BK, thanks for the reply #5.
The question was to explore the extent of independent creation of SOP and logical association with the operation.
Whilst others quibble about limits and wording, there are few examples of what actually happens.
3B no DH, land after AH. "For all intents and purposes; land."
3B with DH; what is the decision. Sufficient visual cues - for what, …
* auto-land; an arbitrary regulatory requirement, i.e. confirm that you are landing on 'concrete' (somewhat illogical for fail op systems). Or a 'real' decision involving the possibility of GA from on the runway (if 0ft) - why do this, relative risks, likely hood of failure, etc.
* manual rollout if dual RO system fails; this would be a 'real' decision based on the visual cues, and assessment of not having rollout control / guidance. How is the system assessment made, who calls, what. In all likely hood the aircraft will have touched down before the situation is understood, then relative risks, etc.
We tend to complicate operations where events are extremely remote, generating additional memory procedures, calls, training (how and when to make 'word perfect' calls).
C'est la vie.