C.11.DUA:4.1 - Recover the receiving question and demanded work
Identify the question the recipient needs answered and the horizon at which an improvement matters. Read an existing instruction as something somebody would actually have to perform: what would they believe, do, stop doing, postpone or spend if they followed it?
Recover a missing performer, resource, access, time condition or authority when it can change feasibility or the recommendation. An unavailable data set or a study that finishes after the decision window is a different option from an available timely check. Do not turn a simple answer into a universal plan form.
For a text review, examine the connected passage that creates the demand, including its steps, mandatory fields and completion clauses. “Consider further evidence” and “obtain it before proceeding” impose different work. A final template can impose work that the preceding prose made optional.
Keep three answers distinct:
| Receiving question | Useful answer | Governing contribution when needed |
|---|---|---|
| What does the present basis support? | An attributed claim, supported conclusion and its use limit. | A.10; direct domain inference or C.28 for a causal use. |
| What can the recipient reasonably do with that basis? | A feasible continuation, narrower use, reversible action, deferral or stop. | C.11 for a local choice; C.11.CRC when the finite contribution comparison is missing. |
| What further inquiry could improve that use? | A worthwhile attainable check, or continuation with the present basis. | C.11 for information or computation value; the direct subject method for the inquiry. |
These are questions to resolve where live, not three mandatory output fields. A source limitation qualifies the attempted claim. It does not by itself choose evidence acquisition.