should data-trace record load data before or after ACPERM updates? (#463

)

@tomaird @jamie-melling

src/insns/load_tag_perms.adoc

@@ -13,4 +13,6 @@ Similarly, sealed capabilities are not modified as they are not directly derefer
 NOTE: Missing <<el_perm>> also affects the level of sealed capabilities since notionally the <<section_cap_level>> of a capability is not a permission but rather a data flow label attached to the loaded value.
 However, untagged values are not affected by <<el_perm>>.
 
-NOTE: While the implicit <<ACPERM>> introduces a dependency on the loaded data, microarchitectures can avoid this by deferring the actual masking of permissions until the loaded capability is dereferenced or the metadata bits are inspected using <<GCPERM>> or <<GCHI>>.
+NOTE: While the implicit <<ACPERM>> introduces a dependency on the loaded data, implementations can avoid this by deferring the actual masking of permissions until the loaded capability is dereferenced or the metadata bits are inspected using <<GCPERM>> or <<GCHI>>.
+
+NOTE: When sending load data to a trace interface implementations can choose whether to trace the value before or after <<ACPERM>> has modified the data. The recommendation is to trace the value after <<ACPERM>>.