Apart from the note about adding a copy of the procurement plan to documents, I don't think the Markdown content above or below the jsonschema directive adds anything to the descriptions in the schema and codelist. Repeating all the information means that we have to keep it in sync with any future changes so I think it would be best to remove most of it and replace it with a quoted description of RelatedProcess (using the field-description directive) and a reference to the codelist, followed by the example and jsonschema directive e.g.

A RelatedProcess is defined as:

A reference to a related, preceding contracting (or planning) process. For example, the contracting process may refer to its planning process(es). In multi-stage procedures (e.g. framework agreements with reopening of competition), the contracting process for a later stage may refer to the contracting process for the first stage.

The Related Process codelist defines the possible types of relationship. Contracting processes should refer to related processes using the codes in the codelist.

As well as providing a machine-readable link between processes, publishers may also provide a link to human-readable documentation in the relevant documents array. For example, when a contracting process refers to a planning process, a link to the procurement plan can be provided in tender/documents.

There's a conflict between the Markdown, which says that relatedProcess should be used in the cases in the list, and the schema descriptions which say that contracting processes may refer to planning processes and earlier stages.

I think should is the correct normative strength so we should update the schema descriptions (of relatedProcesses and RelatedProcess) too.

Sound good?

Happy for you to request a review from James once my suggestions are applied.