C.40.NU:4.2 - Search from more than one direction when it can change the answer
Use the following search prompts selectively.
| Operation | Question to try | Difference to retain |
|---|---|---|
| Develop available material | What can we change or recombine with the means we have, and what difference could we examine? | Use C.40 to perform and examine the change. Retain a useful local result and any application or next question it suggests. |
| Substitute a receiving use | Where else does this difficulty occur, and what changes with the receiver, timing, scale, environment, or acceptance expectation? | A different worthwhile result or a condition that makes the original contribution useful. |
| Substitute a technology or Method | Could manual, organizational, technical, provider, or mixed support supply the contribution differently? | A different mechanism, burden, limitation, or dependency, not just a new brand. |
| Vary a characteristic | Could lower latency, clearer limits, better accessibility, reversibility, or a different burden make a contribution worthwhile? | An action-changing characteristic and the question about its meaning or evidence. |
| Combine or change support | Could access, feedback, review, interfaces, resources, or a different division of contributions make an existing capability usable? | The support change and the dependency it would remove or introduce. |
| Challenge an assumed constraint | Is this restriction a fact, an authoritative limit, a chosen premise, or an untested assumption? | A conditional alternative and the exact premise that must be resolved. |
Do not lift a binding safety, confidentiality, legal, or authority condition merely to generate a convenient lead. If the requirement’s own justification is the live question, use C.11.DUA §4.3 with the competent domain contribution. Identify the protected person or System and outcome, governed quantity or activity, evidence and threshold basis, marginal protection, full burden and displaced protective work. Compare retaining, tightening, revising or replacing it only where those are meaningful alternatives.
Return the supported requirement recommendation and the reason or limit needed for this opportunity inquiry. Keep its present force, amendment authority and feasible window distinct. The appraisal can finish when timely amendment is unavailable; current leads still inherit the original binding limit. A possible later revision does not restore the opportunity lost under the present conditions.
Use explicit value questions: what would matter to a receiver, what burden should diminish, and what must remain protected? When group advocacy could anchor the search, let participants first propose possibilities independently, then use their differences to extend the set. Neither a workshop nor a separate group is mandatory.