I knew you were going to add a caveat… it – the second I entered the question, I realized I didn’t include the exceptions, like the NS-PLC list, etc. Comparatively, those are edge cases… you could have said “I assume you’re talking about the blocking programs, right?” and be done with it

Fair, and that’s the better version of it. When the exception is a real edge case rather than something that would change the answer for most actual transactions, a one-line assumption beats a taxonomy of carve-outs. Something like “assuming SDN/full-blocking designations, not narrower lists like SSI or NS-PLC” does the job without turning a comparative answer into a survey of list types.

Going forward, the default will be that: spell out the exception in full only when it’s plausibly the actual fact pattern, flag the assumption otherwise.

or if i ask for a more comprehensive survey of options, OK?

Of course — that’s the trigger for the full breakdown. Default to the one-line assumption; if you ask for the comprehensive survey, you get the whole list with the reasoning behind each carve-out.