HCD.13:4 - Solution

HCD.13:4.1 - Recover the earlier contribution and the intended interval

Recover the person, contribution, criterion, earlier observations, relevant task variation, allowed means and evidence window. A remembered impression that “the person could do it” is not a qualified baseline. If the earlier evidence cannot support the intended comparison, assess now and establish an honest current starting point.

Choose the interval from the work: how long might this contribution be unused, what support will remain available, and what consequence would a failure have? There is no universal retention interval. An infrequent high-consequence task may need a different observation and assurance basis from a routine task.

Recover intervening use, practice, instruction, source changes, tool use and relevant uncertainty. Report continuing practice as continuing practice. An uncertain history narrows the conclusion rather than becoming an assumed period of non-use.

HCD.13:4.2 - Compare delay under reference conditions

Specify a delayed task that elicits the same contribution at a comparable demand and criterion. Use the earlier qualified support conditions, or explain the deliberate change and its effect on the inference. Preserve task access and distinguish material differences from harmless surface variation.

Observe the delayed attempt before remedial teaching when the retention question needs that observation. Keep help, incomplete work, material errors and corrections separate. If the criterion or required source has changed, assess the affected new requirement rather than interpreting every difference as human decline.

The direct comparison is earlier versus delayed performance under the stated reference conditions. It can support retention in that tested envelope and history. It does not isolate the cause of the result from every intervening influence.

HCD.13:4.3 - Test support dependence as a separate question

State which support matters and why. A tool contrast is useful when the person must sometimes contribute without that tool, when a fallback is required, or when the assessor needs to distinguish the person’s contribution from assisted output.

For a reduced-support core, specify its own contribution, data, allowed means, time and criteria. Preserve required accessibility support. Do not remove a current technical source merely to make a source-dependent task appear independent.

A minimum interpretable comparison distinguishes:

Control order, cueing, rehearsal and fatigue as far as the receiving use requires. Use fresh comparable material or separate occasions when an earlier task could supply the answer. Record unavoidable order effects; repeated testing is not inert. A positive independent core supports only its stated contribution, not all work previously performed with a tool.

HCD.13:4.4 - Investigate apparent loss only when the distinction changes the next action

First check that the present demand is inside the earlier claim. Return an outside-envelope demand or known configuration failure directly.

When at least two live explanations would lead to different development or support work, and probing is safe and informative, use a qualified E.23.CAE differential. Recover a previously successful or separately qualified reference condition without further teaching. Vary the smallest condition that distinguishes the rivals. A reference–changed-condition–reference comparison can be useful when order or transition history matters.

Observe whether the person recognizes the applicable response, can access it, adapts it, enacts it and achieves the required result only where the evidence distinguishes those contributions. Do not infer every earlier failure from an incorrect final product.

If the response reappears without relearning under the qualified reference condition, a simple global-loss explanation is weakened in those conditions. That recovery does not prove unfamiliar transfer or identify a memory mechanism. If the probe teaches the answer, support changes cannot be separated, or safety prevents the contrast, return the unresolved distinction.

A warranted claim of changed capability requires holder-specific evidence after the relevant envelope and configuration rivals have been addressed. A single unsuccessful return probe is not enough by itself.

HCD.13:4.5 - Return separate conclusions and a practical next move

Keep the following separately reportable: delayed performance under reference support; performance in any independent core; observed support dependence; a supported access, adaptation or enactment difficulty; possible loss or warranted revision of a capability claim; and unresolved or omitted tests.

State the interval, practice history, conditions, observations, inference and limits. The next useful action may be ordinary continued use, a targeted observation, access repair, a revision hypothesis through HCD.14 or a direct specialist return. The evidence account does not choose every later action on the person’s behalf.

Stop at the smallest supported conclusion. For stronger reliance, obtain the relevant baseline quality, task comparability, observation coverage, independent judgement and protection against probe-induced learning. Extra follow-up time, access and assessor effort need an actual arrangement; specifying an eight-week check does not obtain them.

Reopen only the affected claim when delay, use history, source, tool, task, criterion or intended reliance changes.