In the justification section examples of possible moves/abilities are allowed but they should only be used as hypotheticals. If you find that a concept that relies on very specific abilities or moves then chances are the concept is too narrow and not something that would get slated. Not that the exception is with role-defining moves, as exploudit seemed to mention above. However, it's not necessarily just about such concepts having a move that is "vital" to it, but rather that the move defines the role of the CAPmon; in effect, the move defines the concept.
To clarify, here's a few examples of feasible concepts that focus on role-defining moves:
-Hazard Remover (rapid spin, defog)
-Hazard Setter (spikes, stealth rock, toxic spikes)
-Cleric (aromatherapy, heal bell, healing wish)
However, concepts that offer little variation in execution while mandating specific moves/abilities would be bad concepts:
-Blizzard Spammer (requires a move in Blizzard and then forces an accuracy boosting ability or Snow warning; not a lot of room for proper discussion in the ability stage)
-A mon that uses drop boost moves but has a way to restore the drop boosts or turn them into an advantage (this concept is boring since it's easily solved with either contrary or white herb)
An example of how to talk about specific moves/abilities in a concept justification might look something like:
Concept: Kingdra of the Sun. Justification: Chlorophyll is obviously one possible ability, but other options such as Harvest or Solar Power exist , and our ability doesn't necessarily have to activate only in the sun so long as the mon as a whole works very well under the weather. For example, a lot of sun teams struggle with Stealth Rock, and so an ability like Magic Bounce could dissuade the opponent from setting up hazards, allowing the setter to more reliably set, making the CAP able to benefit from the sun more reliably / more often. (Not saying this is a good competitive explanation per se, but the main point is that abilities are being introduced as one option of many potential options, which shows the concept has flexibility and doesn't "poll jump" by mandating specific items.)
To clarify, here's a few examples of feasible concepts that focus on role-defining moves:
-Hazard Remover (rapid spin, defog)
-Hazard Setter (spikes, stealth rock, toxic spikes)
-Cleric (aromatherapy, heal bell, healing wish)
However, concepts that offer little variation in execution while mandating specific moves/abilities would be bad concepts:
-Blizzard Spammer (requires a move in Blizzard and then forces an accuracy boosting ability or Snow warning; not a lot of room for proper discussion in the ability stage)
-A mon that uses drop boost moves but has a way to restore the drop boosts or turn them into an advantage (this concept is boring since it's easily solved with either contrary or white herb)
An example of how to talk about specific moves/abilities in a concept justification might look something like:
Concept: Kingdra of the Sun. Justification: Chlorophyll is obviously one possible ability, but other options such as Harvest or Solar Power exist , and our ability doesn't necessarily have to activate only in the sun so long as the mon as a whole works very well under the weather. For example, a lot of sun teams struggle with Stealth Rock, and so an ability like Magic Bounce could dissuade the opponent from setting up hazards, allowing the setter to more reliably set, making the CAP able to benefit from the sun more reliably / more often. (Not saying this is a good competitive explanation per se, but the main point is that abilities are being introduced as one option of many potential options, which shows the concept has flexibility and doesn't "poll jump" by mandating specific items.)
