HCD.12:5.1 - Transfer requires a positive proposal and a changed resource answer
Learner-L17 and the following observations are fictional. They illustrate the Method and provide no data about Engineer-E27 or actual programme participants.
Earlier qualified observations show L17 checking configuration evidence and explaining a supported continuation in two fresh cases without a teacher’s configuration cue. In those cases, L17 rejected a report about FW7 when HW3/FW8 was required. Calculation and the 23-hour C continuation were also supported. Those familiar contributions are not themselves new transfer evidence. The earlier observations do not yet demonstrate adaptation to changed capacity.
The new case has a report that actually supports HW3/FW8/SCHED2 and confirms the required checks. Preparation takes one hour per homogeneous batch of up to four; required checks take two hours per change. Twelve changes arrive per week. At 24 available hours, ten changes require 23 hours, while twelve require 27. The release manager may authorize a bounded ten-change use and retains responsibility for the growing queue and release decision.
For this constructed comparison, L17’s task history stipulates that the standalone evidence-use question—a complete report offered without a preceding mismatch problem—has not been rehearsed. That changed question must now lead to a justified positive proposal; repeating the earlier FW7 refusal would be wrong. The task does not ask for a pattern name. Reports, calculator and ordinary source and tool access are available. The source and assistant traces place L17’s first recognition and proposal before any teacher or AI cue supplies the decisive condition.
| Observation | What it supports | What it does not support |
|---|---|---|
| Before any PatternID or configuration cue, L17 checks the complete report and proposes ten changes in three homogeneous batches, requiring 23 hours, with two new changes left in the weekly queue. | Transfer of configuration-evidence use and a bounded positive proposal in this unfamiliar case. | Release authority, elimination of the queue or general transfer across all engineering work. |
| The assessor changes only available time from 24 to 22 hours. L17 initially keeps the ten-change promise. | A demonstrated adaptation failure under the changed resource condition. | A conclusion that the earlier configuration or calculation contribution has disappeared. |
| After feedback asking L17 to check the changed time constraint, L17 calculates that nine changes require 18 + 3 = 21 hours, while ten still require 23, and revises the proposal. | Correct adaptation with feedback. | Independent resource adaptation on the first changed-condition attempt. |
The useful local return is complete: preserve the supported calculation and configuration evidence and identify capacity adaptation as unproven independently. If stronger reliance on independent capacity adaptation is pursued, arrange a fresh uncued variation before making that claim. HCD.14 can use this result immediately to propose a small practice revision; a retention test is not a prerequisite.
An assessor who accepts “the evidence is never sufficient, so I refuse” would miss the positive-action criterion in the first row. An assessor who scores only the corrected final answer would miss the independent adaptation failure in the second.