We can start by reviewing the overarching directives that are taken into consideration during day-to-day operations within GDS leadership.
_{For the full document, can you annotate and then link each of these examples to where they’re located in the CSAMC? I’d like for legionnaires to be able to quickly find a regulation if it needs referencing. – Iza
Of course, I’ll do so on the next editing pass. – Hansuke}

I believe the best method of illustrating this is to walk you through the process of how a new regulation is created. My reasoning for this is that new regulations are extremely rare, as they're submitted to the full gambit of directives and requirements that result in 90%+ of all proposals being rejected. As we approach new regulations, so too do we approach the manner in which GDS is run and administered. Though as many will no doubt notice, GDS has a number of baseline regulations that have been grandfathered in to the current system from our early days. This includes regulations regarding terms of address, uniform standards, and other such matters. These regulations are regularly reviewed and adjusted as the needs of the organization change, with some being kept and others being struck as no longer necessary.
You can all breathe a sigh of relief that we managed to convince the SNCOs to drop the regulation that had enlisted legionnaires calling the room to attention anytime an officer entered.

For our example of how regulations are approved, we will consider the following scenario:
A senior officer brings forth a proposal for a new regulation concerning the distribution of BHA (Basic Housing Allowance) to single (not married) legionnaires who live off-post. At the time the regulation is submitted, the rate of BHA issued to single legionnaires is 30% of their base pay for enlisted, and 20% for officers. Note that BHA is not issued to legionnaires who are married, as they receive what's called FSF (Family Supplemental Funding) but that falls outside the scope of our scenario.

This proposed new regulation will change it so that the percentage of the BHA payout will be cut by 2% each successive year of service going forward. Thus, an E-3 that lives off post would make 30% BHA during their first year, 28% the next year, and so on.

If the legionnaire secures a promotion to E-4, the increase in their base pay will mean that 28% the following year will be equivalent, if not greater, than the 30% they made as an E-3.

Let's not focus on the officer's reasoning behind this change, but rather focus on the vetting and approval process for this new regulation.

New regulation proposals are submitted to the Administrative Legion's Department of Standards, where a team of enlisted specialists and officers trained in law review the proposal. If the proposal does not conflict with existing regulations and standards, it is passed along to a review committee comprised of myself, both Arbiters, and a committee of two senior officers and two SNCOs from every legion.

The evaluation of proposed regulations is announced throughout the organization, and legions may elect volunteers (Legionnaires, NCOs, junior officers, etc…) to be present for the evaluation to voice any objections or questions should they so choose.

Evaluation of the regulation goes down the following list of directives, and failure on a single directive counts as an immediate failure overall:

1. Is this in the best interest of Iza's legionnaires?

2. What problem is this regulation trying to resolve?

3. Are there numerous documented instances of this problem to establish historical precedence?

4. Can the benefit of this regulation's implementation be summarized in three sentences or less?

5. What are the consequences, long term and short term, if this regulation is not implemented?

6. Does this change carry with it unjustifiably strenuous costs on both the time of legionnaires and funding?

7. Why should legionnaires care about this regulation?

8. Do legionnaires care about this regulation?

In our hypothetical scenario, this regulation would be rejected based off the first directive; a cut to BHA is not in the best interests of legionnaires, rather it's for budgetary reasons. In addition, the supposed failsafe to this regulation that “if the legionnaire promotes then it would be a boost despite the cut” is just that.
A conditional alternative based entirely around an “if”.

What if the legionnaire isn't up for promotion? What if the legionnaire is up for promotion, but missed their evaluation due to illness, injury or family emergency? At the end of that year the legionnaire would both have missed their promotion on top of having their BHA cut for no beneficial reason. Perhaps that 2% allowed them to place their child in a preferred daycare due to being a single parent, perhaps that 2% allowed them to fund a hobby that kept them sane after their shift.

When we look at the approval process a regulation goes through, that is the same gauntlet all orders and operations within GDS administration must pass through.

An aspect of our operations at the upper levels of leadership is rather inverse to that of a traditional military. Legionnaires, NCOs, and junior officers are built up and given all opportunities possible whereas Senior Officers, SNCOs and primary officers are subject to the most stringent of standards. Once a legionnaire reaches the highest possible rank, they should be held to standards above all others.

Further sections will touch on other directives but recall the above eight standards. While not universal, all still come into play no matter what the area may be, and leaders who fail to adhere to any of them face consequences we reserve solely for those above a certain rank.