E.23.CAE:1 - Problem frame

Use this when. Use this pattern when one exact holder previously produced a result, passed a qualified reference test, or has a current capability claim for a named Work family, but performance now fails, transfers poorly, or changes with conditions. Use it only when the next question depends on distinguishing at least two of these possibilities:

• the demand lies outside the claimed capability envelope;
• a performer, tool, record, interface, authority, state, or other support is unavailable;
• an available response is not selected as applicable;
• a response cannot be accessed or activated;
• context or interference changes expression;
• an available response cannot be adapted to the changed demand;
• the response cannot be enacted in the current performer arrangement; or
• the holder’s capability has actually changed.

First useful move. State the case in ordinary language:

This holder previously obtained this result for this Work family under these conditions. The holder now fails to obtain that result under the changed demand. Before more training, redesign, rehearsal, or parameter updating, return once to a qualified reference condition without further development, vary the smallest decision-bearing condition, and record which observable distinction changes first.

First useful result. Return the controlled observations, one or more qualified differential dispositions, the strongest surviving rival, the limits of the result, and candidate routes to the patterns or domain Methods that could receive it. The result is not a choice, authorization, selected next Work, or performed Work; it does not establish hidden memory or a causal mechanism.

What changes in practice. A practitioner no longer treats one failed performance as proof that the capability or memory disappeared. They first ask whether the claimed demand, configuration, cue or routing, applicability selection, response access, adaptation, and enactment can be separated by a safe contrast. Development or redesign begins only after a separate steering or choice result uses that evidence.

What this buys. The probe can recover a still-available response, avoid unnecessary redevelopment, identify the earliest observable failure position, and return a smaller next question to the right owner. It works across unlike holders because the common part is the contrast and disposition, not one theory of memory, organization, learning, or model internals.

Not this pattern when.

• Use A.2.2 when only the holder, Work family, envelope, measures, evidence, or currentness of a qualified holder-ability claim must be stated.
• Use A.15.8 when one exact Work or WorkPlan configuration and its recovery relation already bound the whole question.
• Use E.23.CDI when capability development has already been selected and the live question is the intervention and representative transfer check.
• Use A.15.7 when ongoing Work merely needs one next action; use C.11 only when a current chooser and OptionSet already exist and comparison can change the choice.
• Use the direct domain Method when a human memory mechanism, organization routine, continual-learning algorithm, robotic controller, medical condition, safety rule, threshold, or intervention is the live subject.
• Do not use one successful occurrence to infer a capability, and do not run a risky live probe when replay, simulation, staged testing, or another protected evidence route is required.