CB.12:4.2 - Reconstruct what happens at an actual opportunity
Use a recent episode, or a short observation of the next relevant one. Recover the situation in which the action would have helped, what the person noticed, what they began, what they could complete and what they received.
Keep four questions distinct:
| Question | An observation that can change the next move |
|---|---|
| Did a relevant opportunity occur and become noticeable? | The intended situation never occurred, was not recognised, or a notification arrived at an unusable time. |
| Could the person begin the wanted action? | The entry was hard to find, the request was unclear, or required material and permission were absent. |
| Could they carry the action through? | They started but lost time, access, assistance or an applicable method before completion. |
| Did the episode supply its intended value? | The answer arrived too late, the activity failed its purpose, or the person no longer wanted that result. |
Ask for the participant’s account rather than inferring a motive from silence. A person who reads an applicable answer without posting may have completed the wanted action. A daily visitor may still be unable to obtain help.
Where an explanation remains uncertain, choose a small change or observation that can distinguish the live alternatives. For example, making the return link available at case closure can test a findability problem; sending more reminders while the response team is absent tests no useful repair. Preserve the other relevant conditions so that the observation remains interpretable, and keep its conclusion local.
If the expected benefit is unclear, ask what the person hoped the episode would settle and what remained afterwards. Compare plausible results rather than selecting a reward in advance. A maintained explanation may settle one question; another needs a peer to inspect unfamiliar conditions; a desired social encounter can have a different useful result. Agree a small trial of the relevant alternative through CB.1/5, then use the person’s account and the receiving result to decide whether the original action is still worth repeating.
Compare episodes that led to useful action with ones that did not. Look for the event that made the need apparent and the conditions in which the person could respond. Distinguish a potentially useful cue from a merely coincident feature: a notification may have arrived every day, while the actual occasion was completion of a case. Choose the next observation to separate the plausible explanations; treat an unresolved pattern as uncertainty rather than a personal defect.
HCD.3 supplies a fuller comparison when a possible human capability limitation is the receiving question. It compares that explanation with method, access, support, organisation and measurement problems. Use its result rather than diagnosing a lack of motivation whenever participation falls.