E.12:4.3 - Mechanism 2: The Human-Factor Loop (HF-Loop)

Use this bounded inquiry when an intended reader encounters a specific consequential obstruction in a named passage or workflow under its stated prerequisites, or when a concrete work demand may cost more than it contributes to the receiving value. A workload report can identify a concern; it does not diagnose its cause or establish a psychometric threshold.

1. Recover the working question. Name the reader’s task, passage or workflow, stated preparation/access prerequisites, failed or costly action, and the result it should support. Preserve the relevant assurance and control conditions. If the suspected demand cannot change a worthwhile result, C.11.DUA can justify stopping the inquiry at that limit.
2. Inspect the initial attempt before explaining. For an actual reading inquiry, retain what the reader initially understood and tried with the public passage and stated task inputs, including where the action stopped or went wrong. Distinguish an implicit condition, a missing stated prerequisite and an unavoidable subject question. Choose the inquirer for this question; profession, competence, assignment and amendment authority remain distinct.
3. Compare a meaning-preserving alternative. Make an implicit condition explicit, reduce an unnecessary demand or change the expression only where the suspected obstruction warrants that comparison. Hold task, prerequisites and assurance constant. Check the full connected passage under F.19; a shorter text that removes a needed condition has not preserved the method. Evaluate the attainable inquiry’s burden under C.11.DUA.
4. Qualify the evidence. An expert walkthrough judges recovery from the public text; it is not an observed reader response. Preserve an actual reader’s unassisted first attempt. A repeat after explanation is assisted and familiar, not another independent first reading or proof of reduced workload. Psychometric or causal conclusions require their own selected domain methods and data.
5. Stop with the supported result. Return a justified wording/content repair, no change, or the exact evidence limit and any worthwhile next question. The inquiry proposes; the applicable content/amendment authority decides. Use E.9 for a substantive FPF decision and its lighter wording route for ordinary editorial repair. Neither a role title nor a DRR implements or authorizes an amendment by itself.