DOCA.4:5.2 - A faster retrieval candidate is not a cost-free improvement
This constructed example stipulates a service unit’s actual manual qualification arrangement and an engineering estimate for a possible indexed arrangement over a ninety-day horizon. The result premise is fixed: a source-traceable claim-to-evidence account under the same acceptance criteria. The candidate does not replace independent acceptance. Review capacity and scarce index-maintainer capacity are separate resource coordinates.
| Finite-comparison coordinate | Actual S0: current manual account | Candidate S1: indexed account | Qualification and consequence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Result latency | 60 minutes per representative package in the case record. | 40 minutes estimated for the same package class. | Potential improvement, not an observed effect of an implemented change. |
| Index-maintainer capacity | No index maintenance is needed in this manual configuration. | Two maintenance hours per week are required by the estimate. | A resource increase that cannot be omitted or silently netted against a different person’s time saving. |
| Transition | Continuing operation. | Six setup hours plus a representative verification are needed. | Setup and verification compete with other unit Work. |
| Affected-System distribution | Reviewers currently bear the recovery burden. | Some burden moves to the index maintainer. | The recipient of the time saving and bearer of the new burden differ. |
| Protected conditions | Existing confidentiality and traceability basis. | The proposed index’s custody and coverage are not yet qualified. | The protected-condition premise blocks a positive whole-configuration conclusion. |
The finite change is adding and maintaining the index, not merely subtracting twenty minutes. Discarding the index could reverse its future use but would not recover spent setup time. A later model-assisted retrieval candidate would start from whichever configuration is then actually assumed, including its index-maintenance burden; it cannot reuse today’s S0 silently.
The return is a conditional configuration and two decisive questions: can the access owner qualify the proposed custody/use, and can the unit supply setup, verification, and maintenance without violating protected continuing Work? Even if latency improves, the resource increase prevents a no-worsening Pareto claim. C.11.CRC supplies the finite-comparison discipline; DOCA.5 must qualify the joint premises before a stronger reachability claim. The illustrative numbers establish no measured effectiveness.