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.