This doesn’t sound right to me. An ADL2 template is just more archetypes, with the addition of a structure that allows overlays to be ‘inline’ for the template (as we designed some years ago;). So there’s no problem to add the same kind of coded term constraints as you can in an archetype.
Or - are we talking about the strict v non-strict idea of ‘introducing coded constraints’ in a template?
If that’s so, we agreed on the fix for that, which is to add a strength attribute to C_TERMINOLOGY_CODE and a function to indicate required() (so a quick check can be done), as per this discussion.
So assuming we implement that, is there still a problem for AD?
I’m fine with that. But let’s deal with each issue in turn…