This article studies interpretative paradigms in law, especially precedents and standard decisions. Special Appeal-RESP No. 1878849 was selected, in which it is argued that the functional progressions of civil servants are not prevented when personnel expenses exceed the limits of the Fiscal Responsibility Law, for the hermeneutical exercise of demonstrating that a judicial manifestation can be both a precedent and a standard decision, depending on the context of subsequent cases. The general objective is to contribute to understanding the operationalization of these interpretative paradigms, based on Law as Integrity. The problem addressed is: what challenges and distinctions could RESP No. 1878849 be subjected to, considering that decision as a binding standard decision in the first case and precedent in the second? It was concluded that paradigms can be challenged, and it is relevant to think about ways of dealing with an instrument created to prevail in the face of its formally binding effectiveness, such as the standard decision. In addition, the paradigms studied are distinguishable, but the standard decision formed in a repetitive special appeal is aimed at identical legal issues (so that the absence of identity indicates a distinction), while the precedent requires a more sophisticated hermeneutical effort.