, African, Latin American and Middle Eastern jurisdictions, none of which was consulted in this pass, before any claim of cross-jurisdictional applicability is made.
Group aggregation and voting rules, including tie-breaking and dissent recording, which the sources consulted do not settle.
Probabilistic decision structures such as decision trees, influence diagrams and expected-utility calculations, treated as optional method bindings.
Named multi-criteria methods and their axioms, including AHP, ELECTRE, PROMETHEE and TOPSIS.
Domain rule content such as clinical protocols, credit scorecards, procurement award formulas and sentencing guidelines.
Appraisal cost conventions such as discount rate, price base and currency, which are jurisdiction-specific and change independently of this model.
Machine-learning model cards or feature attributions for automated decisions, which belong to a model-governance sibling rather than to decision content.
No normative structure for counterfactual or causal rationale was found in any consulted primary source; the corresponding finding is flagged as a gap and carries assertions only.
Deliberation and dialogue modelling — turn taking, protocol state, quorum and voting mechanics — is omitted; AIF dialogue extensions and inference-anchoring approaches were not adopted.
Formal defeasible-reasoning semantics (abstract argumentation frameworks, structured argumentation calculi) are not adopted; conflict and defeat are recorded as asserted annotations with no acceptability computation.
Domain-specific reason taxonomies — legal grounds of decision, clinical reasoning categories, procurement justification codes — are left to the adopting Dimension's published vocabulary rather than enumerated here.
Multilingual equivalence between language versions of a stated reason is not modelled beyond retaining the original language tag and forbidding silent translation.
Normative clauses of ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010-2022 and ISO/IEC/IEEE 15026-2 on rationale and assurance cases are paywalled and were not consulted; only publicly available scope text was used, so architecture-description rationale requirements are not reflected in detail.
Quantitative confidence calibration methods and the mapping between verbal qualifiers and numeric ranges are required to be published but no default mapping is supplied.
No controlled vocabulary is fixed for decision rules, recusal actions or reopening grounds; the adopting Dimension must publish one, and the codes here are placeholders bound to a code-system reference.
ISO 16175-1:2020 and the ISO 23081 metadata-for-records series were not directly consulted because their texts are paywalled; the records-metadata entity model, including an explicit mandate entity, is therefore inferred from ISO 15489-1 and NARA rather than from the most specific standard available.
The OECD guidance on managing conflict of interest in the public service could not be retrieved during this pass, so conflict-of-interest structure rests on a single EU procedural instrument and a data-protection instrument.
No structure is offered for meeting minutes or proceedings as such; where minutes exist they are referenced, and the model does not attempt to be a substitute account of a sitting.
Voting tallies are not modelled beyond an attested counted-and-required pair, because the dissent and objection content is owned by the reasoning area and a full ballot structure would duplicate it.
Cost, effort and resourcing consequences of a decision are not modelled at all; they belong to planning and financial models outside this boundary.
Cryptographic scheme profiles, key management and trust anchors are referenced but not specified; they belong to the adopting Dimension's security model.

Machine files

Card as JSON Specification AGENTS.md Source Card backlog vercy.card/1

Provenance

world-models research · reviewable-draft

Built from: models/wm-knw-010-decision-rationale/spec.yaml, ver-cy/world-models/card-supplements/wm-knw-010-decision-rationale.json