E.1:5.2 - Decide a proposed reuse rule and its benefit
An engineer proposes instruction R1: “Before reusing a result, compare its subject/edition, question/use, relied sources/dependencies and qualification/currentness with this decision. Reuse only if they still answer the concern; reopen the affected question otherwise.” The artifact is a short instruction with that comparison and a filled case.
R1 supports Didactic Transparency by making the reason for reuse or reopening inspectable, and Evolvability by identifying which changed premise reopens the result. Its intended measurable benefit for the engineer is fewer invalid reuse decisions than the simpler rule “reuse the result with the same label.” The scope of the following evidence is only this stipulated desk comparison:
| Same task: decide whether the result may be reused | Label-only rule | R1 |
|---|---|---|
| The label and all four relevant conditions match. | Reuse. | Reuse after the comparison. |
| The label matches, but a relied-on source now concerns a different population. | Reuse, including an inapplicable result. | Reopen the affected applicability question before reuse. |
There is one invalid reuse under the label-only rule and none under R1 in these two cases. This supports the stated failure-prevention argument; it is not an observation of reader behavior or proof that review is faster. The added comparison has a cost. If a receiver claims “R1 makes all reviews 20% faster” without observations, remove that outcome claim and retain the bounded aim, or select a task-matched inquiry before making it. If the proposed rule merely requires a new label and says “supports Evolvability,” return the missing continuity or change-handling contribution; the label alone does not satisfy CC-Vision.2.
The next action is therefore specific: use the supported instruction for this bounded concern, investigate a claimed reader benefit through E.12 when worthwhile, or repair the unsupported invariant argument. New evidence about the source population reopens applicability; new evidence about reading cost reopens the benefit claim.