CB.7:4.2 - Find the actual paths of help, explanation and influence
When the relevant people are already known through recent work, approach them directly. When reach or understanding is uncertain, start with the question the relationship evidence must answer. “Who helps new repairers judge an unfamiliar case?” selects different relationships from “Who can book the room?” or “Whose explanation do members of this local group consult?”
Ask people about concrete episodes and whom they approached. Include participants outside the most visible circle and an accessible way to answer privately. Compare their accounts with permitted observations or work traces. Arrange a useful introduction with the introduced person’s agreement; leave the connection unresolved when the available accounts are insufficient.
Keep the different relations intelligible. Being named frequently, connecting otherwise separated groups, being trusted on a subject and holding a mandate can belong to different people. OCE.2 supplies recovery of actual work, authority and resource relations when formal descriptions are misleading. A simple account of who supplied which help may be enough.
Use the inquiry to choose an action:
| What the inquiry reveals | Possible next move |
|---|---|
| A group already obtains reliable help from a willing local practitioner. | Ask whether that person wants a bounded organising contribution and what support it needs. |
| Two groups have useful knowledge but no workable exchange. | With their agreement, obtain an introduction or a joint case through CB.2/5. |
| The central organiser hears only one group’s account. | Obtain the missing group’s own account before adapting the offer. |
| Several people rely on one overburdened intermediary. | Reduce the promise, prepare another contributor or provide an additional route that participants can actually use. |
| People understand the proposal but find the practice unsuitable. | Return the substantive problem to its owner; changing the messenger will not repair the practice. |
With a willing participant who understands the receiving group’s work, prepare the explanation of the proposed change. Start from a familiar case: what could people do differently, what useful result is expected, and which conditions or commitments would change? Use language and examples the recipients can inspect. Return a substantive objection to the person who can change the practice or offer.
Ask a recipient to work through that case and explain what they would do next and where they would seek help. If the action or consequence is misunderstood, repair the explanation and try the affected part again. If it is understood but infeasible or unwanted, return that condition instead of repeating the message. Later use can show whether the explanation was sufficient for the actual circumstances; agreement with the organiser is not the test of understanding.
Explain why information about relationships is being obtained, who will see it and what decision it will inform. Obtain only what that use needs. A public network drawing can reveal relationships that people did not agree to disclose; use a restricted account or an aggregate explanation when that is sufficient. If participants use a shared drawing to reconsider their cooperation, obtain agreement to that activity as well.
Distinguish evidence used to select an organiser from changes to the relationships themselves. Later, inspect whether the promised exchange occurs and supplies value. Increased connectivity or similar behaviour among connected people alone cannot establish that the organising intervention caused improvement.