Practical entries

These are selected examples, not a catalogue or a prescribed workflow. Bring the work, question and observed difficulty you actually have. If none fits, use the Table of Contents and the direct patterns.

You can ask an assisting agent: “Explain this and give me comments in the language of my work, without framework jargon.” Use the equations only when their assumptions fit; a short causal account can already settle the next action.

DEPENDENCE — A useful service is being called a parasite

• Situation: Your work depends on an external contribution, and that dependence is being treated as proof of harm.
• Question: What changes for the participants while support is available, if it disappears, and under an available substitute?
• First useful result or blocker: A comparison that separates current usefulness, interruption exposure and replaceability, or an identified unknown that changes the decision.
• Start with: DTM.1.
• Stop or return: Stop if that account settles the choice. Study spread only when continued uptake or changing dependence remains material.

Practical-Use Cards

These examples retain longer inquiries across several methods. The repeated wording helps keep their intermediate results and returns together; each pattern supplies the operation itself.

INNOVATION — A useful change meets protection

• Situation: A proposed practice appears useful, but existing checks or exchange conditions restrict its use.
• Question: Which restriction protects needed work, and which change could preserve that work while allowing the useful contribution?
• First useful result or blocker: A conditional explanation linking consequences, uptake, compatibility and protective response; a missing distinction remains a specific investigation.
• Mantra: Name whose work changes; recover uptake and its conditions; separate protection from its costs; test the resulting continuation and return to evidence.
• Start with: DTM.1 → DTM.2/.3; use DTM.6 for interaction, DTM.8/.9 for protection, then DTM.4 for persistence.
• Stop or return: An absent capability is not resistance. Return to the subject learning or engineering method; stop the harmful-variant branch when harm is not established.

DIVERSION — A spreading procedure undermines the work

• Situation: A frequently reused procedure receives continuing support while its recipients report worse results.
• Question: Does support favor a misleading signal, do selection conditions favor the variant, or is another mechanism responsible?
• First useful result or blocker: A discriminating causal account and a feasible response comparison, not a label applied to its users.
• Mantra: Establish the consequence; trace support and continuation; distinguish diversion from selection; compare response targets; check what persists or changes afterward.
• Start with: DTM.1 → DTM.7 or DTM.5; use DTM.6/.3 for consequential interactions and spread, DTM.8/.9 for response, and DTM.4 for return.
• Stop or return: Retain competing explanations if the observation does not distinguish them. A protection proposal needs the actual means and authority to perform it.

RECOVERY — Restore a capability without restoring everything

• Situation: Removing a harmful arrangement also removes a contribution on which useful work depended.
• Question: How can the needed function be recovered and sustained through another tool, method or division of work?
• First useful result or blocker: A feasible replacement contribution, its acquisition need and the conditions for its continued use.
• Mantra: Keep the needed function; obtain a replacement contribution; recover its learning and transmission; test continuation without recreating the harmful dependence.
• Start with: DTM.8 with FPF C.36.RP; DTM.2/.3 connect acquisition and transmission, and DTM.4/.6 test continuation under the changed arrangement.
• Stop or return: A description of the replacement does not establish capability. Obtain the subject method and test it in the whole work before claiming recovery.