E.23.CAE:5 - Archetypal Grounding

E.23.CAE:5.1 - Human knowledge that remains inert

Tell. A practitioner can explain a structural decision principle when it is named but does not use it in a differently worded workplace case. The failure may concern retrieval, recognition of applicability, adaptation, enactment, or an envelope limit; “they forgot” decides none of these.

Show. First confirm that the workplace case lies inside the claimed capability envelope. Without reteaching, present a qualified reference case that the practitioner previously solved, then the workplace case, then the reference again. Ask separately whether the principle is relevant before asking for a solution. If a structural comparison makes the principle recognizable and the practitioner can then adapt it, the observations support availability plus an applicability-selection failure under the uncued condition. They do not prove one universal retrieval mechanism or complete workplace capability. Human Capability Development or a direct domain Method can receive the result only after a separate next-action decision.

This is the minimally viable case: one holder, one Work family, one reference return, one applicability observation, one changed demand, one disposition, one surviving rival, and one candidate route.

E.23.CAE:5.2 - Organizational handover

Tell. An incident-handover arrangement previously obtained an accepted result, then fails after a shift, tool, role, record, or authority change. Calling this “organizational forgetting” hides the exact relation that changed.

Show. Name the admitted organizational holder or performer arrangement and the handover Work. Compare the earlier roster, record, dispatch tool, authority, and interface configuration with the current one. Run a protected A → B → A replay or simulation: established configuration, changed configuration, then restored configuration. Observe which routine or Method is selected, whether it can be adapted to the new shift, whether authorized performers enact it, and whether the handover result obtains. If the result returns when record access and authority are restored, configurationOrSupportUnavailable is supported. Routine theory, organization design, staffing, governance, and collective learning remain OCE or organizational questions; no human-like organization memory has been established.

E.23.CAE:5.3 - AI or robotic apparent forgetting

Tell. A continually updated model or robot previously expressed a task function or policy and later appears to forget it. A benchmark drop can reflect parameter change, task/context routing, function activation, interface state, sensing, actuation, support configuration, or a demand outside the tested envelope.

Show. Hold parameters fixed during the probe where feasible. Compare no task/context cue with a qualified task cue or routing intervention; vary cue reliability, state feedback, blocked versus interleaved order, and relevant transition statistics; then return to the earlier condition without further update. For a robot, keep sensing, controller state, actuation, calibration, tool, and environment conditions explicit. If the earlier function or policy reappears under a qualified activation condition, availability under that condition is supported and simple global loss is weakened. Function vectors, context inference, routing, controller state, continual-learning algorithms, and parameter overwrite remain model-specific explanations. If no response reappears and direct model or controller evidence supports change, capabilityClaimRevisionWarranted may be returned without claiming a universal memory mechanism.