'Beer' and 'Galaxy' have come as close as anyone to explaining this thread. I too have 20K+ and am an active checkpilot on the B777. I too have flown the L1011. Time to move on.
My memory isn't 'long enough' to remember when the concept of CDAs came into being, but this isn't something new. In view of a number of disasters and incidents having to do with loss of situational awareness to name only one; industry, technical safety groups, regulators, manufacturers, and training organizations put forth the idea of CDAs. Eventually, Jepp notified users through a Briefing Bulletin, that it would begin publishing charts to include recommended 'Distance/Altitude' on its charts to aid in establishing CDA approaches. These strips would only be published on approaches that could provide adequate obstruction clearance to approximate a 3 degree slope. Furthermore; the 'strips' would closely approximate a glidepath of 3 degrees to the MDA. This was pre-VNAV days. I flew these approaches into Geneva and practiced them regularly and they worked well. (both L1011 and 777 in '97-'98)
I was fortunate to be invited to a Boeing checkpilot meeting in the spring of 2001. We talked of stabilized approaches and then we talked of VNAV approaches in specific. We were informed that Jepp would begin to 'code' all approaches so that VNAV could be used on all non-precision/GPS approaches and that the philosophy was to allow the flight to descend continuously in a stabilized energy condition to the MDA which would closely approximate the Visual Descent Point. All of the VNAV approaches were designed to use full automation but the flight crew could still use the FD in VNAV mode, all the way down to MDA. In fact, it is a fun maneuver to manually fly the VNAV 'all the way down' and watch the PAPI...always 2 white-2 red. Note that I talked of stabilized energy conditions earlier. On a stabilized CDA approach, we have near constant energy conditions all the way to MDA and if conditions permit, through to the beginning of flare, where energy changes.
If conditions at MDA do not permit a landing, only one change of state is required from the CDA and that is of nicely entering TOGA and the energy state changes to go-around.
When practicing a CDA either in VNAV or using FPA or VS using the briefing strip dialogue, the result is usually the same: The aircraft is always stabilized throughout the approach and the runway (conditions permitting) will appear exactly where it should be: at the MDA and the PAPI will be in the correct slope.
Derived Decision Altitudes (DDAs) came about as a result of these approaches NOT being thought of as precision approaches and that the maneuvers weren't as accurate as an ILS approach, thus a 50 ft drop-out cushion was allowed for pilot or autopilot 'dropout'. After years of operational proof, it has been found that the VNAV approaches are almost as good as their ILS companions and some regulators will allow for a CDA DH because the accuracy has been so good. In fact, there has been some talk that we will see VNAV approaches down to 200 ft. minimums.
As far as providing documentation on the 50 ft. DDA, the information has crept through training manuals and company operation manuals and has always been a briefing item during sim training and checks. Boeing's philosophy was that they have wanted to see a VNAV approach that was good to a 200 (h) minimum.
The fact is that CDA approaches, without a doubt is the safest method of performing a non-precision approach to minimums for reasons that I previously stated. Times have changed and most good pilots have changed with it.