This content has been marked as final. Show 1 reply
Perhaps the question will change will some clarified terminology. Rules are not "called" in OPA and the rule author should not concern themselves with "calling rules" nor the order of evaluation of rules. this is true because OPM uses declared policies as the basis for expressing the knowledge necessary to make determinations from known facts. Policies or rules are evaluated automatically based on the data available and the relevance of the policy's conclusion to whatever goal (or ultimate determination) is being pursued. To assist with clarification and maintenance of rules, no two rules should have the same conclusion.
In a simple case, a rule's condition is a boolean or variable attribute and the rule's conclusion(s) are boolean attributes or variable attributes in a comparative expression (the later also resulting in a boolean condition such as the person's age in years > 18).
The conclusions and conditions of rules can "chain" meaning that one policy's conclusion can be used as a condition in another policy. This means that yes, a policy expressed in Excel can conclude an attribute which in turn is referenced as a condition of a rule in Word. It is also true that a conclusion of a policy expressed in Word can be used as a condition of a policy expressed in Excel. However, in order to express logic/policies with clarity, you should not have more than one rule which concludes the same attribute nor relationship regardless of whether the policies are expressed in Word or Excel.