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.