#Decision Theory (Decsn‑CAL)

Pattern C.11 · Stable · Calculus (C) · Normative unless marked informative Part C - Kernel Extension Specifications

Type: Calculus (C) Status: Stable Normativity: Normative unless marked informative

At a glance. C.11 is the choice-calculus pattern for the moment when options already exist and the working question is which option to choose, including whether another probe is worth its cost before commitment.

Use this when. Use this pattern when one DecisionSubject already has an OptionSet in hand and the real burden is to choose among those already-available options under uncertainty, preference, causal or subjunctive dependence, and bounded probing or computation.

#Keywords

• decision theory
• choice
• option set
• decision subject
• choice rule
• probe-worthiness.

#Relations

#Content

#Problem frame

Use this when. Use this pattern when one DecisionSubject already has an OptionSet in hand and the real burden is to choose among those already-available options under uncertainty, preference, causal or subjunctive dependence, and bounded probing or computation.

Start here when. Start here when a person, team, organization, or other decision-capable system must decide whether to choose now or spend more effort on probing, information gathering, or computation before choosing.

First output. The first useful output is one explicit DecisionSubject, one explicit OptionSet, one explicit comparison basis, one explicit ChoiceRule, and one explicit ChoiceResult saying whether the best next move is choose now, reject the current set, probe more, or reroute to a neighboring burden.

If that first output still cannot be written honestly, the current comparison state is not late-stage choice doctrine yet. The burden is still unfinished local choice work or one neighboring burden in disguise.

Immediate failure signs.

• The chooser is still moving between person, team, organization, or another collectivity-bearing level.
• The current comparison is still inventing, expanding, or reframing options while also claiming to compare them.
• The current comparison says more information would help but cannot name one exact next probe that could still change the result.
• The current result is really surfacing one selected set or one enactment plan rather than one local choice.

First-minute questions.

• Who or what is actually choosing here, and at what chooser-bearing level?
• What options are already on the table now?
• What current basis is being used to compare them?
• What exact next probe could still change the choice, if any?
• Is this still local choice, or has the burden already moved to search, pool policy, publication, or enactment?

Typical reroutes. C.18 when the real burden is still inventing or reframing options; C.19 when the working question is how broadly to explore or exploit the candidate pool; C.24 when one option is already chosen and the work has become sequencing or enactment; A.13 / C.9 when the hard question is agenthood rather than choice; A.18 / A.19 when the mathematical support burden itself becomes primary.

Common wrong escalations / reroutes. Do not use C.11 to hide search work inside "decision", to hide candidate-pool policy inside one local choice, or to hide execution planning inside one rationality story. Do not treat selected-set publication or shortlist semantics as if they were the same burden as deciding.

What goes wrong if this pattern is missed. Search, selection policy, planning, and choice doctrine collapse into one blurred notion of rationality. Teams either choose too early because pool policy was never stated, keep probing without one exact reason the next probe is still worth its cost, or leave only one vague claim that "a decision was made" without one explicit decision record naming the current result.

What this pattern buys. This pattern gives one stable place to compare classical, causal, success-first or subjunctive, bounded-resource, active-inference-adjacent, and quantum-like decision lines without silently reassigning search, selection, or planning doctrine to the wrong burden. In practice it buys one explicit answer to four questions: choose now, reject the current set, probe again, or reroute.

Not this pattern when. Do not start here when the burden is still generating candidate options, governing exploration or exploitation over a candidate pool, publishing shortlisted-set semantics, or sequencing execution under an operational plan.

Decision work often fails not because no options exist, but because the choice among existing options is never typed as its own burden. C.11 starts from one narrower and more useful center: one decision subject choosing among already-available options, including whether more probing is worth the cost before the choice is fixed.

#Problem

Many systems have options on the table but still lack one explicit doctrine for what makes one option rational to choose. They mix together at least four different burdens.

One burden is still generating candidate options, variants, or open-ended search directions. Another burden is governing how broadly a candidate pool should be explored or exploited before narrowing. A third burden is planning, sequencing, replanning, or enacting the move once a choice has already been made. The fourth burden, and the one governed here, is choosing among already-available options under uncertainty, dependence, and bounded deliberation.

A second distortion appears when decision theory is reduced to one thin slogan about expected utility. Real choosers face evidential and causal distinctions, subjunctive or success-first cases, probe costs, information value, computation value, and situations where the chooser is not just one isolated individual.

Without one explicit home for choice calculus, search, candidate-pool policy, and planning rush into the same burden, while the actual doctrine of choosing among live options disappears behind generic talk about rationality.

#Forces

#Solution

#Governed object and move

C.11 governs theory-side choice among already-available options. Its governed move is deciding what should be chosen from the current OptionSet, including whether further probing, information gathering, or computation is rational before the choice is fixed.

The governed burden begins only after an option set already exists. It does not govern open-ended generation of options, and it does not govern the execution order of a plan after a choice has already been made.

#Decision discipline over a live option set

A conforming C.11 pass does not stop at naming schools of decision theory. It carries one usable choice discipline over a live OptionSet, and it ends with one explicit ChoiceResult under one explicit ChoiceRule.

1. Fix the chooser and the choice-bearing level. State one DecisionSubject and one DecisionSubjectGranularity. If the real dispute is still about who or what counts as the chooser, coordinate with A.13 / C.9 instead of hiding that dispute inside one local choice.

2. Freeze the current option set. State the already-available options being compared now as one OptionSet. If the hard work is still inventing, expanding, or reframing the options, stop here and reroute to C.18.

3. Make the comparison basis explicit. State one PreferenceOrder or one EvaluativeMeasure, plus one BeliefState and one OutcomeModel. The comparison is not usable if some options are being judged under one belief state and other options under one later, unmarked update. If two options are only comparable after one further probe or one stronger model revision, say that the current comparison is unfinished and route the burden through step 5 rather than pretending that one silent basis shift already solved it.

4. Choose the dependence layer that actually governs the case. Start from the evidential baseline when the choice is being compared through likely outcomes under the current BeliefState. Add one InterventionModel when taking one option changes the world through intervention rather than mere observation. Add one CounterfactualModel plus one SubjunctiveDependenceRelation when the case depends on one predictor, one structurally linked chooser, or one decision-procedure coupling that intervention talk alone does not capture. Use the weakest dependence layer that is still strong enough for the live case, and do not switch layers across options without saying so explicitly.

5. Run the probe-worthiness test before commitment. State one ProbeActionSet, one ProbeBudget, and one CostToProbe. Use ValueOfInformation for additional observation or measurement, and ValueOfComputation for additional reasoning, simulation, or search over the already-available options. This rule is intentionally local or myopic: it judges the best next feasible probe over the current OptionSet and current comparison basis, not one full sequential or non-myopic experimental program. Richer OED lines remain later strengthening, not the closure law of the present first-wave C.11 body. If no feasible further probe fits the remaining ProbeBudget, or if the best available probe no longer justifies its CostToProbe, close under the current comparison basis. If a feasible probe is still worth its cost, and that probe could still change which option survives or whether the current OptionSet should be rejected, run it, update the BeliefState and OutcomeModel, and return to step 3. If one choice posture is already fixed and the remaining probe would change only route description, call ordering, enactment budget, or checkpointing of that chosen move, stop treating the probe as local choice doctrine and reroute to C.24.

6. Apply one ChoiceRule and emit one ChoiceResult plus the next burden. End with one explicit result: choose now, reject current set, probe again, or reroute because this is no longer local choice. If the result is choose now, name the winning option or the retained tie-set plus the exact reason no remaining feasible probe is worth its cost. If the result is reject current set, name the exact reason no current option survives under the present basis and, when more work follows, the neighboring burden that now takes over. If the result is probe again, name the next probe and the exact comparison defect it is supposed to repair. A C.11 pass is done only when it names the lawful next move and the reason that move is lawful.

#Well-formed comparison state

Well-formedness constraint: a live C.11 comparison state is usable only when the decision record states all of the following:

• one DecisionSubject at one DecisionSubjectGranularity;
• one current OptionSet;
• one current comparison basis through PreferenceOrder or EvaluativeMeasure, plus one BeliefState and one OutcomeModel;
• one active dependence layer for the current comparison, unless the record explicitly says that comparison is still being reopened;
• one current account of whether another probe is still feasible and worth its cost.

The comparison is still unfinished, not yet wrong but not yet closeable, when any of the following remains true:

• the chooser is still shifting between person, team, organization, or another collectivity-bearing level;
• the option set is still changing while the record also claims to rank the options;
• one option is being judged under one belief state and another under one later update that is not itself declared as the next probe result;
• one heavier dependence layer is invoked for rhetorical force, but the record never states what defect of the lighter comparison it repairs;
• the record says more information would help, but never says which probe could still change the choice and why.

#First-wave admissible decision semantics

This first wave does not yet settle every later decision-theory dispute, but it does already permit and forbid some semantic moves by value.

The following are lawful in the current C.11 body when they are stated explicitly:

• one incomplete or only partially ordered PreferenceOrder, so long as the unresolved comparison stays visible through one retained tie-set, one further probe, or one honest reject current set result rather than one fake winner;
• one EvaluativeMeasure for magnitude, threshold, or trade-off-sensitive cases, so long as the measure being used now is explicit enough to explain why the current result follows under it;
• one temporary unresolved criterion conflict, so long as the record says whether the present comparison is using one priority order, one threshold, one explicit trade-off measure, or one unfinished state that still blocks closure;
• one explicit BeliefState revision, so long as it enters the comparison as one named probe result or one named model repair rather than as one silent basis shift;
• one widened DecisionSubject at person, team, organization, or other collectivity-bearing level, so long as the current subject-bearing level is explicit and the record does not hide unresolved cross-level conflict behind one generic chooser label.

The following are not lawful in the current C.11 body:

• silently totalizing one genuinely partial preference relation just to force choose now;
• silently switching from one criterion mix or one belief state to another across options;
• pretending that unresolved cross-level or collective conflict is already one settled local ranking when the aggregation burden has not actually been discharged;
• using one polished record shape as a substitute for one stated comparison doctrine.

This is why C.11 is more than one note-taking protocol. The body already permits local incompleteness, partial order, explicit trade-off measures, and widened chooser surfaces, but it requires those semantic facts to change the lawful result rather than remain hidden beneath one elegant summary line.

#Probe-worthiness rule

Another probe is worth doing only when all three conditions hold together:

• the probe fits inside the remaining ProbeBudget;
• the expected gain from the probe, through ValueOfInformation or ValueOfComputation, is large enough to justify its CostToProbe;
• the probe can actually change the local choice posture by changing the ranking, breaking or creating a tie, showing that no current option survives, repairing one missing comparison, or showing that the burden should reroute.

This is the current local or myopic probe-worthiness law for C.11: judge the best next feasible probe over the current OptionSet, not one whole non-myopic experiment design over longer horizons. Later sequential or non-myopic OED may strengthen this doctrine, but they do not erase the present owner boundary.

Do not keep probing merely because uncertainty remains. Uncertainty is ordinary. What matters is whether one feasible next probe can still change what should be chosen, or whether the current OptionSet should be rejected, from the current local choice burden.

If the best available next probe cannot change which option survives, cannot change whether the current set should be rejected, or cannot justify its cost, the correct result is not one vague statement that the case is hard. The correct result is one explicit ChoiceResult under the current basis and current ChoiceRule.

If the next probe would no longer change which option survives but would only change how one already-chosen move gets enacted, budgeted, or checkpointed, the burden has already crossed to C.24.

#ChoiceRule versus ChoiceResult

ChoiceRule and ChoiceResult are not the same kind of thing.

• ChoiceRule is the doctrine or operator that says how the current comparison basis, dependence layer, and probe-worthiness posture license one next move.
• ChoiceResult is the emitted record stating which next move is lawful now under that rule.

The operational answer of this pattern is therefore one emitted ChoiceResult under one explicit ChoiceRule. The result is complete only when it states the next move and the condition that makes that move lawful.

Only four result forms are lawful here:

• choose now
• reject current set
• probe again
• reroute

A fifth soft result such as "keep thinking", "stay with the current view", or "the case is still complex" is not a conforming output. It is one unfinished state that still needs to be typed.

For choose now, the emitted ChoiceResult should show:

• the selected option or the retained tie-set;
• the comparison basis under which that result currently holds;
• the exact reason no still-feasible probe is worth its cost.

For reject current set, the emitted ChoiceResult should show:

• that no member of the current OptionSet survives under the present comparison basis;
• the exact shared defect, threshold failure, or dominated-outcome reason that defeats the current set;
• the next neighboring burden only when more work now follows, such as new option generation or one explicit escalation path.

For probe again, the emitted ChoiceResult should show:

• the exact next probe;
• the comparison defect that probe is expected to repair;
• the reason the probe is still worth its cost.

For reroute, the emitted ChoiceResult should show:

• the neighboring owner that now governs the burden;
• the exact reason this is no longer local choice among already-available options.

#Closure rule over the current OptionSet

The comparison may close as choose now only when all of the following are true together:

• the current OptionSet is stable enough that the decision record is no longer still inventing options;
• the current comparison basis is explicit enough to state why one option survives or why one tie-set remains;
• no still-feasible next probe is expected to change the survivor relation strongly enough to justify its cost;
• the record is still governing local choice rather than pool policy, publication, or enactment.

The comparison may close as reject current set only when all of the following are true together:

• the current OptionSet is explicit and stable enough to reject as the present choice set;
• the current comparison basis is explicit enough to show why no member survives under the present basis;
• no still-feasible next probe is expected to rescue one member strongly enough to justify its cost;
• the result is still one local choice conclusion rather than one disguised pool-policy, publication, or enactment result.

The comparison should close as probe again only when all of the following are true together:

• one exact next probe is named;
• that probe fits the remaining ProbeBudget;
• that probe is expected to repair one named comparison defect;
• that repaired defect could still change which option survives, whether the current set should be rejected, or whether the burden should reroute.

The comparison should close as reroute when the record has already learned that the governed move changed:

• to C.18 when the option set itself is still under invention or reframing;
• to C.19 when the burden is now how broadly to keep exploring or exploiting one candidate pool;
• to C.24 when one choice posture already exists and the next task is now sequencing, enactment, or route-level probe work;
• to G.5 when the next task is now selected-set surfacing or publication.

If none of those closure conditions can yet be satisfied, the record is still unfinished. It is not rescued by richer terminology alone.

#Minimal decision-record form

A minimal C.11 decision record has this shape:

DecisionSubject(...)
DecisionSubjectGranularity(...)
OptionSet(...)
ComparisonBasis(
  preferenceOrder or evaluativeMeasure,
  beliefState,
  outcomeModel,
  optional intervention/counterfactual/subjunctive layer
)
ChoiceRule(
  closure law over the current basis and probe posture
)
ProbePosture(
  probeActionSet,
  probeBudget,
  costToProbe,
  valueOfInformation,
  valueOfComputation
)
ChoiceResult(
  nextMove = choose_now | reject_current_set | probe_again | reroute,
  selectedOption or retainedTieSet or rejectedCurrentSet or rerouteOwner,
  exact reason this is the lawful next move
)

The record does not need that exact syntax. It does need that exact content.

If the record does not state the current chooser, current options, current comparison basis, current ChoiceRule, current probe posture, and current ChoiceResult, then it still behaves more like one doctrinal essay than one usable decision record.

Use branch language only when it changes the actual comparison being performed.

#Classical evidential baseline

Stay with the classical evidential baseline when the burden is to compare already-available options through preferences, utilities or desirabilities, beliefs, and likely outcomes under uncertainty.

In this baseline, the options are being compared as evidence about what consequences are likely if they are chosen. This is the ordinary default when intervention structure, predictor-coupling, or context-sensitive non-commutativity are not yet doing real work in the case.

Typical practical cash-outs are:

• choose now because the current shared BeliefState and OutcomeModel already make one option or tie-set survive, and no still-feasible probe is worth its cost;
• probe again because one further observation, measurement, or comparison pass could still change the ranking without requiring a heavier causal, subjunctive, or context-order repair;
• reroute because the governed move is no longer really comparing one fixed OptionSet, but has become search, pool policy, publication, or enactment work.

The baseline is still unfinished when the current comparison invokes it but cannot keep one shared BeliefState and OutcomeModel across the compared options, or when one heavier defect is already live and the current comparison still pretends one plain evidential comparison is enough.

#Causal repair

Switch on one InterventionModel when taking one option changes the world through intervention rather than merely signaling which outcome was already likely.

What changes here is not the prestige label of the theory line, but the comparative question itself: the working question is no longer only what this option indicates about the outcome, but what this option causes in the outcome structure.

Typical practical cash-outs are:

• choose now because, under the declared intervention structure, one option now causally dominates or remains the survivor and no remaining feasible probe can reverse that causal ranking;
• probe again because one intervention-relevant uncertainty still blocks a lawful causal comparison and one named next probe could still change which option causally survives;
• reroute because the intervention story has already moved from local choice into enactment planning, protocol design, or one neighboring burden.

This repair has not yet landed if the comparison still treats options only as evidence after invoking causal language, or if an InterventionModel is named without stating what defect of the lighter evidential comparison it repairs.

#Success-first or subjunctive repair

Switch on one CounterfactualModel plus one SubjunctiveDependenceRelation when Newcomb-like, blackmail-like, or other predictor-coupled cases remain under-described by the older evidential-versus-causal split.

What changes here is that the comparison must stay answerable to linked decision procedures, predictors, or structurally similar choosers rather than only to direct intervention on one local event.

Typical practical cash-outs are:

• choose now because, under the declared counterfactual or subjunctive structure, one option survives once the predictor-coupled comparison is made explicit;
• probe again because one further model clarification, predictor assumption check, or decision-procedure comparison could still reverse the current survivor relation;
• reroute because the governed move is no longer settling local choice doctrine but has become one wider characterization, negotiation, or enactment burden that only borrowed predictor-coupling language.

If that coupled structure is not live, do not activate this branch. If a predictor-coupled or success-first repair is named but the linked structure that changes the comparison is still unspecified, the branch is not yet load-bearing in the current decision.

#Active-inference neighboring repair

Bring the active-inference line into view when the chooser is embodied, online, and socially coupled, and when the decision cannot be understood as one disembodied choose-then-act moment.

What changes here is practical next-move logic, not one neighboring-school label. The comparison is no longer over one frozen snapshot alone. The comparison must now ask whether one more observation, one more coupled update, or one more socially mediated or role-expectation clarification actually changes what should be done now.

This first wave makes that social-expectation pressure explicit, but it does not yet operationalize one full ROE or SocialExpectationRegime object model inside C.11. If that heavier machinery is itself what the case hinges on, the current body should say so honestly rather than pretending the first-wave branch has already settled it.

Typical practical cash-outs are:

• probe again because one further embodied observation, coupled update, or explicit role-expectation clarification can still change the state estimate enough to reverse the current survivor relation;
• choose now because delay itself now worsens the state being managed, closes the window in which the preferred option remains feasible, or leaves no lawful time for one more socially mediated check;
• reroute because the burden has already become enactment sequencing or agent-characterization work rather than local choice.

C.11 keeps the choice burden visible there, but A.13 / C.9 still own the narrower question of what kind of agent or agential system is in play, and C.24 still owns later sequencing and enactment once a choice posture has already been fixed.

Do not invoke this line only because one agent is acting in the world. Invoke it when embodied coupling, online updating, or explicit social-expectation pressure actually changes what the chooser should do now from the current OptionSet.

#Quantum-like neighboring repair

Bring the quantum-like line into view when context effects, order effects, response-replicability tension, or incompatible-question structure change the comparative state enough that one simple commutative probability reading no longer fits.

What changes here is the practical structure of comparison. One order of questioning or one framing path may produce one different survivor relation from another. The comparison must therefore either stabilize the comparison under one declared order or show why one more clarifying pass is still needed.

This first wave keeps the branch at that measurement-sensitive recognition surface. It does not yet claim one full quantum-like state-space package inside C.11; it claims only that the live comparison may need one explicit measurement-class or order-sensitive repair rather than one plain commutative reading.

Typical practical cash-outs are:

• choose now under one declared order or framing because rival orders no longer change which option survives;
• probe again because one framing-sensitive comparison pass, one further question order, one response-replicability check, or one explicit measurement-class clarification could still reverse the survivor relation;
• reroute when the governed move is no longer deciding among live options but has become one publication or enactment problem that only borrowed order-effect language rhetorically.

Do not promote this line to the unmarked default unless those exact repaired limitations are live in the case.

Do not invoke this line merely because a case feels psychologically subtle. Invoke it when one changed order, framing, response pattern, or incompatible-question structure actually changes the comparison state or the survivor relation in the live choice.

If none of those repaired limitations is live, stay with the classical evidential baseline rather than switching branches without one live repaired limitation.

The family map is therefore one disciplined set of refinements over the same choice burden, not one excuse to rename every neighboring burden as decision theory.

#Reroute as soon as the burden stops being local choice

Use C.11 while the question remains: from this current OptionSet, what should the DecisionSubject choose, and is another probe worth its cost before commitment?

Reroute immediately when the burden changes:

• If the hard question is still what options should exist at all, or whether the current option set needs to be expanded or reframed, leave this pattern and work in C.18 first.
• If the options already exist but the question is how broadly to keep exploring or exploiting the candidate pool, leave this pattern and work in C.19, where the next useful output is one explicit pool-policy result rather than one local ChoiceResult.
• If one option is already chosen and the question is how to sequence, budget, or enact that choice, leave this pattern and work in C.24, where the next useful output is one enactment-facing call plan or CheckpointReturn.
• If the burden has shifted from deciding to surfacing, publishing, or naming the selected set, leave this pattern and work in G.5, where the next useful output is one published shortlist, ranked shortlist, narrowed handoff plan, or explicit abstain surface rather than one more local choice result.

ProbeBudget stays here while it means the epistemic or deliberative budget for one more probe before choice and while that probe can still change which option survives or whether the current set should be rejected. When the same word now means execution budget, call budget, enactment budget, or route-level scouting after one choice posture already exists, the burden has moved to C.24.

ValueOfInformation and ValueOfComputation also stay theory-side here as comparative criteria while the question is still local choice among the current options. If one more probe could still change which option survives or whether the current set should be rejected, stay in C.11. If the choice posture is already fixed and those criteria now govern only route sequencing, call ordering, or enactment of the chosen move, the burden has crossed to C.24. C.19 and C.24 may consume the criteria, but they do not become the doctrine owners of them.

Outside this pattern remain candidate generation, pool-wide exploration policy, selected-set publication semantics, and execution planning.

#First-wave inventory and minimal mathematical floor

The minimum usable inventory for this pattern is:

• subject and option objects: DecisionSubject, DecisionSubjectGranularity, OptionSet;
• evaluative and epistemic objects: PreferenceOrder, EvaluativeMeasure, BeliefState, OutcomeModel;
• dependence and comparison objects: InterventionModel, CounterfactualModel, SubjunctiveDependenceRelation, ChoiceRule, ChoiceResult;
• probe and bounded-resource objects: ProbeActionSet, ProbeBudget, CostToProbe, ValueOfInformation, ValueOfComputation.

These objects are required because the decision record must carry one explicit path from a live OptionSet through one live ChoiceRule to one emitted ChoiceResult.

#Always explicit versus conditionally activated objects

The following objects should be explicit in every usable C.11 decision record:

• DecisionSubject and DecisionSubjectGranularity;
• OptionSet;
• one evaluative surface through PreferenceOrder or EvaluativeMeasure;
• BeliefState;
• OutcomeModel;
• ChoiceRule;
• ChoiceResult.

The following objects activate when the case needs them:

• InterventionModel for causal repair;
• CounterfactualModel plus SubjunctiveDependenceRelation for success-first or predictor-coupled repair;
• ProbeActionSet, ProbeBudget, CostToProbe, ValueOfInformation, and ValueOfComputation when one more probe or one more computation pass is still live.

What matters is not that every decision record mechanically mentions every token. What matters is that the current comparison does not smuggle one active burden without naming the object that carries it.

Immediate lexical commitments:

• the default chooser term is DecisionSubject, not Agent;
• DecisionSubjectGranularity names the chooser-bearing level when the burden is about whether the chooser is one person, team, organization, or another collectivity-bearing system rather than one generic scalar or coordinate;
• relation-heavy wording remains answerable to A.6.P together with A.6.5.

Local plain glosses for the high-pressure inventory:

• DecisionSubject: who or what is actually carrying this choice now, whether that is one person, one team, one committee, one organization, or another collectivity-bearing system;
• DecisionSubjectGranularity: the level at which the choice is being attributed, such as person-level, team-level, or organization-level rather than one vague "agent" label;
• OptionSet: the concrete options already on the table now;
• PreferenceOrder: the current better-than / worse-than ordering over those options for this decision subject;
• EvaluativeMeasure: the explicit utility-style or desirability-style scoring measure used when the case needs magnitudes, thresholds, or trade-offs rather than only one ordering;
• BeliefState: the current uncertainty-bearing state about the world, the case, and the likely consequences of the options;
• OutcomeModel: the model that maps options plus the current uncertainty picture to the consequences that matter for this choice;
• InterventionModel: the part of the model that says how the world changes because one option is actually taken;
• CounterfactualModel: the model used to compare relevant non-actual alternatives or alternate decision procedures;
• SubjunctiveDependenceRelation: the dependence between this choice and one predictor, one linked chooser, or one structurally similar decision procedure when intervention talk alone is not enough;
• ChoiceRule: the current choice doctrine or operator that says what conditions make choose now, reject current set, probe again, or reroute lawful in this case;
• ChoiceResult: the emitted result record saying which of those lawful next moves actually follows now under the current ChoiceRule;
• ProbeActionSet: the further checks, measurements, simulations, or questions that can still be run before commitment;
• ProbeBudget: the remaining time, money, attention, or tolerated delay available for those pre-choice probes;
• CostToProbe: the real cost of another measurement, question, simulation, trial, or delay before commitment;
• ValueOfInformation: the expected gain from learning more before choosing;
• ValueOfComputation: the expected gain from spending more reasoning or compute before choosing.

What follows from DecisionSubject being wider than Agent:

• the chooser in C.11 need not be one person-like agent;
• a team, committee, organization, or coupled human-tool system may be the DecisionSubject when that is the real level at which the choice is being made;
• the pattern therefore does not force agency characterization to do the job of naming who or what is currently choosing.

This floor is enough to keep choice doctrine inspectable and stable. It does not yet assume one full branch-specific quantum-like package or one cross-level geometry-heavy package.

#First-wave boundary on multilevel and social-expectation doctrine

DecisionSubject and DecisionSubjectGranularity are the current first-wave answer to human-only and individual-only narrowing. They keep the chooser explicit at person, team, organization, or other collectivity-bearing level so the doctrine does not silently collapse back into one generic individual agent.

This first wave does not yet settle all of the heavier doctrine that can sit behind that wider chooser surface. In particular, this body does not yet fully settle:

• collective aggregation law over conflicting preferences or criteria;
• cross-level conflict between person-, team-, organization-, or broader system-level objectives;
• one full ROE or social-expectation structure for socially scaffolded choice;
• one full multilevel or geometry-heavy formal package for those cross-level burdens.

Those absences are not hidden exceptions. They are explicit scope boundaries of the current C.11 body. If one of those heavier burdens is already load-bearing in the live case, the decision record should say that the first-wave surface is being used only as the current typed floor and should keep the unresolved aggregation, ROE, or multilevel support burden visible by value.

#Minimal decision tuple and finish condition

A C.11 decision record is complete only when it states:

• who or what is choosing: DecisionSubject at one DecisionSubjectGranularity;
• what is currently choosable: OptionSet;
• how the options are compared: PreferenceOrder, EvaluativeMeasure, BeliefState, and OutcomeModel;
• which heavier dependence layer is active when the case needs it: InterventionModel, CounterfactualModel, and SubjunctiveDependenceRelation;
• what comparison doctrine currently governs the case: one explicit ChoiceRule;
• what further probing is still available and worth paying for: ProbeActionSet, ProbeBudget, CostToProbe, ValueOfInformation, and ValueOfComputation;
• what the current comparison concludes: one emitted ChoiceResult that says choose now, reject the current set, probe again, or reroute. That result must name either the selected option, the retained tie-set, or the exact next probe or reroute.

Without that explicit tuple, choice doctrine usually collapses into one of three easier but wrong substitutes: generic rationality talk, search folklore, or planning folklore.

The finish condition is stronger than "the record now sounds informed." The record is finished enough for practical use only when the next move follows from the stated comparison basis, stated ChoiceRule, stated probe posture, and emitted ChoiceResult rather than from unstated background assumptions.

A C.11 pass is finished enough for practical use when all three conditions hold:

• the current comparison basis is explicit enough to state why one option now outranks or survives the others;
• the reason to stop probing, or the reason to probe again, is explicit rather than assumed;
• the next burden is explicit: choose now, reject current set, probe again, or reroute.

If the case remains tied or underdetermined under the current basis, say that directly and keep the tie-set explicit. A lawful ChoiceResult may still be probe again or reroute, but it must not pretend that one winner already exists when the current basis has not earned that conclusion.

If those conditions are still missing, the pattern has not yet answered the choice burden even if the terminology already sounds sophisticated.

#System grounding

Tell. A research team already has three experiment plans on the table. The option set exists. The real burden is to decide which plan to run and whether one more measurement is worth the delay.

Show. The DecisionSubject is the team, the DecisionSubjectGranularity is team-level, the OptionSet is the three current plans, the team's PreferenceOrder puts risk reduction ahead of schedule convenience, and the current OutcomeModel still carries calibration uncertainty. The extra calibration run belongs in the ProbeActionSet, its one-day delay is part of the ProbeBudget, and the practical question is whether its ValueOfInformation exceeds its CostToProbe strongly enough to change the emitted ChoiceResult under the current ChoiceRule.

Show. If the extra calibration run could still change which plan survives and the one-day delay fits the remaining ProbeBudget, the right ChoiceResult is probe again with that exact calibration run named. If the measurement can no longer overturn the ranking, the right ChoiceResult is choose now with the winning plan and the reason further probing is no longer worth its cost.

Show. A finished result here should therefore read like one decision record, not one research-theory aside: "Team-level chooser; three current plans; risk reduction preferred; calibration uncertainty still live; one extra calibration run remains feasible and could still overturn the current ranking; ChoiceResult = probe again with calibration run." Or, after that probe is no longer worth doing: "ChoiceResult = choose plan B now because the remaining calibration gain no longer justifies one more day of delay."

Show. C.18 is still the place for inventing new plans, C.19 is still the place for broader exploration policy over the plan pool, and C.24 is still the place for the run sheet and execution order after the choice is made.

#Episteme grounding

Tell. A model-selection comparison takes three already-articulated explanations and asks whether one more observation or one more comparison pass is rational before preferring one explanation over the others.

Show. C.11 governs the decision doctrine over the current explanation set: one BeliefState, one OutcomeModel, one explicit PreferenceOrder or EvaluativeMeasure, and, when the case needs it, one InterventionModel, CounterfactualModel, or SubjunctiveDependenceRelation rather than one thinner evidential story. When another model comparison pass is on the table, ValueOfComputation belongs here as part of the current choice doctrine rather than as one later planning afterthought.

Show. If one more comparison pass cannot realistically change which explanation survives, the decision record should not end with "more analysis may help." It should end with one ChoiceResult that prefers the current explanation now. If one more pass could still reverse the ordering and is cheap enough to justify, the decision record should say exactly which pass is worth doing and what ambiguity it is expected to resolve.

Show. A lawful closing line here is therefore something like: "ChoiceResult = choose model 2 now because the surviving uncertainty no longer changes the ordering under the current evidence" or "ChoiceResult = run one additional comparison pass on models 1 and 2 because the current outcome model still cannot distinguish their failure costs." Anything vaguer leaves the decision burden unfinished.

Show. This pattern does not yet govern open-ended hypothesis generation and does not yet govern operational rollout. Those burdens stay outside this pattern even when the decision later feeds them.

#Collective and contextual grounding

Tell. A clinical board must decide whether to escalate a patient now or order one more test. The board is the chooser, not one isolated individual, and the result shifts when the case is discussed in prognosis-first versus risk-first order.

Show. C.11 keeps the case legible by typing the chooser as one DecisionSubject at explicit DecisionSubjectGranularity, keeping the available actions as one current OptionSet, keeping one explicit BeliefState and OutcomeModel around those actions, and asking whether another test belongs in the ProbeActionSet strongly enough to justify its CostToProbe.

Show. Active-inference-adjacent pressure is visible because the chooser is embodied, online, and socially coupled; quantum-like pressure is visible because context and question order change the comparison state. C.11 keeps both repaired limitations visible without pretending that the whole pattern has already become one full active-inference or quantum-like formal package.

Show. If the order effect remains strong enough to change which option survives, the comparison should say that directly and keep the comparison unfinished. The lawful next move is then either one framing-stabilizing probe or one declared comparison order under which the current result will be judged. It should not hide that instability inside one vague statement that the board has mixed intuitions.

Show. A lawful output here therefore looks like one of three concrete records:

• ChoiceResult = probe again with one rapid diagnostic test because the current prognosis-first versus risk-first framing still changes which option survives;
• ChoiceResult = choose now and escalate because, under the fixed risk-first order and current evidence, no remaining feasible test can reverse the survivor relation before delay increases harm;
• ChoiceResult = reroute to C.24 because the board has already chosen escalation and the next task is now treatment sequencing rather than local choice.

Show. The output still has to be one actionable record. If the current result cannot say which of those three forms is now lawful, then the contextual pressure has been noticed but not yet carried into one usable decision result.

#Bias-Annotation

This pattern is intentionally biased toward Prag and Onto/Epist discipline.

It prefers one clear governed object, one explicit neighboring-burden split, and one minimal mathematical floor over one looser but more rhetorically flexible notion of rationality.

That bias can feel too strict in cases where the chooser, option set, or dependence structure is still genuinely moving. The mitigation is not to weaken the pattern back into one general rationality story. The mitigation is to keep the unfinished state explicit: hold one tie-set, hold one probe again result, or reroute to the neighboring owner that now truly governs the burden.

The family map also remains plural: causal, success-first, active-inference, and quantum-like repairs stay visible without being overpromoted into one default doctrine.

#Conformance Checklist

#Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

One quick usability test helps here: if the closing line does not state one lawful next move for the working chooser or team, the current result is still unfinished even if the doctrine survey looks polished.

#Consequences

#Rationale

A live option set and a live choice among that set are not the same burden as generating options, governing a candidate pool, or sequencing execution. Keeping that distinction explicit is what makes the doctrine usable rather than ceremonial.

DecisionSubject is the better default surface because decision theory often applies to persons, teams, organizations, and other system-bearing collectivities. Agent remains useful, but only when an explicit agency claim is actually being made.

A minimal mathematical floor is necessary because choice doctrine without one stable object stack quickly turns into verbal drift. But a pattern also fails if it keeps only the object names and never shows how those objects discipline an actual choice. That is why Solution here is procedural: it must carry the path from OptionSet through one ChoiceRule to one ChoiceResult, including the stop-or-probe decision, rather than only one survey of neighboring theories.

The practical gain of that procedure is not elegance for its own sake. It is that later search, policy, publication, and planning work receive one explicit result instead of one hand-waving claim that deliberation happened somewhere upstream.

At the same time, this pattern should not pretend that one full quantum-like or geometry-heavy package is already settled just because those neighboring lines are real.

#SoTA-Echoing

Practical reading of this alignment:

• In ordinary current-option cases, start with the classical evidential baseline and use it to emit one explicit choose now, probe again, or reroute result under one shared BeliefState and OutcomeModel.
• If intervention structure changes the survivor relation, state that explicitly and switch to causal comparison rather than leaving the comparison at the level of correlation talk.
• If predictor-coupling or structurally linked choice procedures remain load-bearing, keep the subjunctive layer visible and say what linked structure could still reverse the current result.
• If another measurement, comparison pass, or search pass is being considered, treat its value and cost as part of the current decision doctrine rather than as one later planning afterthought.
• If the chooser is embodied, online, and socially coupled, or if context and order effects change the comparison state, keep those repaired limitations visible by naming the exact observation, social-expectation clarification, order stabilization, response-replicability check, or measurement-class clarification that could still change the current ChoiceResult, and say directly when fuller ROE, quantum-like state-space, or multilevel doctrine still sits outside this first wave.
• If the quantum-like line is activated, treat it as one measurement-sensitive mathematical lens or representational repair, not as one claim that the chooser or world is physically quantum.
• If none of those heavier repaired limitations is live, stay with the lighter branch rather than activating one prestigious label that does not yet change the next move.

Worked-slice discipline from these rows:

• the system grounding slice is disciplined primarily by the bounded-resource and classical-baseline rows, so the output must end in one explicit probe-or-choose result;
• the episteme grounding slice is disciplined primarily by the bounded-resource and subjunctive-repair rows, so the output must say what comparison pass or predictor-coupled clarification could still reverse the result;
• the collective and contextual grounding slice is disciplined primarily by the active-inference and quantum-like rows, so the output must name the embodied observation, framing stabilization, or reroute that now becomes lawful.

#Relations

• Builds on: A.6.P, A.6.5, A.13, C.9, A.18, A.19
• Read next when this burden moves: C.18 for candidate generation and open-ended search, C.19 for one explicit pool-policy result over exploration or exploitation governance, C.24 for one enactment-facing call plan or CheckpointReturn, G.5 for shortlist-family public head and emitted selected-set semantics
• Keeps outside: candidate generation, pool-wide exploration or exploitation policy, selected-set publication semantics, and execution sequencing
• Aligns with: classical evidential decision theory, causal decision theory, success-first or subjunctive repair, bounded-resource metareasoning and probe-cost doctrine, active-inference-adjacent decision work, quantum-like contextual repair where context or order effects are real, and multilevel mathematical-lens pressure at the minimal-floor level only

#C.11:End