The operation name "$evaluate-measure" in "Measure/$evaluate-measure" suggests that the operation applies to (i.e., evaluates) all types of Measure resources, of which there are currently multiple (and potentially many in the future). However, the intent of $evaluate-measure as currently specified is the "quality measure" use-case. In practice, other types have not been implemented as $evaluate-measure with a "type" parameter. They have been implemented as separate operations with use-case-specific names. For example, Measure/$care-gaps in Da Vinci DEQM (https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/davinci-deqm/OperationDefinition-care-gaps.html) and Measure/$risk-adjustment (WIP) in Da Vinci Risk Adjustment (https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/davinci-ra/index.html). 

 
A specific use-case name would be clearer and more consistent. Following the pattern of other implementations, possibly "Measure/$quality-measure" or just "Measure/$quality."

The change would impact other IGs, including Da Vinci DEQM:

  - Individual Reporting: https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/davinci-deqm/indv-reporting.html#individual-reporting

  - Summary Reporting: https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/davinci-deqm/summary-reporting.html.   

Maybe consider a backwards compatible approach.