Bruce Timm has been very clear from the start of these that they meant to have different continuities telling different stories. The example I stated in my previous post was an exception because as I believe Bruce stated himself it was logical to have that follow up story as the sequel.
Of course they're in different continuities; that goes without saying. The question I'm asking is whether it's correct to describe that as the result of a "mandate" rather than a choice. A mandate is something mandatory -- an order imposed by someone else. Calling it a mandate is saying that the makers are being required to do this by their employers and don't have the choice to do otherwise. But they have done otherwise, have made one exception to date, and what you're saying here is that they did it because they decided it was logical to do so. That argues for the overall lack of continuity between films being their own choice, in which case "mandate" is the wrong word.