HCD.11:4.2 - Connect the claim to a task and an inference
Before seeing the answer, make this short chain recoverable:
| Question | Minimum answer needed |
|---|---|
| What is claimed? | The person’s contribution under the stated conditions. |
| What task could elicit it? | A representative task containing the decision-bearing difficulty, with the required access and information. |
| What will count as evidence? | The action, explanation, work product, error or omission that would distinguish successful contribution from a plausible rival. |
| What may be inferred? | The bounded conclusion that those observations can support, and the conclusion they cannot support. |
Obtain domain criteria from a current qualified Method, result or competent specialist. Specify material errors, acceptable variants, and any condition that cannot be compensated by success elsewhere. Do not construct a scoring rule that can award overall success while such a condition fails.
Select tasks for consequential variation: for example a matching and a mismatching source, a feasible and an infeasible resource condition, or an ordinary and an exceptional coordination demand. Explain why the selected sample is sufficient for the receiving decision. There is no universal number of tasks. If a rare but consequential condition is untested, exclude it from the claim or obtain the relevant evidence before stronger reliance.
Return a missing criterion, unsuitable task or unavailable competent assessor before judging the person. These are assessment defects, not performance failures.
When assessing a proposed relation in a local proficiency model, name that relation as well as the person’s performance claim. Use HCD.4:4.3.1 to identify outcomes that would distinguish the present model from a serious alternative. A task answered correctly under either account does not test their difference.
For example, a familiar-before-unfamiliar ordering and a cue-dependent-selection account predict different combinations across familiar and unfamiliar tasks with compatible and misleading cues. The N24 tasks in HCD.6:5.6 expose those combinations while retaining unit-selection and calculation judgements separately. Task differences, order and help must remain inspectable; four local responses do not validate a general developmental sequence. Return whether the observations fit the proposed descriptions and relations, require a local revision, or fail to discriminate them. This is distinct from locating the person in an unchanged model.