CHK.1:5 - Archetypal Grounding
A facilitator describes set S as twenty readable cards with wording v2, assembled for delivery. She assumes those cards will support a comparison exercise. The organizer’s draft asks only, “Are the cards ready?”
| Selected question | Basis and contribution | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Are all twenty described cards present and readable? | Count and inspect S against the contents description; expose omissions and unusable cards. | Does not establish instructional suitability. |
| Does the wording of each card match v2? | Compare the actual wording with the identified description. | A match does not show that v2 is a useful choice. |
| Is the identified set assembled for delivery? | Observe the actual collection and packaging for this delivery. | Assembly can persist while wording becomes obsolete. |
The facilitator retains a separate exercise trial because a complete, readable and accurately worded set can still confuse participants. That trial uses domain judgement about the exercise. Selection has produced three useful physical-set questions and an explicit return for the encompassing question.
In a catalogue importer, “Did the file import?” does not establish identifier preservation, duplicate reporting or preservation of the previous catalogue on parse failure. The team recovers those three described properties and selects questions about each. Input A17 becoming stored identifier 1 demonstrates why generic success is inadequate. Whether the three properties are enough for the team’s actual use remains a further selection question.
Suppose the cards are produced on a shared printer. A complete file does not establish that the printing service can produce readable cards at the needed occasion. The selection follows one extra link: the printer’s configuration and the person able to use it. If the print setup itself is being changed, questions about that enabling work become useful too. The design file describes the proposed cards; materials enter the print run, which produces the physical set. Questions about the setup, its description, the printing Method and the actual run concern different subjects. Preserve those relations when connecting their answers to the card preparation. If those enabling results are already competently supplied, the organizer can use them instead of designing a second printer-maintenance checklist.
For a community running the seminar, distinguish the organizer’s recruitment and support work, members’ learning and practice, and their joint use of the exercise. Sending invitations does not establish attendance; attendance does not establish a member’s ability to use the distinction; individual ability does not establish that members coordinate their contributions. A useful selection might therefore ask what support was provided, what a member can actually do, and what happens in the joint exercise. Choose only questions that matter to this community’s work. One person may both organize and participate, but an answer about her organizing work does not answer the question about her learning. Return the capability question to HCD.3 and an organizational participation difficulty to OCE.10.
These cases are constructed. The gain illustrated is a more discriminating question set, not an empirical claim about fewer errors.