CHK.6:4.1 - Recover the claim, basis and intended reliance

Name the criterion, the question it interprets and the subject of that question. Recover the description and the assumption connecting it to useful work. Use ME.3 when the criterion needs construction from the subject and situation.

Then name the checking means: a person applying a judgement, a comparison script, an observation tool or a model-based evaluator. What does it actually observe or consume? What answer does it produce? What will another person or system infer from that answer? ADM.7 supplies claim-checking distinctions from administrative practice. A method name or test file is not itself proof that the intended check occurred.

For a model judge, include the supplied evidence and instructions, the criteria grouped in each call, and any rule combining repeated verdicts when these can change the relied-on answer.

Separate two uncertainties. A criterion can faithfully express the description while the description poorly serves the work. A checking means can also fail to apply that otherwise useful criterion. Investigate the uncertainty that changes the intended use.

A cheap indirect signal can justify further examination without certifying the larger result when it passes. An obsolete edition label on the card box can prompt inspection of its contents; a current label alone does not establish that every card was replaced. Name this intended inference and next move. Challenge both false reassurance and unnecessary alarms. If people can satisfy the visible signal while bypassing the substantive work, examine whether the signal remains informative for the intended use.