--- /dev/null
+# Example demonstration instruction modified to SVP64 (badly)
+
+Although split-fields are used in PO1-Prefixing, and it is reasonable
+to expect to clarify "in-situ" the behaviour of `{MLS:D-form}`
+instructions as opposed to `{D-Form}` instructions, there are reasons
+why doing the same for PO9-Prefixed SV instructions is neither safe
+nor sensible. These are illustrated through a hypothetically-proposed
+extension to `addi` / `paddi` (Public v3.1 I 3.3.9 p76).
+
+* Firstly in SV, it is prohibited from adding new operands.
+ `addi RT,RA,SI` may **only** be extended to `sv.addi RT,RA,SI`.
+* Secondly, the field positions and bits are also prohibited from
+ being changed merely because of a PO9-Prefix.
+
+**Add Immediate** D-Form
+
+* addi RT,RA,SI
+
+```
+ DWI:
+ | 14 | RT | RA | SI |
+ | 0 | 6 | 11 | 16 31 |
+```
+
+**Prefixed Add Immediate** MLS:D-form
+
+* paddi RT,RA,SI,R
+
+```
+ Prefix:
+ | 1 | 2 | 0 | // | R | // | si0 |
+ | 0 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 11 | 12 | 14 31 |
+
+ Suffix::
+ | 14 | RT | RA | si1 |
+ | 0 | 6 | 11 | 16 31 |
+```
+
+**Vectorized Add Immediate** SVRM-Normal:D-form
+
+* sv.addi RT,RA,SI
+
+```
+ Prefix:
+ | 9 | .. | Stuff | EXTRA | MODEBITS |
+ | 0 | 6 | 8 | 17 26 | 27 31 |
+ Suffix:
+ | 14 | RT | RA | SI |
+ | 0 | 6 | 11 | 16 31 |
+```
+
+Pseudo-code:
+
+```
+ if "addi" then
+ RT <- (RA|0) + EXTS64(SI)
+ if "paddi" & R=0 then
+ RT <- (RA|0) + EXTS64(si0||si1)
+ if "paddi" & R=1 then
+ RT <- CIA + EXTS64(si0||si1)
+ if "sv.addi" then # beginning of spec writer nightmare
+ # spec writer's worst nightmare unfolds here
+ svra <- DECODE_WITH_EXTRA3(Suffix.D-Form.RA, EXTRA[0:2])
+ svrt <- DECODE_WITH_EXTRA3(Suffix.D-Form.RT, EXTRA[3:5])
+ svsi <- Suffix.D-Form.SI
+ # finally got to the actual add which is exactly the same as "addi"
+ GPR(svrt) <- (svra|0) + EXTS64(svsi)
+```
+
+Special Registers Altered:
+
+ None
+