EXD.6:4 - Solution

EXD.6:4.1 - Fix the receiving question and its criterion

State what the explanation should let this recipient recover or do. Identify the subject criterion and an available explanation that can serve as the incumbent. A mathematical claim needs its correct derivation; a recommendation needs its actual grounds and conditions.

For a structural comparison, use FPF C.2.8: identify the account, its expression and observer, qualified by the selected relations, correctness criterion, preparation, available operations, access, assistance and budget. Choose a qualitative description of recovered and missing relations when it is sufficient. A numeric amount needs its own declared scale and units or denominator.

Distinguish recovering what an account asserts from establishing that assertion’s subject warrant. If warranted subject structure is the selected target, an unsupported relation cannot count as a correctly supplied ground.

EXD.6:4.2 - Identify the smallest material change

Use the construction that addresses the live difficulty: clarify the question, add a missing ground, build a discriminating example, coordinate an expression or guide a recipient product. Name which of content, expression, preparation, help or target changed.

When comparing forms, keep the selected claims and receiving conditions comparable. When coordinated changes are needed, compare the whole proposed repair but limit attribution accordingly. A claim inventory can help identify what both candidates express; it is not a measure of recovered structure.

FPF C.11.CRC supplies configuration-relative contribution comparison and C.11 the marginal-choice question. For Method descriptions, use ME.22’s actual comparison. For instructional material, use HCD.19’s representative-reader work and diagnosis. Their supplied results can answer the comparison.

EXD.6:4.3 - Obtain only the evidence that can change the choice

First inspect subject correctness, missing claims and explicit contradictions. These can justify a repair before a reader trial. Use a reading or application probe when the live alternatives concern recoverability or receiving use and its possible results can change the choice.

Preserve the initial response before assistance. Identify what the recipient had available at each point and what the subsequent help contributed. Prior knowledge can enable reconstruction; independent correction of an absent or false instruction must be identified rather than credited to the expression.

If the same person sees both explanations, prior exposure or practice can affect the second response. Design the comparison for the conclusion sought or retain that attribution limit. A small local observation may suffice for a local repair; a general effect claim needs a design and evidence appropriate to that stronger question.

If useful observation is unavailable, retain a sufficient incumbent or make a reversible design choice with its intended gain stated as an expectation. The absence of a measured human effect does not prevent a qualified explanation from being used.

EXD.6:4.4 - Choose the result and its stopping condition

Relate the demonstrated or reasonably expected contribution to the burden that matters in this use. Retain the incumbent when the candidate adds no worthwhile result. Prefer a targeted repair when it supplies a missing relation or fixes a consequential difficulty. Return unsupported subject claims to their supplier.

Keep result types distinct. More recovered structure within one budget differs from less effort to recover the same structure. Immediate recovery differs from retention after a delay or transfer to another task. Agreement and willingness to act differ from understanding a recommendation.

State what is retained, why, under which conditions and what fact would reopen the choice. A larger explanation is useful only to the extent that its contribution serves the selected purpose.