Catalyst should spend less money filling their rules books with fluff and spend more money on making sure their rules work correctly.
Save the fluff for campaign setting books.
Sadly this will be ignored and Catalyst will go on with what they have been doing without any consideration for the playerbase whatsoever.
Witness the lack of errata after what, two years?
Witness their horrible/ lack of customer service.
Gaaah.
The problem with that, Wakshaani, is that such an umbrella rule isn't printed anywhere, or we wouldn't be here asking about it.
Until Rigger 5.0 we didn't have confirmation that Autosofts were restricted by the Pilot rating. And Rigger 5.0 itself makes no mention of the fact that an RCC has a similar limitation, which we still don't know if is Device Rating or Data Processing. I hope you understand how critical the lack of such an umbrealla rule in the core rulebook, not to mention Rigger 5.0 is, as without it people who don't read this forum and this thread in particular, have no idea such a rule even exists!
This is why rulebooks can't be written in a vacuum, and why I think Catalyst seriously needs to work on their consistency. Without that, any aspiring GM has to come up with their own interpretation of an already complex ruleset whose main rulebook is almost 500 pages and that has 6 core rule supplements already...
/rant
Chalk this up for something that desperately needs to be in the FAQ/Errata document for this book.
