HCD.12:4 - Solution

HCD.12:4.1 - Recover the prior claim and the meaningful change

For a transfer claim, recover the same person’s earlier contribution, task, conditions, permitted support, criterion and observations. For a declared new-source-learning question, enter through §4.5 instead; use §§4.2–4.3 for task criteria and observations as applicable. Identify relevant prior exposure to the new task or response. If familiarity is uncertain, keep that uncertainty in the result.

Describe the material change and why the old answer might now fail. Examples include evidence from a different configuration, reduced capacity, a different tool with the same required result, or a new specialist interface. A change of names, numbers that leave the decisive reasoning untouched, or formatting alone is weak evidence of unfamiliarity.

Preserve the target requirement or explicitly identify its change. If the new task requires another professional Method or prerequisite, obtain that contribution or report the new requirement; do not diagnose failed transfer of the old contribution merely because the task now asks for something else.

HCD.12:4.2 - Design a discriminating unfamiliar task

Choose a task the person has not rehearsed in its decision-bearing form. State the changed fact, the response it should change, the criterion and the allowed means. Ask how a copied answer, an indiscriminate refusal and a lucky guess would fare.

Where the work requires both action and restraint, include sufficient-evidence and insufficient-evidence cases. A useful small comparison may be one condition that supports action and another that changes its limit. Broader transfer claims need coverage of the material variation they include; a single convenient task cannot supply it.

Keep irrelevant difficulty controlled where possible. If both the tool and the work problem change, either explain why that combined condition is the intended question or separate the changes enough to interpret failure.

Before use, have the domain criteria and expected consequences available. A task whose own correct answer is disputed cannot settle the person’s transfer.

HCD.12:4.3 - Observe the first attempt under its declared conditions

When independent recognition is part of the target, present the work problem before naming the Method, PatternID or decisive feature. The practitioner may use the ordinary sources and tools specified by the target. Independent recognition here means the required selection was not supplied; it does not mean working without every external resource.

Keep the following distinctions only as far as observations support them:

An incorrect final answer alone may not distinguish these contributions. Use the smallest explanatory observation or qualified differential that would change the next action. Do not force every attempt into five confident labels.

After recording the first attempt, feedback can support learning. Record what it supplied, and keep the corrected attempt separate. A Method supplied by the assessor can support application evidence; it cannot demonstrate the preceding independent selection.

HCD.12:4.4 - Return the transferred contribution and its boundary

For transfer, compare the new observations with the earlier claim under the named change. Preserve supported contributions even when another contribution fails. For new-source learning, return the source, access conditions, observations and limits specified in §4.5 instead of inventing a prior-performance claim.

State the tested change, independent and helped observations, failed criteria, uncertainty and untested variations. When a stronger receiving claim is pursued, state the observation it would require. Use “demonstrated in this unfamiliar case” when that is the scope. Do not use “transfers” without saying what transferred where.

If performance returns after a cue, report the cue-dependent result. A fresh uncued case is needed before strengthening an independent-recognition or adaptation claim. If the new task or access was defective, return that problem instead of treating the result as human failure.

Stop when the intended practice or support decision is supported. Stronger reliance may require several unfamiliar cases, independent assessment, a defensible coverage argument and checks of domain correctness and access. A failed transfer case does not erase the demonstrated familiar envelope.

Reopen only the contribution affected by a new variation, changed source or tool, corrected task, or stronger receiving use.

HCD.12:4.5 - Separate learning from a new source when that is the intention

Sometimes the useful question is how well a person learns a new Method during the task. State that intention before the test, together with relevant prior preparation and what is known about familiarity with the Method. Identify the newly supplied contribution, the exact source and the opportunity to learn from it. Distinguish finding the source from learning with equal access to it.

Observe prior familiarity, initial recognition, first application after source access, adaptation to a material change, help, time, material errors, corrections and unfinished work. Test the new Method’s own contribution; familiar arithmetic or an already known comparison is not evidence of acquiring a different whole Method.

A first application after reading the new source supports a performance claim under those learning conditions; a claim of improvement also needs a relevant comparison. Earlier knowledge may help the person learn from the source. If that contribution or the effect of an earlier programme is the question, specify the comparison needed to distinguish it. Application after source access alone does not establish that effect or retention of the new Method. A “faster learning at unchanged correctness” claim additionally needs comparable conditions, a suitable comparison and actual observations; shorter completion time alone cannot supply it.