Hello all,

reviewing the solution of Case Study 1 in the Application Design lesson left me wondering. In the Org structure there was one division for each country and one implementation of the IIRS Application for each country/division.

The Ruleset list for the IIRS framework is (Application IIRSFW:01.01.01):

IIRSFW:01-01 [Framework Ruleset]
IIRSFWInt:01-01 [Framework Integration Ruleset]
Velo:01-01 [Enterprise Ruleset]
VeloInt:01-01 [Enterprise Integration Ruleset]

No questions so far. The Ruleset list for all of the implementations are equal, each referencing their specific divison. I'll show the list for the US division implementation here (Application USIIRS:01.01.01 built on IIRSFW:01.01.01):

USIIRS:01-01 [Implementation Layer Ruleset] 
USIIRSInt:01-01 [Implementation Layer Integration Ruleset]
VeloUS:01-01 [Division Ruleset]
VeloUSInt:01-01 [Division Integration Ruleset]
Velo:01-01 [Enterprise Ruleset]
VeloInt:01-01 [Enterprise Integration Ruleset]

Including the both of the Enterprise Rulesets in the application rule for the implementation causes the ruleset list of operators logged into these application to look like this:

USIIRS:01-01 
USIIRSInt:01-01
VeloUS:01-01
VeloUSInt:01-01
Velo:01-01
VeloInt:01-01
IIRSFW:01-01
IIRSFWInt:01-01
[... Pega Rulesets]

The Enterprise Rulesets are above the Framework Rulesets. The decision to include the Enterprise Rulesets in the Implementation Application Rule is neither mentioned or explained in the Design Approach document. I see no benefit here, rather some risks that in some cases an Enterprise level rule will get picked instead of a specialization of it in the framework level.
I'd be happy to learn if this is intended and why, or if this isn't the way it should have been.

Thank you :-)