HCD.14:5.1 - A local revision at the transfer return
Learner-L17 and the evidence are fictional. The case begins at a transfer return, before any delayed test is required. It does not report an actual programme change or learner outcome.
The earlier evidence supports calculation and configuration checking. In a new case, L17 correctly uses a complete HW3/FW8/SCHED2 report and proposes ten changes within 24 available hours. Required checks take two hours per change; preparation takes one hour per homogeneous batch of at most four. Ten changes need 23 hours, twelve need 27, so a ten-change proposal leaves two of twelve new weekly changes in the queue. The release manager retains release/use authority.
When available time changes to 22 hours, L17 initially keeps the ten-change promise and corrects it only after feedback. Nine changes need 21 hours. The calculation and configuration evidence are not erased by this adaptation failure.
The prior practice exercise used a teacher question to point out the changed resource condition. The live hypothesis is that practice did not sufficiently require L17 to detect and adapt to that change before the cue. A single miss does not settle the cause: unclear task wording remains a rival, and general resource reasoning may also need investigation.
For this constructed case, the programme owner has supplied a compatible case-practice Method and a qualified practitioner. The Method asks the learner to attempt a case, explain the consequential choice, compare it with a contrasting case, receive criterion-based feedback, and attempt fresh material. Those are stipulated professional inputs to the example.
The proposed replacement is concrete:
| Element | Revision hypothesis and protection |
|---|---|
| Component changed | Replace only the cue-led resource exercise. Leave the supported financial calculation and configuration practice in place. |
| First five minutes | Recover L17’s explanation of the earlier promise and inspect whether the task clearly presented the changed time. If it did not, repair the task before interpreting the miss as a practice problem. |
| Twenty minutes of practice | Use contrasting cases requiring a supported ten-change proposal at 24 hours and refusal of that same promise at 22 hours, with a feasible nine-change proposal. Obtain L17’s first explanation before feedback names the decisive condition. |
| Ten-minute fresh test | Give unrehearsed 20-hour and 28-hour variants with complete compatible reports and twelve new weekly changes. Do not name the resource Method or point to the changed number. |
| Expected contribution | At 20 hours, eight changes require 18 hours and nine require 21: do not promise nine. At 28 hours, twelve require 27: a proposal to meet those twelve is supported. Preserve required checks, source fit and any existing-queue limitation. |
| Protected conditions | Same source and calculator access, ordinary permitted AI assistance, accessibility arrangements, domain criteria and separate release authority. Observe L17’s first recognition and explanation in the source and assistant traces; a teacher or AI cue that supplies recognition of the changed condition counts as help. |
| Cost and status | Forty learner minutes including a final five-minute result discussion, plus fifteen practitioner preparation minutes, within the example’s proposed replacement allocation. The return is a proposal until its responsible owner authorizes that use of time. |
The fresh task tests both justified restraint and a justified positive action. It does not award success for repeating the earlier refusal.