Commentary thought

[John Cahill]

The Commentary is being written by the authors of the Standards to explain the Standards and their intent.

The draft Commentary creates many new requirements under argument of 'intent". The average user of the Standards will ask "I don't see the Standards requiring that!"

It appears the authors intent of the Standards is very different than the average interpretation of the Standards posted and adopted into Rule.

It is amazing how this compares to current politics regarding progressive versus constructive interpretation of the Constitution.

IF the Commentary was discontinued then how does the authors attempted explanation of intent affect future interpretation on the Standards?

One can say, that the Commentary was just a draft document and someone else can say the draft document was clarification of intent; the fact the project was discontinued may have no affect on the new requirements caused by the Commentary.

Should all of the new requirements caused by the Commentary be clarified by TREC via Requests for Interpretation even if the Commentary is discontinued?