fpf.tools
Library / Development Opportunity Construction and Development-Direction Advising Principles Framework
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 1019–1033

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 07:05:20 UTC

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.