E.22:1 - Problem frame

Use E.22 when a request such as “review this” leaves it unclear what the recipient needs to learn about an object version. A floor check, a search for further improvement and a check of applied findings can require different answers about the same object.

First useful move: state what the recipient will use the answer for, identify the object version and choose the judgement that is still missing. Then name the criterion, the grounds the evaluator must examine and the answer to return. Section 4.0 develops this short construction; section 5 gives a filled request.

When those bindings are already settled and one direct evaluation is enough, run that evaluation. Rewriting its question as a separate frame adds no answer. Use E.23 when repeated improvement across passes is needed.

What goes wrong if missed: a reviewer can answer a different question, count closed findings without judging the changed object, or propose improvements that damage a quality the recipient needs.

What this buys in practice: requester and evaluator agree on the question before doing the evaluation. A small floor question can stay small; a request for alternatives can name the additional trade-offs and proposals it needs.

The result of framing is the question about the selected object version. The evaluator must still obtain the quality result, and the recipient must still make any decision that uses it.