DOCA.3:4 - Solution

Write a small, source-qualified account of why a change could be worth pursuing and what contribution would answer it. Keep a supported problem, an open hypothesis, and a rejected lead visibly different.

DOCA.3:4.1 - Recover the receiver’s situation

Name the developing subject, the prospective receiver, the later Work or use, the horizon, and the relevant conditions. Ask what result is currently inadequate or unavailable, what happens if nothing changes, and which evidence or participant account supports that description.

Use qualified evidence about actual Work or receiving demand when it exists. A receiver’s report can establish their stated concern; its causal explanation, scale, representativeness, and effects on others may still need qualification. Do not infer organization-wide demand from one person’s preference.

If the inquiry cannot yet identify a receiving situation, use DOCA.1 or DOCA.2 to recover a worthwhile next question. When usable material and an available operation permit a revealing local change, their C.40 entry lets that inquiry proceed before its future application is settled. A use suggested by the result is then a problem hypothesis to examine here. Keep an unknown receiver explicit; do not invent a customer to complete the account.

DOCA.3:4.2 - Separate the problem from the proposed answer

Describe the missing or inadequate result without building in one technology, provider, training programme, or staffing answer. Then state the proposed contribution separately.

For example:

• Problem: an acceptance engineer cannot recover which submitted claims lack a sufficient evidence basis before the handoff review.
• Proposed contribution: an inspectable claim-to-evidence account that identifies supported claims, missing premises, and qualification limits in the permitted source set.
• Acceptance expectation: the receiver can trace each entry to its source and identify unresolved claims under the applicable review criteria.

Faster approval is a different benefit claim; automatic approval is a different contribution and authority question. Preserve those differences if they become live rather than silently extending the proposal.

If rival problem formulations change the subject, boundary, evidence, intervention family, or affected interests, keep them distinct. PSD.3 supplies plural formulation work when a decision-support engagement is current. A change of wording that leaves those consequences identical does not create another worthwhile problem.

DOCA.3:4.3 - Establish what makes the problem worthwhile

Ask who is affected, why the missing result matters, at what scale and horizon, and under what burdens and protections addressing it could be worth pursuing. Include material contrary evidence and consequences for affected people or Systems, not only the proposed beneficiary.

Use the domain practice that owns each relied-on claim. A human capability need belongs with current HCD and representative later-Work evidence; a service failure belongs with the relevant operations and domain evidence; safety, access, finance, legal, and other specialist claims retain their own qualification. Use DOCA.1.CHR when the value account relies on unclear or incompatible characteristics.

Return the strongest supported statement:

• a worthwhile problem for this receiving use under stated conditions;
• an attributed or contested value claim requiring a named resolution;
• an unconfirmed problem hypothesis with the exact confirming question; or
• rejection or revision of the lead because no worthwhile problem is supported at the chosen scale.

A receiver’s desire alone does not defeat a binding protection. Conversely, missing feasibility does not disprove the problem: retain the worthwhile problem and name the unresolved way of addressing it. For a comparative claim such as “worth the transition cost,” obtain the applicable comparison rather than treating this inquiry as its proof.

DOCA.3:4.4 - State the proposed contribution and its acceptance expectation

Say what could be supplied, for which receiving use, under what conditions, with what exclusions, and what the receiver could inspect to determine whether that contribution was supplied as proposed. Keep the proposed result, the acceptance criterion, and any actual acceptance separate.

Use A.2.3 when a promise’s content must be identified or relied on. Read an existing provider promise from its actual source; mark a newly constructed promise as proposed. Neither description establishes a provider commitment, capability, access, provision, fulfilment, or achieved benefit.

A research contribution can be a criticism, discriminating experiment, reproducible comparison, or clarification of an unresolved claim. It need not be sold, but its intended epistemic result and evidence standard must still be inspectable. Do not impose a commercial service model on that use.

DOCA.3:4.5 - Link the contribution to the problem without assuming success

Explain why the proposed result could address the missing receiving result. Mark that connection as supported, conditional, disputed, or hypothetical according to its evidence. Identify what a plausible contrary answer would change.

Ask the smallest question that distinguishes the live possibilities. “Does the reviewer need a source-traceable account of unsupported claims, or is the delay actually caused by unavailable acceptance authority?” can redirect the contribution. “Would you like better AI?” cannot distinguish the problem from the preferred solution.

Use existing adequate results before requesting new Work. When another practice must supply an answer, use A.15.9 for the bounded result request and reliance boundary. The supplying practice answers its own substantive question. A proposed interview, measurement, or experiment still needs the permissions and conditions applicable to that activity.

DOCA.3:4.6 - Return the account at the strength it supports

Ordinary prose is enough when the receiver can recover the situation, worthwhile difference or hypothesis, contribution, acceptance expectation, evidence limits, and next question. For example:

The case’s acceptance engineer reports that unsupported claims cannot be recovered reliably from the incoming package, and the stipulated review records support that concern. We propose a source-traceable claim-to-evidence account, not approval; the next question is whether the available records and review criteria cover a representative package without breaching confidentiality.

Use DOCA.4 when the contribution premise is adequate and materially different directions need construction. Return to DOCA.2 when the lead must change. Stop with a problem hypothesis or rejection when that is the truthful result. If an adequate direction already exists, proceed directly to the missing reachability, comparison, or advising result; no mandatory cycle through earlier PatternIDs follows.

Reopen the affected problem or contribution under DOCA.8 when the receiving use, value evidence, acceptance expectation, source, horizon, or protected condition changes. A narrower permitted source set can narrow one proposed contribution while leaving the receiver’s problem and another direction intact.