C.11.DUA:5 - Archetypal Grounding

These illustrative situations state their conditions for the comparison. Reported experience remains attributed; the numerical example uses stipulated decision inputs, not measurements from performed experiments.

C.11.DUA:5.1 - A useful distinction now and corroboration for a later claim

Present use. An engineer reports a criterion below incoming background. The recipient wants to understand whether that is necessarily a design mistake. An archive search would take weeks. Its plausible results could change the historical account but would not change the requested distinction.

Completed answer. “On your account, the threshold was below the incoming background. That alone does not establish a mistake. A criterion for the operation’s added contribution and a criterion for total exposure govern different quantities; the latter can require reducing background too. Compare the protection gained with the feasible treatment burden before judging the threshold.”

That answer supplies the requested distinction and keeps its attribution. It makes no independently verified historical claim and issues no operating permission. The answer itself completes this use; a second account of why archives were not searched adds nothing.

Changed use. The recipient now plans to attribute responsibility in a report. Suppose an accessible contemporary record can identify who set the criterion and what it governed. A one-hour record check is feasible and could settle the attribution.

Completed advice. “Check the contemporary criterion record before attributing its authorship or meaning. The participant account supports the attributed report of experience; it does not establish that attribution. If the record cannot settle it, describe the account without assigning responsibility.” This finishes the advice, including the next feasible check and the limit on its use. It does not claim the check has occurred.

C.11.DUA:5.2 - A completed choice with conditional inquiry content

A research team chooses among feasible plans A, B and C. Two calibration states, s1 and s2, have equal weight. The team’s rule minimizes expected residual loss; shorter duration breaks equal-loss ties. The following are cardinal comparison inputs.

Completed decision. Retain T0 and: “The research team chooses B now among A, B and C for this experiment. At equal state weights the expected losses are 7, 2.5 and 4.5. We minimize expected residual loss, with duration breaking ties.” B is preferable in either state. The current basis supports this choice; no unresolved inquiry alternative needs a separate account.

A completion form demanding unused probe budget, cost and information/computation fields would add omission accounting to that result. Conditional inquiry content leaves the decision and its basis intact.

Opposed condition. Change the loss model to T1 below. A specified one-day calibration can distinguish the states perfectly, an available technician can perform it, and two days remain. The team accepts that delay for a reduction in expected loss.

Completed first choice. Retain T1 and: “Probe again with the one-day calibration. Choosing B now has expected loss 3; choosing A after s1 or B after s2 has expected loss 1.5. The available day and technician make the probe feasible, and the team accepts the delay for that reduction.” This is a completed C.11 probe-again result. The measurement remains to be performed. An actual s1 result would then select A; s2 would select B.

Transfer requiring a reason. Return to T0, now sent to a colleague considering B for another calibration range. Retain: “B was selected under the two states in T0; distinguishing those states would not alter that choice. This decision establishes no fresh calibration and must be reconsidered for another range.” The explanation changes the colleague’s use: reopen the comparison instead of treating B as generally preferred. It belongs in the same decision result and needs no empty probe block.

C.11.DUA:5.3 - Repair a study demand in an external report

A consultancy report says, “Do not introduce the revised teaching exercise until a large randomized study proves its effect.” The teaching team must choose materials for four sessions next month; that study would take two years. The present synthesis does not establish a causal learning effect. The team’s immediate question is whether the revised materials can meet the existing course requirements with less preparation.

For this illustrative comparison, both formats meet the content and participant-protection requirements, and no binding rule requires the proposed effect study for this bounded use. The remaining uncertainty is whether the revised materials run with the room’s existing tools. The team requires that readiness to be established before selecting them. A thirty-minute setup rehearsal by the instructor in that room can settle it; it creates no student exposure.

Use the team’s stipulated planning estimates: the current exercise requires ninety minutes of preparation per session; the revised materials require thirty if compatible, otherwise the team retains the current exercise. The same room and tools will serve all four sessions. The team regards compatibility and incompatibility as equally plausible and prefers less instructor preparation once the course and protection constraints are met. The rehearsal fits the available preparation window.

A successful rehearsal makes the revised materials available and saves four hours across the sessions; a failed rehearsal leaves the current exercise selected. With equal weights, the expected preparation saving is two hours before the rehearsal’s half-hour cost, or ninety minutes net. Retaining the current exercise uses no rehearsal time but forgoes that opportunity. These estimates warrant this rehearsal; its small size and reversibility alone would not.

Completed advice. “The present synthesis does not establish a causal learning benefit. Run the half-hour setup rehearsal to settle compatibility with this room’s tools. If the revised materials work, use them for the four sessions; otherwise retain the current exercise. Under our stated estimates, that information saves an expected ninety minutes of instructor time after its cost. Keep the learning-effect claim open.”

This completes the advice and the decision to probe; it does not report a performed rehearsal. Its result will determine the subsequent material choice. Compatibility feedback supports readiness in the stated room, not a causal learning-effect estimate or transfer to other conditions. If domain review finds unacceptable participant risk or a binding evidence prerequisite, the proposed use must satisfy that condition before it enters the available set.

Opposed cost condition. Suppose the same discriminating rehearsal now requires three hours of instructor time, still within the available preparation window. Its expected gross preparation saving remains two hours. The completed advice changes: “Retain the current exercise for these four sessions. The proposed rehearsal would cost an expected hour more than it saves. The current materials meet the course requirements; the comparative learning-effect claim remains unresolved.” A longer study remains a separate research proposal whose attainable contribution and burden must be justified for its own receiving use.

C.11.DUA:5.4 - Earn a long research horizon

A research group has two rival explanations of a recurrent anomaly. Neither currently supports an intervention. Suppose an available instrument and four-week allocation can discriminate a prediction on which the models differ; a much broader survey would exhaust the year’s allocation without separating them.

The receiving use is model discrimination within the year’s research program. Compare the attainable contrast and broader survey against retaining both models and spending the allocation elsewhere.

Completed advice. “Run the four-week discriminating measurement. Under the stated model predictions, its result will eliminate or revise one explanation and inform the next instrument design. The broader survey does not presently distinguish those predictions and consumes the remaining allocation. Reconsider the measurement if instrument sensitivity cannot separate them.”

The useful result sought is explanatory progress and a better basis for later research. No immediate operational intervention is needed to justify that contribution. If the sensitivity condition fails, naming it does not turn the proposed measurement into a useful experiment; revise the design or retain the unresolved models.