Sources and dependencies
Relied-on contributions and their limits
This edition connects formal and pragmatic explanation, empirical work on learning and interaction, and constructive practice through their contributions to a recipient’s task. The sources below support the stated distinctions and Methods. Worked examples in this framework are constructions unless explicitly reported as source observations.
| Source and access | Contribution adopted or adapted here | Limit on reliance |
|---|---|---|
| Galbraith and Khalifa, 2026, especially §§2, 5 | Interrogative treatment of understanding informs question selection and revision in EXD.1/.4. | Their theoretical focus does not settle every epistemic correctness or grasping question, nor certify an instructional intervention. |
| Fisher, 2022 | Natural consultations inform the joint organization and changing explanatory contributions in EXD.4. | Eleven consultations support the reported analysis; their phases are not a compulsory order or universal effect. |
| Axelsson, Buschmeier and Skantze, 2022, §2 | Contextual feedback distinctions support interpretation of contact, perception, understanding and attitude. | A surface signal alone does not identify a recipient’s internal state. |
| Social Explainable AI, 2026, ch. 5, ch. 12, ch. 13 | Explaining practices (§5.3), incremental explanation (§12.3.1–3) and adaptation (§13.2–3) inform co-construction. | Their AI-oriented realization is adapted by actual role and subject; interaction is not evidence of general learning benefit. |
| Liao and colleagues, 2021; Schmude and colleagues, 2025 | Elicit questions and purposes before choosing explanatory support; use a question bank for relevant clarification. | A design method or the latter study’s 24 participants and two contexts do not establish a complete universal question inventory. |
| Fichtel and colleagues, 2025 | Compare co-constructive interaction and objective understanding separately. | The study used two prompting conditions with Llama 3.1 70B, three topics and 277 retained participants. No significant mean objective-understanding advantage was found; this does not establish impossibility of a benefit in other conditions. |
| Relational-mapping study, 2023 | Principle–example and example–example mapping, with free and component-guided contributions, inform EXD.2. | Probability-learning conditions do not select one universally superior sequence or require unassisted failure. |
| Fiorella, 2023 | Explaining, visualizing and enacting make different contributions; modeled, focused and partial guidance inform EXD.2/.5. | Requesting an explanation from every recipient is not implied. |
| Mayer, 2024; Cromley and Chen, 2025 | Proximity, signaling, segmenting and relevant preparation inform EXD.3’s representation choices. | The synthesis covers 181 studies in 92 Mayer articles from 1990–2022. Its scope and moderation do not support a universal format winner or ban on repetition. |
| Zhang and Fiorella, 2024 | Error-focused explanation, correction and retry inform EXD.5. | The second experiment concerns 73 learners who made errors; correction and near-transfer findings do not establish far transfer. |
| Tetzlaff and colleagues, 2025; biochemistry study, 2025 | Task-specific prior knowledge and assistance conditions qualify instructional sequencing. | Sixty experiments in the synthesis do not prescribe automatic fading. The biochemistry study’s population-dependent near-transfer results do not equate course experience with the relevant schema or establish far transfer. |
| Mar and colleagues, 2021; Mengelkamp and colleagues, 2025 | Narrative/expository contrasts and comprehension–metacomprehension distinctions qualify expression and comparison choices. | Genre, content control, reading goal and measurement conditions constrain use. Memorability alone neither warrants the subject account nor chooses its form. |
Older books by Brown and Wragg (2001), LeFever (2012), Khalifa (2017) and McCain (2022) identify lines of instructional practice, explanatory craft and philosophical inquiry in the field’s background. Their publisher descriptions and contents supplied lineage orientation. Unread chapters are not premises for the operative Methods above; the later sources supply the named receiving contributions and limits.
Framework and subject suppliers
FPF remains the external foundational framework. This edition uses the September 2026 current-pattern text available on 9 September 2026, specifically the named units below; it does not redefine FPF’s kinds or import those bodies as Explanation Design members. The public repository is an access and discovery route. A later file date alone does not replace a selected supplying claim.
| Supplier and selected edition | Receiving contribution | Reopen the affected use when |
|---|---|---|
| FPF C.2.8, September 2026, 9 September text | Structural recovery for account, expression and observer under selected conditions in the Preface and EXD.3/.6. | The characteristic or its interpretation, recipient, criterion, assistance or comparison conditions changes. |
| FPF C.37, same selected text | Bounded representation selection and co-use in EXD.3. | The contribution of a selected form or its receiving conditions changes. |
| FPF A.2.9, same selected text | Communicative Work remains distinct from the resulting account and its expression in EXD.1/.4. | A receiving claim depends on a changed communicative act or unsupported participant inference. |
| FPF A.6.3.NAR, same selected text | Select and connect source relations with a recoverable source return when narrative rendering contributes. | The source relation, connective claim or narrative purpose changes. |
| FPF C.11.CRC and C.11, same selected text | Contribution comparison and worthwhile marginal choice in EXD.6. | The incumbent, candidate contribution, receiving value or burden changes. |
| Method Engineering, 9 September 2026 | ME.8/.23 supply Method content and language rationale; ME.22 supplies description comparison; ME.21/.12/.24 retain their distinct source-allocation, coherence and reconstruction questions in the technical case. | The supplied rationale, promised source contribution or available basis changes. |
| Human Capability Development, nineteen-pattern edition, 9 September 2026 | HCD.6/.9/.10/.19 supply representative tasks, feedback/retry, assistance and material evaluation for instructional use. | The required performance, learner preparation, task, help or stronger learning claim changes. |
| Problem Structuring and Decision Support, 5 September 2026 | PSD.13 supplies decisive recommendation grounds, alternatives and reconsideration. | A relied-on premise, alternative or preference changes. |
| Development Opportunity Construction and Development-Direction Advising, amended release 5 September 2026 | DOCA.7 supplies the advising engagement’s conditions, including resources and authority. | An engagement condition or the recommendation’s feasibility changes. |
| Research Method Practice, nine-pattern edition, 8 September 2026 | RMP.1/.2/.8 supply qualified questions, research-design or sufficient-evidence choice, and revision of the affected account. | The subject question, rival explanation, evidence or receiving reliance changes. |
| Narrativization and Narrative Studies, 9 September 2026 | Its Preface and NSTD.6/.8 inform the synthesis of source, cognitive and production contributions and the bounded narrative-form choice. | A relied-on contribution or the explanation’s narrative use changes. |
The source choices above are use-specific. Reopen a receiving claim when its premise or evidence no longer fits, a necessary source becomes unavailable, or the proposed use asks for a stronger effect. Preserve independently supported accounts and explicit conditional answers.