E.22:4.0 - Form a usable first request

Start from the result the recipient needs. A document can be required to explain an operation; the operation can be required to obtain a result; that result can support another decision. Select the object and judgement needed now. A candidate’s narrower description cannot establish that the larger receiving need has been satisfied.

1. Name the use and object version. Say who needs the answer, what work or decision it will inform, and which version is being evaluated. Include the conditions that make a difference to that use. If the receiving need is unclear, recover it with the recipient or the applicable problem-formulation method.
2. Choose the question and criterion. Say whether the recipient needs floor adequacy, further improvement, a comparison of trade-offs or the effect of applied findings. Use the characteristic space and predicate or comparator supplied by an adequate evaluation. State the floor or improvement aim and the qualities a proposed repair must preserve.
3. Connect the criterion to attainable grounds. Identify the content, observations or reasoning needed to answer it. Following a source into an instruction can establish a coherent construction; trying the instruction on material can expose a missing action; an observed application can support a performance claim under its conditions. State which answer is required, what the intended reader or performer can supply, and what the candidate must supply. If indispensable grounds are absent, ask for the exact unresolved condition rather than an unsupported pass.
4. Specify the useful return. Name the evaluation’s result form and the conclusion it can support. A floor answer identifies sufficiency or the first needed repair; an improvement answer also describes the proposed change, expected gain, protected trade-offs and closure test. State evaluator conditions only when they change the question or admissibility of the answer.

When several contributions are needed, retain what their available evaluations establish and ask about the necessary connection still unanswered. A good explanation, a supported source claim and a correct constituent operation can all remain valid while their combined use is unestablished. Evaluate that connection at its own object and use; unlike scores do not form a quality score for the whole.

Write the request in ordinary language with these bindings recoverable, as in section 5. The local names and schemas below specify their exact meanings when the question is represented as a QualityEvaluationQuestionFrame and QualityEvaluationUseDeclaration. Reuse the selected evaluation’s adequate descriptions and defaults. Add an intended evaluator’s identity or a dated-Work account only when the receiving question requires it.

Stop framing when the question and expected answer are sufficiently determined for the intended evaluation. If an existing request already supplies them, perform the direct evaluation and inspect whether its grounds support the consuming conclusion. A separate frame is useful when it resolves missing or disputed bindings; it does not improve an already adequate answer merely by restating them.