Question: Ordering of fleet-related policies

Need for clarification

in the policy spec, it is quite clearly described that ordering of rules within a policy is used to model precedence of one rule over the other.
While this is comparatively easy to understand for policies addressing an individual device (time and speed rules), this is not intuitive for policies addressing an operators fleet (count): If a policy defines two rules, providers can violate both with the same fleet at the same time – and I'd expect both violations to be reported.

A quick example (illustrative):

      {
        "name": "Mobility Caps: Company 1",
        "description": "Caps for Company 1, year 2023",
        "policy_id": "1",
        "provider_ids": ["1"],
        "rules": [
          {
            "name": "Prevent down town being overloaded",
            "rule_id": "8a61de66-d9fa-4cba-a38d-5d948e2373fe",
            "rule_type": "count",
            "rule_units": "devices",
            "geographies": [
              "e3ed0a0e-61d3-4887-8b6a-4af4f3769c14"
            ],
            "vehicle_types": [
              "bicycle",
              "scooter"
            ],
            "maximum": 2000
          },
          {
            "name": "Ensure fair competition within the operational area",
            "rule_id": "57d47e74-6aef-4f41-b0c5-79bb35aa5b9d",
            "rule_type": "count",
            "rule_units": "devices",
            "geographies": [
              "1f943d59-ccc9-4d91-b6e2-0c5e771cbc49"
            ],
            "vehicle_types": [
              "bicycle",
              "scooter"
            ],
            "maximum": 4000
          }
        ]
      }

Although a provider may comply to the first rule and not flood down town with vehicles, there could still be too many devices within the whole district.

Describe the solution you'd like

I'd expect all rules with type count to be evaluated within a policy – and not interrupt the assessment after the first match.

Is this a breaking change

Currently, there is no explicit information about handling count-based policies/rules, but there is general precedence included in the spec, so I'd judge this

• Yes, breaking

Impacted Spec

For which spec is this feature being requested?

• policy

Describe alternatives you've considered

We could also split up count rules into own policies. However, this would make it more tricky to lifecycle them: They could have different dates as well as the need to be published individually.

Start with the policy spec's “order of operations” section and the count-rule behavior described in this issue. Review the surrounding policy documentation and discussion to determine whether multiple count rules are assessed independently; done means the specification clearly defines the expected handling and its compatibility impact.