fpf.tools
Library / Checklist Principles Framework
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 171–193

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 05:29:54 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 05:30:57 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 06:55:20 UTC

CHK.1:4.2 - Propose questions and test their contribution

Write each candidate as a question with a recoverable subject and distinction. “Is the set ready?” may hide count, wording and assembly. Replace it with questions that can receive different answers where that difference changes the next move. Conversely, combine questions when splitting them creates effort without changing interpretation or action.

Choose how to obtain the questions from the uncertainty that remains. Direct practitioner selection can suffice for a familiar omission. Extract candidate questions from a usable description when the relevant properties are explicit, then ask whether those properties serve this use. Use generated proposals or comparisons between candidate results when they can expose a missing distinction. Compare the alternatives for the same needed coverage, including the effort of examining proposed criteria and removing duplicates. If the missing input is domain knowledge, another round of generation is useful only if it helps obtain that knowledge.

Comparing candidate results can reveal a missing question. Put a useful result beside a plausible but inadequate one and identify the consequential difference. Recover why it matters from the work and available domain knowledge; turn that difference into a candidate criterion. A generated contrast helps propose the question but does not establish that its preferred answer or coverage is sound.

For each candidate, establish:

  • what it asks about, including an edition or time when relevant;
  • which description, observation or judgement gives the answer meaning;
  • why a different answer could change the work or a decision;
  • who or what could supply sufficient grounds at the intended occasion.

These can be spoken answers in a small case. A maintained list benefits from nearby explanations where readers would otherwise guess. A criterion author can consult a specialist; the eventual user need not reproduce the author’s entire reasoning.

A question can support prevention, preparation for a possible failure or recovery after it. For the workshop, confirming usable backup materials can improve the response to a display failure without making that failure less likely. Ask what makes the action suitable for these actual participants and circumstances: printed copies may be ordinary access for one participant and backup for another. Keep the intended contribution explicit. Available backup materials do not establish a successful response, and preparation does not remove the possible value of improving the underlying technical Method.

A canvas can prompt inquiry as well as confirm conditions. “Who will use this result, and why?” may initiate a conversation that develops an account; “Have we identified the intended users?” asks about that account. Select the prompt that serves this occasion, and distinguish obtaining an answer from judging its adequacy. Filled sections can expose missing connections without establishing that the described proposal will work. For a seminar proposal, naming participants, activities and available support does not establish that those participants can attend or that the activities help them learn. Keep the substantive assumptions and grounds available for discussion; use the appropriate domain practice to test them.

Challenge the set with one plausible failure and one satisfactory case. Would they receive distinguishable answers? Does a missing item hide a consequential difference? Does an included item duplicate an already available adequate result? Use CHK.6 when the criterion or checking means itself remains uncertain.