EAM.16:5 - Archetypal Grounding

In a constructed example, three CityWater planners receive a common-horizon appraisal template and attend a documented explanation. Those records establish distribution and teaching. The practice leader asks what is known about continued use. The investigator reports those facts and states that later use by planners and recognition by the committee have not yet been established.

Suppose two later appraisal records are then available. One uses the stated horizon and compares eligible combinations; the other ranks interventions by condition alone. The investigator can report that the two observed appraisals differ in the relevant practice. That is evidence about those occasions, not retention across the whole population or a causal effect of the teaching.

If a decision about continuation needs more evidence, the investigator considers later comparable appraisals and committee decisions whose interpretation is attainable and useful. If change is selected, the practice leader can propose a worked example or a changed appraisal instruction within their authority. The committee’s actual choice of the FFMK programme remains separate from any decision to retain the combination-comparison rule for future work.

A separate constructed case shows a branch. At another utility, central planners prepare programmes whose assets share funding and outage constraints. Depot planners also appraise isolated assets where the stated service, funding and calendar conditions do not couple that choice to other assets. Available appraisal records show the central group comparing combinations and the depot group comparing the eligible options for one asset, with a stated horizon and whole-life costs. Requiring a programme table for every isolated choice adds preparation without introducing another eligible combination. The practice owner is authorized to set these groups’ appraisal instructions and decides to retain both forms: central planners use the combination comparison; depot planners may use the single-asset comparison only while the independence conditions hold. Both retain the service requirements and actual decision authorities. A shared constraint sends a depot appraisal to the programme comparison. The result is a qualified instruction for each group, supported by those working conditions and records. It establishes neither later compliance with the instructions nor retention throughout either group. A later case revealing a missed shared constraint reopens the selection condition and the affected appraisal.