A.3.1.MR:4 - Solution

For every materially different reusable way that still fits the evidence, write a separate candidate account. Treat each account as one U.Episteme, keep it provisional until A.3.1 admits the candidate as a Method, and keep MethodDescription membership separate until the account concerns that admitted Method and passes A.3.2.

A.3.1.MR:4.1 - Identify each candidate account truthfully

Each positive candidate account is one U.Episteme. Before Method admission, distinguish the possible reusable way as one provisionally identified candidate entity: give it a working designation and enough source-supported participant meanings, applicability hypothesis, intended result or preserved condition, variation, and limits to tell it from rivals. That candidate entity is the account’s EntityOfConcern.

The account’s effective U.ReferenceScheme states only the designation and interpretation rules needed to read source terms such as performer, activity, cue, event, result, and stop. Add measurement or comparison rules only when the account uses them. This provisional entity identification admits neither a U.Method nor a U.MethodDescription.

When two or more candidate reusable ways still fit the evidence, return one account episteme per candidate. Each account may mention the rivals while retaining its own EntityOfConcern. If a later use needs a comparison that can be retained or reused, use A.22 to select the candidate subjects and the comparison relations that already hold and together define one comparison structure, then return a separate episteme about that structure. Otherwise compare them in ordinary working prose. Several candidates do not by themselves form one subject for a combined account.

If no candidate entity or truthful effective scheme can be recovered, lower the result rather than fabricating an account.

A.3.1.MR:4.2 - Run the nine-step recovery Method

1. State the receiving use and useful grain. Say why a reusable Method is being sought and which later action or decision would change. Do not reconstruct a fine sequence when the use needs one broad way, or a broad routine when a safety-critical branch must remain explicit.
2. Name several grounded occurrences or other direct evidence. For every claimed Work occurrence, recover each precise performer’s A.13 core and independently admit the Work under A.15.1. Add F.6 only when the candidate account also needs precise assignment-bound attribution. Keep sources such as videos, logs, notebooks, interviews, artifacts, measurements, and assertions as separate entities or epistemes with their actual evidence relations. One occurrence may open a hypothesis; it does not establish reusable applicability.
3. Write what each source supports. Keep a readable source-to-claim account of performer Systems, relevant facts, enacted-Method claims when independently grounded, actions, cues, variations, results, and stops.
4. Expose how evidence was constructed and what it misses. State which performers, objects, successful, failed, or atypical occurrences were observable and which contributions—such as embodied perception, conversation, manual adjustment, discretion, or tacit know-how—may be absent. For event data, name the preparation Method, relied-on description or configuration, source data, dated preparation Work, resulting event-log episteme, the identified event-data collection or structure that the log describes, and the interpretation scheme. If a relied-on Method, configuration, source, correlation key, event-state encoding, or observation window is unavailable, return that limit before mining.
5. Distinguish each candidate subject. For every materially different possible reusable way, state the provisional identity and scheme from §4.1. If two candidates cannot be told apart without unsupported claims, retain the ambiguity or lower the result.
6. Write one account per candidate. Ask the A.3.1 questions without granting Method membership: applicability, participant meanings, preconditions, intended result or preserved condition, reusable actions, supported parts or interfaces, allowed variation, and stops. Mark every unsupported position unknown rather than filling a familiar template.
7. Compare stability, variation, and alternatives. Ask what recurs across independently grounded occurrences, what changes with the situation, what may be a performer-specific habit or local workaround, and whether another account explains the same evidence. Frequency alone establishes neither a Method part nor its value.
8. State a distinguishing question when it changes use. If separating, repairing or lowering the candidates matters to the receiving use, identify the meaningful difference and the representative occurrence, trial, comparison or additional source that could expose it. A held-out question preserves its independence from account construction. The question need not be answerable now and is not a study commitment. A source-traceable provisional account can finish without designing unavailable or irrelevant follow-up. Separately select investigation only when its attainable contribution warrants its whole design, acquisition, interpretation and displaced-Work burden.
9. Return the strongest evidence-supported result. Return one or more candidate accounts ready for A.3.1 identification or specialist work, with a separate comparison only when needed; or lower to a Work-related record, local regularity, performer-specific habit, observed sequence, or unresolved cue. Prepare MethodDescription-authoring input separately. The same account can qualify as U.MethodDescription only after its EntityOfConcern is admitted as one U.Method and its claims pass A.3.2.

A.3.1.MR:4.3 - Select the result branch

A.3.1.MR:4.4 - Keep process-mining contributions separate

Treat evidence preparation, process discovery, and candidate-Method recovery as three contributions.

1. Named data-preparation Method or Methods select source events, name activities, correlate records and objects, choose event-state or start/complete encodings, and apply abstraction. Dated preparation Work uses named source data and produces an event-log episteme about the identified event-data collection or structure described by the log.
2. A named discovery Method may return a behavioural-model episteme. Conformance checking may compare a log with a separate descriptive or normative model. Enhancement may add timing, organizational, performance, or prediction claims. Object-centric mining may preserve several typed objects and qualified relations.
3. This recovery Method uses those well-scoped results with other evidence to return candidate reusable-way accounts, unrecorded contributions, lowering and a distinguishing question only when it changes the intended use.

None of the earlier contributions automatically recovers a Method. A discovered process model remains a U.Episteme about selected evidence unless another rule establishes a different kind or use. A conformance result relates a log and model; it does not prove that the model describes the obtaining Method or that every deviation is defective. Executability and visual process form do not satisfy A.3.2.

Treat process, actual process, case, activity, event, variant, deviation, and process model as cues to recover the direct subject, not as types supplied by the words. Use E.10 and A.15.6 when the source remains ambiguous.

A.3.1.MR:4.5 - Stop or continue to specialist Method Engineering

Stop here when the receiving use needs only a source-traceable candidate account, a comparison, or a record-only result. Continue to specialist ME.18 when the domain and consequence require a reconstruction programme—for example, sampling across performers and settings, interviews, cognitive task analysis, ethnography, protocol analysis, process-mining design, artifact analysis, tacit-contribution recovery, fragment composition, domain trial design, or stronger assurance.

ME.18 may strengthen the candidate accounts and prepare separate inputs for MethodDescription authoring. Use A.3.1 for Method identification and A.3.2 for MethodDescription membership.