DOCA.4:4 - Solution

Construct whole-enough prospective directions around the receiving contribution. Preserve their finite changes, supports, consequences, and unresolved premises before asking which is reachable or preferable.

DOCA.4:4.1 - Recover the contribution and the actual starting condition

Name the developing subject and configuration, receiving Work or use, proposed result, acceptance expectation, horizon, scenarios, and protected conditions. Use the current problem/contribution account from DOCA.3 or an adequate direct source. Preserve an unconfirmed problem as a hypothesis rather than strengthening it through detailed design.

Recover the actual starting configuration S0: relevant capability, access, support, Work, interfaces, resources, and current readings. Mark unknowns. A job title, organization chart, tool inventory, or source publication is not that baseline.

Use DOCA.1.CHR for the characteristic meanings, scales, current/intended/protected/unknown readings, and evidence window needed by the inquiry. Characterize only what could change the direction or its qualification; do not commission a complete diagnosis by default.

DOCA.4:4.2 - Turn a label into a complete contribution

For every serious proposal, explain what the subject or supported arrangement could contribute in the receiving situation. State the recognizable situation, useful move, first result, and stop or non-use boundary. Include the support and substantive conditions that change how the contribution is obtained.

When a pattern is the proposed address, cite its complete current body and recover the action-bearing contribution from it. Do not substitute its title, PatternID, a summary card, or a list of topics for that contribution. Keep the body’s relevant applicability, assurance, and stopping conditions; the direction need not copy the entire source.

If the receiving claim depends on a Method or MethodDescription, preserve its established relation under A.3.1 and A.3.2. A pattern is a MethodDescription only when it describes an already admitted Method as its EntityOfConcern. Otherwise use its content as pattern guidance and leave that stronger relation unasserted. In neither case does reading or publishing the description establish the subject’s capability.

For a person, connect the contribution to representative later Work. “Use A.15.9 to formulate and rely on a bounded outside-practice result in evidence review” can specify a contribution; “finish A.15.9” cannot specify capability or transfer. Current HCD and the relevant domain practice supply those results.

DOCA.4:4.3 - Construct materially different directions

Vary the change that could make the contribution possible. Useful contrasts include developing a capability, making an existing capability usable through access or support, obtaining a qualified external contribution, changing the work or interface, or changing the proposed contribution itself. They are prompts, not mandatory candidate families.

Distinguish two questions:

• Different contribution premises: directions address different worthwhile problems, results, uses, or acceptance expectations. Preserve those differences for the receiving comparison.
• Different ways of obtaining one contribution: candidates hold the result premise stable but vary the supporting arrangement. For organization-change decisions, use OCE.8 when that whole same-result question is current.

Use PSD.8 when the receiving work is a bounded decision-support alternative set. PSD.8 can retain alternatives for different live formulations; same-result parity is not its universal entry condition.

Retain the actual baseline, a smaller repair, a staged direction, or no new development when each genuinely answers the inquiry. No change still carries continuing Work, resource use, and exposure. A missing alternative is an honest return; do not invent a weak candidate to make a preferred one win.

DOCA.4:4.4 - Specify the finite change and support configuration

For each retained direction, state the finite change Delta and candidate configuration S1 relative to S0. Give enough support detail to identify the material dependencies and contradictions:

• what contribution or Work would change, and who or what would perform or support it;
• required capability, access, feedback, tools, Methods, interfaces, provider contributions, resources, and authority where each is consequential;
• prerequisites, sequence or coexistence conditions, constraints, and interactions;
• transition and implementation Work, including migration, setup, evaluation, recovery, and continuing-service needs;
• what can be reversed, at what burden, and what remains irreversible; and
• later options that the change could open, close, delay, or preserve, with the basis and uncertainty of those claims.

Describe how the proposed performers, supports, and relations fit together under these conditions. A feedback provider needed by two candidates may have capacity for only one. A combined model-and-human arrangement may add review or recovery Work that neither component proposal named.

Use direct holder, engineering, operations, organization, provider, safety, and other practices for their mechanisms and quantities. Unknown support does not establish realizability. Keep the direction conditional, identifying the result needed to construct a realizable candidate; reject or revise it when a qualified condition rules out its necessary support. Do not discard the worthwhile contribution merely because this way fails.

DOCA.4:4.5 - Preserve the complete finite-comparison basis

When making a finite contribution comparison, use C.11.CRC. Compare actual or relied-on S0, finite Delta, and realizable candidate S1 under one system boundary, receiving decision, horizon, scenarios, constraints, interactions, transition basis, uncertainty, and evidence window.

Keep four coordinate families visible: useful results; consumed resources; consequences for affected Systems and the distribution of gains and burdens; and explicitly protected conditions. Retain each characteristic’s scale and polarity. Do not hide one family in another or average incompatible scales.

For a Pareto-improvement claim, no coordinate in the declared complete set may worsen and at least one must improve under that same basis. Otherwise state only the supported relation, such as beneficial under a stated value judgement, harmful, dominated, non-dominated, or indeterminate. A direction with a possible gain and an unresolved protected condition is not thereby a Pareto improvement or a selected option.

If reachability or another necessary premise is missing, give the conditional configuration and comparison question to DOCA.5; do not manufacture a complete comparison. A numerical or analytical result from elsewhere remains limited to the configuration and use its supplying practice qualified.

For a later step, use its stage-specific S_i, finite Delta_i, and candidate S_i+1, not the original baseline by default. DOCA.6 maintains the resulting finite path or branch account, including each step’s burden, reversibility, option effects, and reopen condition. Neither the path nor its separate comparisons select a programme.

DOCA.4:4.6 - Return a usable candidate or the exact gap

An ordinary direction account can say:

For this receiving Work and horizon, change this part of the current configuration to obtain this contribution, with these supports and protected conditions. The material transition and consequences are these; this premise remains unknown, and its positive, negative, or narrower answer would change the candidate in these ways.

Expand only what the next use needs. A complete enough direction may still be conditional; distinguish a qualified proposed configuration, a conditional direction with a named premise, an incomplete fragment, and a direction ruled out for the current use.

Use DOCA.5 for jointly necessary transitions and competing support. Use DOCA.6 for retention or a finite path when that is the question. If comparison or advice is current, provide the direction and its qualified premises to the appropriate PSD or domain use; DOCA.7 supplies the development-advice relationship boundary only when advice is requested.

For human development, a direction choice may become an input to HCD.2, which composes and compares programme candidates without choosing. A programme-level advice request starts with those comparable candidates; it does not relabel a DOCA path as a programme. Learning Product realizes a Guide from an authorized selected programme and focal pattern contributions. A Guide is not produced by rearranging direction labels.

Reopen only the affected contribution, support, transition, comparison, or downstream use under DOCA.8 when its premises change.