The standard does not define how LD.LLN0.LocSta impacts to subordinate levels.
For LD.LLN0.Loc vs. LN.Loc a dominance statement can be found in Part 7-4 (see description to LLN0.Loc), but not for LocSta.
The applicational idea expressed in the L/R concept to be detailed in Part 7-1, to allow a further refinement in Part 7-4 Annex B.
A definition may result in a future extension of the description for LLN0.LocSta:
"If this 'LocSta' (in the logical device) is in contradiction to the 'Loc.Sta' of any other contained logical node, control authority at station level is always dominant (see also Annex B)."
I suggest to discuss this tissue within the new TF of revision of 7-500 and to set it to future improvement.
21 Feb 22
Option 1) only LN0.LocSta is implementating a ctlModel != staus-only, while the LN.LocSta are exposing a ctlModel = status-only -> the LN0 .LocSta is propagated in the subordinate level.
Option 2) both LN0.LocSta and LN.LocSta are implementationg a ctlModel != staus-only.
If LN0.LocSta is true, then it is propagated in the subordinate level.
If LN0.LocSta is false, then individual controllable LN.LocSta can be set to true.
Both approaches are correct, I would say; it is an implementation choice.
Move to disucssion.
01 Feb 22
move to accepted
07 Dec 21
LocSta was introduced for allowing a switching hierarchy between StationLevel and RemoteLevel (ControlCenter).
LN.LocSta shouldnot be in contradiction with the LLN0.LocSta, but should be an indication that LocSta is considered by the function represented by the LN.
I think a statement indicating that they cannot be contradicting is usefull and could be used during conformiting testing.