Readme

Practical entries

Explanation Design connects a recipient’s question with a warranted account and an expression the recipient can use. An example can expose the needed relation; the recipient’s next contribution can reveal a missing step, change the question or show that the explanation is already sufficient. These returns make the methods a language for explaining rather than a fixed production sequence.

The two situations below show different ways to use that language. The Table of Contents gives direct access to the six methods. The shared section Obtain and Carry the Subject Explanation supplies their common return to the mathematical, causal, technical or advisory grounds. A polished expression cannot supply a missing derivation or justify a recommendation whose grounds remain unknown.

You can ask an assisting agent to explain or apply these methods in the language of your work, without framework jargon, while preserving the distinctions needed for the question.

EXD-CHANGE — Distinguish a changed question from a mistaken inference

Situation: A recipient rejects an answer or offers another result. It is unclear whether they have changed the question, missed a relation or disputed a premise.

Question: What should the next explanation answer, and which part of the existing account can it reuse?

First useful result or blocker: A revised answer to the changed question, a repaired relation under the same question, or the subject input needed to resolve a disputed premise.

Start with: EXD.4 - Co-Construct and Repair an Explanation in Dialogue, using the recipient’s actual contribution. Return to EXD.1 - Establish and Revise What a Recipient Needs Explained if it changes what the answer must explain.

Stop or return: Close when the recipient can use the needed relation. Understanding a recommendation does not require agreeing with it; return a different preference to the decision rather than extending the explanation.

1. Use the current question to recover the relevant subject relation. In the worked exchange, one group has two values with mean 3 and another has six values with mean 8. For the mean across all individuals, reconstruct the sums: 2 × 3 + 6 × 8 = 54; divide by eight to obtain 6.75. Equal weighting of the two group means gives 5.5 and answers a different question.
2. Make that correspondence usable. EXD.2 - Build and Bound an Explanatory Example connects each count and mean to its group sum. EXD.3 - Coordinate the Expression of an Explanation can align those same relations in a table with the weighting condition beside it. Use one sufficient expression; adding a missing mathematical relation is a content change, not merely a new layout.
3. Let the reply determine the return. “Each branch should have equal influence regardless of size” changes the target. EXD.1 establishes that question and the answer becomes 5.5; the 6.75 result remains valid for individual weighting. If the target is still individual weighting but the recipient divides by two because there are two averages, EXD.4 identifies a wrong relation under the unchanged question. Repair what the denominator counts. If the dispute concerns which weighting policy should be used, return that choice to the person responsible for the report.
4. Use a learner’s own explanation when learning is the purpose. EXD.5 - Guide a Recipient’s Own Explanation preserves the initial product, gives feedback about groups versus individuals, and asks for the affected use again. Three values with mean 4 and nine with mean 8 give (12 + 72)/12 = 7; equal group influence instead gives 6. Retain the help used in reaching either answer. Immediate correction does not establish independent performance after a delay.

The same return matters in advising. “Why does this assignment fit my present strengths?” and “Why would it develop my missing capability?” require different grounds. A change from the first question to the second calls for the development rationale. If that rationale is understood but the person prefers another social setting, the remaining question belongs to their choice.

EXD-REPAIR — Repair what the recipient cannot use without rewriting everything

Situation: An explanation fails in use, and plausible repairs include more subject content, another form or additional help. These changes would contribute different things.

Question: Which repair addresses the actual difficulty, and is it worth its burden compared with the available explanation?

First useful result or blocker: A targeted repair, a sufficient explanation to retain, or the missing subject or reader evidence that prevents choosing between the alternatives.

Start with: EXD.6 - Compare Explanations for the Recipient’s Use and Decide Whether a Repair Is Worthwhile, fixing what the recipient needs to recover and the criterion for using it.

Stop or return: Keep a sufficient explanation when no worthwhile contribution is missing. Repair an explicit false claim from its subject basis; obtain reader evidence when the unresolved question concerns recoverability and the observation can change the choice.

1. Identify the relation that the explanation must supply. Consider a constructed explanation of active effort for one person’s task. Its stated accounting rule counts time actually spent on the task. The draft instead says to subtract start time from handoff time. On an uninterrupted task both rules agree, so that example cannot reveal the error.
2. Use an example that separates the rules. EXD.2 can use work from 09:00 to 10:00 and 11:00 to 12:00, with no task work during the intervening hour. Active effort is two hours; elapsed turnaround is three. The subject definition justifies changing the draft’s rule. EXD.3 can then label separate effort and turnaround columns and place the interruption beside the calculation. Relabelling columns without correcting the rule would leave the content defect in place.
3. Respond to the actual remaining difficulty. If a recipient still counts the interruption, EXD.4 uses that contribution to locate the missing distinction. For a learning purpose, EXD.5 asks the recipient to explain what each interval contributes, provides the needed help, and retries the relation on a relevant changed case. Preserve the first response: a prepared reader may have corrected the false instruction from prior knowledge, and a later correct answer may depend on the supplied help.
4. Choose the conclusion the evidence supports. EXD.6 can justify the rule repair through subject inspection. It cannot attribute an unobserved reading-speed or learning advantage to the new table. If an existing prose account already supplies the correct distinction and serves the receiving task, retain it unless the table offers a worthwhile additional use, such as repeatedly locating corresponding intervals. A comparison of forms keeps the selected claims and help comparable.

If the changed task now concerns several people working concurrently, obtain the population accounting rule before extending the one-person explanation. Layout alone cannot decide how person-hours combine. Evaluation of an instructional material as a whole uses HCD.18/.19; a claim about later human performance, transfer or retention uses the relevant HCD method. The explanatory repair can finish without requiring those stronger conclusions.

Using the repertoire

Begin where the needed input is already available. A clear question with a sufficient account may need only an expression adjustment; a missing subject premise returns to the subject practice. Use dialogue when a recipient’s contribution is available and can guide the next move, not as a compulsory questionnaire. For a one-way explanation, state the consequential conditions and provide a usable return to the fuller account.

The Preface develops the distinctions used above. The use profiles adapt them to instruction, technical and advisory work, and human–AI interaction.