fpf.tools
Jump to text
On this page
Copy and source
Original source · lines 89847–89865
Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-24 02:57:05 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-24 02:57:30 UTC · last check 2026-10-24 04:05:10 UTC

C.43:4.6 - Use subsequent evidence to revise the relevant dependency

Observe what happened at the connection that matters to the next decision. Sometimes the result alone is enough. When it is not, distinguish the issued instruction, performed action and resulting change so that the next move addresses the relevant cause.

Compare the observation with what the continuation relied on. A mismatch can arise from changed conditions, an inadequate account of the state, a false causal expectation, unavailable execution or interference. Investigate the alternatives that lead to different responses. A bounded safe continuation may be available before the full diagnosis; complete explanation is not a universal prerequisite for action.

Use C.11.DBR to reconsider a decision whose relied-on basis has changed. The return depends on the failed dependency:

  • When the purpose and causal account remain suitable but the situation has changed, update the estimate and select another action or plan.
  • When performed action has different consequences from those expected, examine the observations and causal account; revise the model or Method where that difference warrants it.
  • When execution is unavailable, change the allocation, provision, timing or commitment, or obtain the missing means.
  • When required timing is lost, use §4.5.1 to distinguish action placement, recurring interval, information delay, shared-resource interference and a changed reference; repair the relation on which the continuation depends.
  • When the result is no longer wanted or an accepted constraint has changed, return to the participant or practice that can revise the purpose.
  • When the existing arrangement cannot obtain or use the required information and action in time, reconsider its architecture through C.32.LCA.

These are alternatives to distinguish in the actual explanation, not obligatory layers of escalation. A goal can change without prediction error; a better controller can be needed for an unchanged goal. Revise dependent conclusions and preserve those whose grounds remain valid.

These returns can also change the means of further action. When the receiving work develops knowledge, Methods or capability and chooses subsequent attainable problems, connect this control account to C.40.OD through §4.8. A bounded control result can close while that development continues; a completed result can itself provide the new possibility, without an execution failure to trigger it.