HCD.13:5 - Archetypal Grounding
HCD.13:5.1 - A matched eight-week comparison with an independent core
Learner-L17 and all observations in this example are constructed. The example stipulates a separately resourced follow-up with an assessor and source access. It neither schedules an actual programme visit nor supplies observations of Engineer-E27 or a learner cohort.
At reference time T0, a qualified assessment records three selected contributions associated with F.1, C.16 and C.11. The engineering tasks require HW3/FW8. A supplier report for FW7 cannot justify FW8; a complete HW3/FW8/SCHED2 report can support the stated configuration. SCHED2 requires two hours of checks per change and one hour of preparation per homogeneous batch of up to four. Ten changes require 23 hours, twelve require 27; at 24 available hours, a ten-change proposal leaves two of twelve new changes in the weekly queue. At 22 hours, nine changes require 21 and ten cannot be promised.
The existing alternatives are A, a second stand still requiring a shared-power check; B, the supplier option with the FW7 report; and C, the compatible SCHED2 arrangement with the stated capacity limit. Supplied financial assumptions give A/B/C approximate NPVs of 48.9/51.6/44.6 thousand. B’s financial rank cannot settle its compatibility.
Two stipulated weekly logs each record ten accepted changes, all required checks completed and twelve arrivals; together they show four additional queued changes. Those observed counts and periods remain distinct from the modelled 23-hour requirement. The source set contains these logs, the exact configuration reports and the calculation assumptions. The release manager is the chooser for release/use; L17 prepares a bounded recommendation. These are local exercise facts.
The delayed assessment is eight weeks after T0. The constructed history records two intervening source-selection uses and one comparison/decision-support exercise, with no rehearsal of the exact follow-up cases. Thus the question is retention under intermittent practice, not eight weeks of non-use.
| Selected contribution | Qualified observation at T0 | Constructed observation eight weeks later |
|---|---|---|
| F.1: select sources that can change the current answer | L17 retains the exact configuration report and relevant resource/throughput evidence, explains each contribution, and excludes a general product brochure from the compatibility answer. | With a fresh comparable case and normal source access, L17 again selects the answer-changing sources and preserves the report’s configuration limit. |
| C.16: preserve units, conditions and the distinction between a modelled quantity and an observed result | L17 distinguishes modelled hours per proposed batch plan from observed changes per week, and refuses to treat the former as measured throughput. | L17 preserves units, observation periods and the same distinction; a missing observed value remains unknown. |
| C.11: support a bounded comparison of existing options | L17 identifies the release manager as chooser, compares the given options against current compatibility and time conditions, and states the remaining check or queue consequence. | L17 gives the corresponding bounded recommendation without replacing a failed constraint by financial rank. |
These are selected contributions, not a demonstration of the whole F.1, C.16 or C.11 Method envelope.
At both T0 and follow-up, a separate fifteen-minute core uses supplied tables and a calculator but no AI. It asks L17 to recover the required configuration, notice an unsupported report, and reconstruct a feasible time-limited proposal. In both constructed observations, L17 distinguishes the configuration and time constraints and explains why ten cannot be promised at 22 hours.
The core runs before the source-dependent task on different material, with no corrective teaching until both are complete. The report retains that order. It supports the narrow core under those conditions and the later source-dependent performance after that core; it is not evidence that task order never matters. A receiving use requiring an entirely unwarmed first attempt would need that observation.
The result is retention of the compared contributions under the stated eight-week history and support conditions, plus the separately tested core. It supports neither untested contributions nor retention without practice, and does not establish an actual learner result or a causal effect of the development arrangement.
HCD.13:5.2 - A failed source link changes the arrangement result
During an additional constructed source-dependent task, the required technical source is inaccessible. The earlier qualified contribution depended on using that source. The assessor can verify the access failure directly.
Return source access to the responsible provider and leave the dependent performance judgement incomplete. There is no reason to run a memory-loss diagnosis to explain a known missing input. If a later restored-access attempt is observed, report it under the restored condition without retroactively completing the interrupted attempt.
HCD.13:5.3 - Recovery after a cue narrows an apparent-loss claim
In a separate constructed comparison, the person does not select a familiar Method for the current problem. Without teaching its content, the assessor supplies a previously qualified task cue; the person then produces the familiar response. If that cue is a legitimate reference condition and the contrast addresses the live rival, the result supports availability under that condition and a possible selection difficulty.
It does not show uncued selection, unfamiliar transfer or the mechanism of remembering. If supplying the cue also explains the solution, the no-relearning comparison fails and the loss-versus-access distinction remains unresolved.