E.11:4.6.2 - Resolve a first-pattern ambiguity with a worked comparison

When a short entry and the candidate’s Problem frame still leave two different starting points plausible, ask which fact would change the first result you need. A shared topic word is weak discrimination: “contract” may concern recognition or atomic claims; “improvement” may concern a measured rate or causal support. Recover the current object, proposed use and available facts before choosing by that word.

Use the worked comparisons in E.11:5.7–5.14 only when their working question resembles yours. Each shows a discriminating fact, the direct Solution worth opening, and an ordinary stop or return. They are examples, not a complete pattern catalogue or a reading sequence. A sufficient compact cue can bypass them.

Compare the plausible entries against the fact: what would each help you obtain first, and what would make that result premature or irrelevant? Obtain the fact from the task material or the inspected source. If it is unavailable, name the missing fact and the choice it prevents; an attractive example supplies no missing project evidence. Then open the promising direct pattern’s Solution and check its actual inputs and boundary. If that body changes your understanding of the question, revise only the affected comparison and keep earlier useful reading.

Stop entry comparison when the direct body gives a justified starting point, no remaining plausible entry can change the choice, or a concrete missing basis prevents it. Continue with E.11.PUA to use one selected pattern. If inspected candidate uses still require applicability, recommendation, coordination or ordering, use E.11.PUR; presenting an example first has settled none of those judgements.

For publication, expand an ambiguity only when compact guidance cannot resolve it truthfully. A serious consequence of a wrong choice, repeated misclassification, difficult retrieval or a materially new comparison can justify a worked case. Show the choice-changing fact and its consequence in ordinary language, retain the direct-pattern boundary, and make the relevant example findable from the working question. Readers use that explanation without becoming its authors or completing a comparison form.