DTM.1:5 - Archetypal Grounding

DTM.1:5.1 - A service improves work but concentrates dependence

Consider a hypothetical team whose old process yields 10 acceptable analyses per week. With a service it yields 14 at an additional cost affordable for the work. Under an outage the supported process yields only 4; a tested substitute would yield 9.

The method produces three separate comparisons. Current supported output improved by 4. Current outage exposure is larger than before. Replaceability would reduce that exposure, but would not preserve all normal output. None of these differences alone proves exploitation. The next action depends on the required continuity, supplier conditions and cost of the substitute.

If the supplier benefits from continued use, that fact also does not settle parasitism: both parties may benefit. Evidence that a supplier deliberately obstructs portability would introduce a further causal claim, not retroactively change these numerical comparisons.

DTM.1:5.2 - The same spread permits opposite evaluations

Suppose a conditional population model gives fractions 0.30, 0.25 and 0.45 in three modes of tool use. Scores of 1, 0.5 and 0.1 for a separately specified task give a mean of 0.47. Scores of 1, 1.4 and 0.9 for another justified assessment give 1.055.

The arithmetic is a constructed example, not measurements of users. Its purpose is to expose the missing premise: state fractions do not determine task performance. The practitioner must supply the task, capability criterion and evidence for the scores. A model of spread cannot supply them merely by naming one state “dependent.”

DTM.1:5.3 - A remembered movement is not the promised capability

A learner can recall a turn sequence and depend on a teacher’s cues while still failing to coordinate balance and timing. Separate the transmitted description, the cue-supported execution and independent execution under the intended conditions. The dependence may be useful temporary support. Calling it harmful before comparing learning outcomes would obscure the missing coordination method.

The next inquiry concerns the relevant bodily, rhythmic and learning methods. DTM does not infer a physical cause from the learner’s difficulty.