No. Again, we’re off-topic, but while this document’s routinely-cited, it doesn’t clearly and directly state that the Church’s universal norm is COTT; neither does Memoriale Domini, on which it rests.
It’s not that I’m not convinced; the inference is straightforward, in my judgment. But reasonable people continue to challenge the point, and I want something that I can cite which clearly, directly, and unambiguously states what we already know (because it is implicit or presupposed in documents like the above): “the universal norm of the Catholic Church is Communion on the Tongue, whence dispensation is given in many countries,” or a formulation no less clear. That document doesn’t exist, so writing to CDW would be an attempt to elicit one.
This is the sort of issue that one might expect canon law to resolve in a single, terse statement—but it doesn’t. You’d expect a Vatican document to do so. You’d also expect that the implication is so clear that an explicit statement would be unnecessary, but it ain’t so: if you look through the linked thread, you’ll see plenty of people arguing, presumably in good faith, positions that are entirely contrary to what seems manifest to me.
Since I’m already off-topic, I may as well answer NewEnglandPriest. The issue isn’t whether COTT or CITH is permissible. Both are. We know this. The underlying question that I’m working on is which of two permissible methods I should use; that’s hashed out at greater length than is needed here in the linked thread. A relevant consideration in answering that question is the subsidiary question of whether COTT is, as it appears to be, the universal norm of the Church from which dispensations are made. And while CDW has been crystal clear that COTT may not be denied, it is emphatically not correct that “[t]he CDW has already been as clear as possible on the matter” actually at hand.