E.12:1 - Problem Frame

Use this pattern in either of two working situations:

• An assurance claim has no clear practical benefit. An author or reviewer can see the proof or assurance level but cannot say what it helps the intended user understand or decide. Apply the Rationale Mandate in §4.2: explain that benefit in ordinary language, or leave the claimed benefit unexplained pending a substantive answer. The assurance-level judgement retains its own B.3.3 profile.
• A reader gets stuck, or a work demand appears excessive. Identify the actual passage or workflow, reader task, stated prerequisites and missed or costly action. Apply the bounded HF-Loop in §4.3 to compare a justified alternative while preserving the method and controls. Return a supported repair, no change or the exact evidence limit; §4.4 shows a no-change result.

The first route asks why formal assurance helps. The second investigates a concrete obstruction or burden; a general complaint about complexity alone does not diagnose it. A missing subject prerequisite, a necessary control or a genuine decision difficulty may remain after the wording is clear. Keep the inquiry’s cost proportionate to the useful result it can change.