fpf.tools
Library / Development Opportunity Construction and Development-Direction Advising Principles Framework
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 1028–1041

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 11:52:20 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 11:53:41 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 14:15:10 UTC

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.