C.11.DUA:4.2 - Compare attainable inquiry with its receiving value

When an inquiry is proposed or a consequential uncertainty, anomaly or applicable requirement makes one live, identify a plausible result that would change the conclusion, choice or warranted use. Compare obtaining that result with the feasible alternatives. These may include using present knowledge, a smaller reversible step, a different source, a narrower claim, deferral or stopping.

Include the attainable inquiry’s cost, delay, displaced work and downside. Compare what it adds to the present configuration and horizon; C.11.CRC supplies that missing comparison when needed. A large uncertainty is not sufficient reason for a large study. Ask how resolving it could improve this use. A cheap probe that can change an irreversible commitment deserves a different answer from an expensive check whose plausible results leave the useful answer unchanged.

Qualitative or ordinal judgement often suffices. A numerical value-of-information or computation model is useful when it improves the choice; do not demand probabilities or a common scalar merely to fill a form. If plausible differences in judgement could reverse an important recommendation, examine those differences at proportionate effort. Keep distinct consequences visible when a scalar would hide the trade-off.

An inquiry can be useful even if the physical action stays the same. It may establish which claim is warranted, meet an applicable evidence condition or make a proposed use admissible. Conversely, inability to obtain evidence does not make the stronger claim true or admissible.

For exploratory research, name the explanatory, model-building, hypothesis-discriminating or option-creating gain at the research horizon. A study can earn its cost through those gains before an operational intervention is selected. The direct research method must still connect its attainable observations to that gain.