Continuing the discussion from Relevance / use of Document Category codes for CSOs:
@stevieflow raises good questions. Of importance, surely, to more than "CSO publishers". All publishers that care to publish document links must be facing the question of how to use the document category codes. And the way they are set up and followed can be either more or less helpful to users of the data.
Most published records of iati-acitivities at the moment regrettably do not include document links. When they do, it often seems to be assumed that one linked document should be associated with one category code. However, many relevant documents will include more than one of these things. For instance, a project plan may include statements of objectives, beneficiaries and budget - demanding at least three codes. So the guidance should probably make it clearer that multiple codes will often be wanted. Perhaps they should be called "document features" or "tags" rather than "categories".
Seen like this, a logframe would certainly need a code A02 (objectives/purpose of activity) and probably a code A03 (intended ultimate beneficiaries). If it were a reporting logframe rather than just a planning logframe it would also need a code A08 (results, outcomes and outputs).
In response to the question "Is there a pressing need for new codes?": I do think there will be a need for new codes (and plenty of scope for them, if conceived as tags rather than exclusive categories). In particular I think it will be important to include accounts of processes and methods used in the iati-acitivity, and to distinguish reviews/evaluations of activities that have been conducted in-house from independent evaluations.