B.5.PI:4.2 - Compare before deciding what is wrong

Connect the intended use with an accessible episode. Try using the result, ask its recipient to demonstrate the use, compare an available prediction with what occurred, or work through a nearby case whose consequence can be established. Include the adjustments that made a successful outcome possible. Keep observations, memories and constructed cases distinct.

Ask what makes an apparent difference acceptable or inevitable. “This always happens” states frequency; it does not establish adequacy. “The procedure was followed” supports conformance; it does not establish that the procedure answered the receiving question. Conversely, unfamiliarity does not make a result defective. A symbol that looks like a numerical answer may be an agreed status marker; an adjustment may preserve a necessary constraint.

Use subject knowledge to interpret the comparison. When that knowledge is missing, the question may concern what the result means or which conditions justify its use. Do not invent the missing observation or explanation. If the available account already explains the difference and supports the intended use, continue the work without creating a problem.

An anomaly is a difference relative to an account, expectation, comparison class or intended use that merits consideration. Make that reference clear when it affects the next move. Statistical rarity, a breached requirement, a felt mismatch and an unused possibility are different reasons to look. Problematization develops or questions what is taken for granted so that a consequential question becomes possible. It can change the comparison itself: something previously normal can become questionable under a better account. Anomaly detection therefore need not be completed before problematization starts.