DOCA.6:5 - Archetypal Grounding
DOCA.6:5.1 - An index changes the starting point of the later model step
Consider a constructed review-support inquiry over ninety days. The actual case baseline is manual qualification, with sixty minutes per representative case and no separate index-maintenance allocation. A candidate index might reduce this to forty minutes, at two maintainer hours each week and six setup hours. A later retrieval-assisted configuration might reduce it to thirty minutes, with total maintenance of three hours weekly and four additional setup hours.
These are stipulated illustrative estimates under the same representative case type and compatible service assumptions, not observed effects. Data custody, representative verification, acceptance quality, and the feasibility of fitting the transitions within ninety days remain unqualified.
| Stage-specific transition | Increment and inherited basis | Retention and limit |
|---|---|---|
Manual S0 -> build and verify index -> candidate indexed S1 | Estimated case time changes from 60 to 40 minutes; maintenance changes from 0 to 2 hours weekly; setup requires 6 hours plus the stated verification basis. | Retain as a candidate manual-support improvement, conditional on its own support and protection results. |
Candidate indexed S1 -> add and verify retrieval support -> candidate S2 | The later estimated case-time change is 40 to 30 minutes, not another 60 to 30. Maintenance rises from 2 to 3 hours weekly; four setup hours are additional to the earlier six. | Retain as a conditional later branch; assert reachability only when inherited index support, data use, evaluation, and joint timing/resource conditions are qualified. |
Candidate indexed S1 -> remove index -> restored manual arrangement | If S1 has been realized, earlier setup time is spent. Removal can restore the arrangement only if the operational and data-handling conditions permit it. | Reversibility of the arrangement is distinct from recovery of the spent time or any disclosure. |
The second transition’s marginal estimate is ten minutes per case, not thirty. A full path comparison against S0 can still be made separately, but it must include the whole path’s transition burden and time-dependent operating costs without counting the first gain again.
The table is not a Pareto-improvement claim: maintenance demand increases and the protection/quality coordinates remain unqualified. Nor does it show that the index enables retrieval merely because it comes first. The relevant engineering result must establish whether the particular index and its data representation are actually reusable for the proposed retrieval configuration.
If that connection is absent, the index can remain a manual-support candidate on its independent contribution, while its stepping-stone claim remains unknown or is rejected. The team returns that exact reuse question rather than treating the three labels as a committed roadmap.
DOCA.6:5.2 - A retained question can cease to be a stepping stone
In another constructed case, a team retains a representative-data access question because its answer could open a bounded model-evaluation route. The local retention policy permits keeping the question and its existing source notes until the data steward answers, at negligible additional burden. It authorizes no processing or trial.
An affirmative, use-specific result would allow the team to qualify that evaluation route’s remaining conditions. A refusal for the proposed processing would close the data-dependent branch. A narrower permission would create a narrower candidate requiring its own receiving-use qualification.
The steward rules out the proposed use. The team retires the stepping-stone claim for that route; saving the historical answer can prevent the same unsupported request from recurring. It retains the independently permitted manual-support direction and the receiving problem. The changed premise does not erase the whole portfolio.
DOCA.6:5.3 - Mira retains directions before choosing a programme
In this constructed case, Mira is exploring review contributions over four months. She keeps two directions: develop more independent review capability, or improve the conditions for supported contribution. The first needs HCD evidence about representative practice, feedback, and transfer; the second needs an actual continuing support arrangement. Both can remain described while those questions are open.
A preliminary exercise is only a candidate stepping stone toward independent review until its enabling relation and feasible development conditions are supported. Being the first item in a course sequence is not that evidence. Retaining its description does not reserve Mira’s practice time or a specialist’s attention.
When direction advice is requested, the bounded engagement and PSD results remain separate from the authorized direction choice. HCD.2 then composes and compares human capability-development programmes when that is the selected question. An optional PSD programme recommendation, authorized programme choice, and Learning Product Guide remain further distinct results. If an adequate programme comparison already exists, the programme-level question can begin there; Mira need not reconstruct an opportunity portfolio to use it.