HCD.14:4 - Solution
HCD.14:4.1 - Recover the assumption that the evidence changed
Name the person, intended later Work, human target, affected observation and receiving decision. Identify the arrangement component expected to help and the assumption now in doubt.
Use a concrete discrepancy: “the person applies the capacity rule after a cue but repeats the old promise when available time changes,” not “transfer is weak.” Preserve successful contributions and the conditions under which they were observed.
If the evidence and target concern different people, work families, configurations or periods, qualify their relation before using the result. A cohort average cannot by itself identify this person’s limiting contribution.
HCD.14:4.2 - Compare only causes that change the revision
Ask what else could explain the discrepancy and what different action each explanation would imply.
| Live explanation | Different useful next move |
|---|---|
| The target or later-Work demand changed | Return the changed demand to its owner; preserve the old claim within its former conditions. |
| The task, criterion or scoring is defective | Repair the assessment and obtain a discriminating observation before revising learning from that result. |
| Required source, tool, time or access was absent | Repair the arrangement with the direct owner; do not infer a human deficit from the missing input. |
| A cue supplied recognition or adaptation | Change the cue/practice relation and test the required contribution before a cue supplies it. |
| The development Method or provider does not fit the target | Obtain a compatible Method or qualified provider result; change that component rather than merely increasing repetitions. |
| A limiting human capability, misconception or behaviour is supported | Use the supported target to select a qualified local development change; retain unresolved rivals. |
A short inspection may settle a known missing source or incorrect criterion. Use HCD.3 when the limiting human target remains unresolved. Use a qualified E.23.CAE differential when access, selection, adaptation, enactment or apparent loss can be distinguished and the distinction changes the next action. Do not add a causal investigation when the current evidence already supports an affordable reversible test and no live rival changes its safe scope.
A small testable revision may follow one well-observed miss. Label it a hypothesis, retain the rival explanation and choose a test that can disconfirm it. Evidence too weak even for that bounded change returns a specific observation to obtain.
HCD.14:4.3 - Specify the positive revised arrangement
State the component to change and the replacement in executable terms. For example, replace a cue-led worked example with two contrasting practice cases and feedback on the person’s own first explanation, then test a fresh uncued variant. “Improve transfer” or “use HCD.5” is not a revision.
Select the professional development Method from an applicable qualified source or a compatible direct provider result. Check that its target, learner conditions, prerequisites, support and limits fit this use. If the Method or provider competence is missing, return that exact input.
State what must not change: supported contributions, required checks, accessibility arrangements, source access, permitted tools, time and cost limits, or specialist responsibilities. A change to the target itself needs the target owner’s decision.
HCD.14:4.4 - Pair the change with a test and stopping rule
Name the expected observable difference and the fresh task or other observation that could show it. Include a meaningful failure condition and an observation that would point to a rival cause.
The test should elicit the affected contribution without reproducing the cue the person is supposed to supply. Preserve domain criteria and compare first performance separately from feedback-assisted correction. Check protected contributions as well as the intended gain.
State acceptable learner and practitioner cost, resources, timing and any delayed observation actually needed for the claim. Do not add a retention visit merely to complete a sequence. When delay matters, HCD.13 supplies that comparison under its own resources and evidence conditions.
Specify what to retain, adapt, abandon or return after the observation. A local before/after comparison can guide the next reversible revision; an estimate of causal effectiveness needs a suitable causal design and evidence beyond this comparison.
HCD.14:4.5 - Distinguish proposal, authorization and performed change
Return the revision as a proposal when the practitioner lacks the mandate or resources to carry it out. Name the actual owner of the resource, provider, target or authorization gap and what that owner must supply.
Within an obtaining mandate, the responsible practitioner can make the bounded change and then observe its result. Keep the selected proposal, authorized arrangement, performed development work and observed outcome distinct. A plan and a changed document do not establish that a person practised or learned.
Stop if the change would breach a protected condition or exceed the mandate. Use a safe restoration of the prior working component when needed; do not continue simply to obtain a cleaner comparison.
HCD.14:4.6 - Update the hypothesis from the new observation
Retain the change provisionally when the intended contribution improves under the test conditions without unacceptable loss. Adapt it when the result narrows the useful conditions or identifies a more local problem. Abandon or return it when the decisive prediction fails, a protected contribution worsens or the professional basis no longer fits.
Preserve unchanged claims and surviving rivals. Reopen only the assumptions affected by new evidence. Enlarge the revision when a changed demand or several independent observations show that the problem is not local; this Method does not require keeping an inadequate component merely because the first proposal was small.