DOCA.7:5 - Archetypal Grounding

DOCA.7:5.1 - Employer-sponsored advice remains Mira’s development question

This is a constructed case. Mira’s employer funds four months of career-development advice. Mira asks a separate adviser whether to pursue cross-disciplinary review capability or a specialist engineering direction. The employer also wants information for a later staffing decision.

The adviser first separates the intended uses.

In the case, the adviser’s competence for this bounded career service is established; specialist development and transfer assessments remain outside that competence. Mira accepts the bounded service and the employer agrees to the disclosure limit. Existing information identifies the two directions, but no qualified result supports the proposed independent-review transfer. The adviser returns the two-sentence boundary in :4.7 with the limit on independent-review transfer. A specific HCD request follows only when its attainable contribution warrants acquisition; this service-boundary answer needs no request to be complete. Admitting the service did not make a course recommendation ready.

Now the employer requests raw assessment notes for staffing. That is a changed audience and use, not another copy of the agreed service summary. The adviser withholds that disclosure pending its applicable basis and revisits the affected service terms. Mira’s earlier qualified assessment claims retain their established scope; the adviser takes neither her development choice nor the employer’s staffing decision.

If the sponsor refuses any service except undisclosed assessment transfer, the current request may end with a scoped blocker or referral under the actual professional conditions. It does not justify an adverse judgement about Mira.

DOCA.7:5.2 - A provider interest changes the service, not the engineering facts

In a constructed organization case, a committee asks a consulting team to compare internal development, a provider arrangement, and mixed support for a ninety-day reliability need. The committee is the intended recipient and assumed authorized choice owner.

One consultant has a material payment interest in the named provider. A technical result about internal development is independently qualified, but the requested whole-set recommendation has not been made. The consulting team applies the relevant conflict requirements before offering that recommendation. Disclosure and independent comparison may be sufficient in one relationship; another may require recusal or referral. The pattern does not decide that professional question from the presence of a disclosure note.

If the sponsor demands a concealed provider preference, return the blocker on that service. Keep the independent technical result within its existing scope. Do not recast the conflict as proof that either internal development or the provider is technically infeasible.

DOCA.7:5.3 - A model is the subject, not automatically the client

In a constructed AI case, an authorized operations team asks a separate advisory arrangement whether to tune a model, change its retrieval support, or alter human–AI allocation. The team receives the advice; the changed model or composite arrangement is the subject. The advisory service still needs its own scope and qualified technical inputs.

An evaluation covers configuration A, while one proposed direction changes tools and oversight to B. The useful return keeps B’s evaluation and safety premises unqualified while retaining the supported scope of A. Select a B-result request only when its obtainable contribution warrants acquisition; neither the limit nor a request supplies a deployment recommendation. The adviser’s separate use of a drafting tool changes neither that gap nor the client’s information-use restrictions.

For contrast, “tell this unmanaged biological lineage which direction it should choose” supplies no lineage-local recipient or chooser. Return that attribution gap to the evolutionary account. A research team asking about a proposed intervention is a different recipient-owned case requiring its scientific, ethical, safety, and governance basis.

DOCA.7:5.4 - Do not create personal advice from an audience description

A provider asks which learning programme to design for future participants. The provider’s programme-design decision is the receiving use; the described audience is a design assumption, not a collection of assessed clients. Use PSD.1 and the learning-product design practice for that question.

If Mira later asks whether that programme fits her own development, her later Work, starting conditions, support, and qualified comparison become relevant. A well-described audience does not supply those personal premises. Conversely, an adequate existing programme comparison can support a programme-level advice question without repeating opportunity construction.