C.40.PC:4.2 - Separate the problem from the proposed answer

Describe the missing or inadequate result without building in one technology, provider, training programme, or staffing answer. Then state the proposed contribution separately.

For example:

• Problem: an acceptance engineer cannot recover which submitted claims lack a sufficient evidence basis before the handoff review.
• Proposed contribution: an inspectable claim-to-evidence account that identifies supported claims, missing premises, and qualification limits in the permitted source set.
• Acceptance expectation: the receiver can trace each entry to its source and identify unresolved claims under the applicable review criteria.

Faster approval is a different benefit claim; automatic approval is a different contribution and authority question. Preserve those differences if they become live rather than silently extending the proposal.

If rival problem formulations change the subject, boundary, evidence, intervention family, or affected interests, keep them distinct. Retain each materially different formulation with the subject, boundary, evidence, intervention and interests it changes. Obtain a bounded problem-structuring contribution through A.15.9 if the needed formulation cannot yet be constructed from the available grounds. A change of wording that leaves those consequences identical does not create another worthwhile problem.