HCD.19:5.3 - Return a complete disposition without inventing a complete success
Time-use S1 was constructed as a fuller evaluation than the original walkthrough. Reusing the earlier responses under S1 requires checking their compatibility, not retroactively claiming that the full specification was executed.
The following replay evaluates M1 under S1, using source inspection and the preserved observations above. It returns all six selected coordinates. The 0–5 meanings are S1’s bindings to the material profile, not converted scores from another programme.
| Coordinate | Value or missingness on this evidence | Grounds, limit, and next action |
|---|---|---|
| Subject validity | Insufficient evidence for S1’s complete subject-validity value | The inspected definitions, interval assignment, interrupted example, and population rule agree with the stipulated meanings. S1 also requires inspection of the offered tasks, key, and correction; that complete arrangement was not inspected for both tasks. Thus 4 is unestablished, while no bounded subject error justifies 3 and no additional checked boundary justifies 5. Retain the narrower correct-source findings and inspect the complete arrangement before assigning the full value. |
| Task and dependency coverage | 4, source-inspected for the two S1 task families | M1 supplies interval summation, turnaround, exclusive-person accounting, population aggregation, and the common-unit comparison. It therefore supplies the operations even though one operation lacks a worked example. Missing reader evidence belongs to the explanatory row; a further consequential coverage advantage needed for 5 is absent. |
| Explanatory sufficiency | Insufficient audience-compatible evidence for a supported-use value | M1 exposes the needed grounds and the prepared reader applies its population rule. That reader already knew the central distinction. The observation cannot qualify the promised introduction for readers possessing only S1’s stated prerequisites. That broader value needs such reader work; until it is obtained, retain the explicit missingness and current material findings rather than convert the gap to 0 or commission a study merely to complete this diagnostic. |
| Example discrimination | 3, bounded addition required under S1 | The interrupted example distinguishes active effort from turnaround, but M1 has no worked concurrent-person contrast. Its population rule is already present, so adding that contrast does not require rebuilding the central explanation chain. That is 3 rather than 2; the specified example evidence for 4 is incomplete. |
| Task and criterion validity | Insufficient evidence about the complete offered task-and-key arrangement | The original report task is domain-valid, and the evaluator’s criteria discriminate the named errors. The complete material/teacher criterion available for both S1 tasks was not an inspected product component in the walkthrough. Supply or inspect that component; do not treat the evaluator’s private key as already available to the learner. |
| Feedback and continuation support | Insufficient audience-compatible evidence for supported-use adequacy | The teacher question, M1, and later task were supplied. The prepared reader justified retaining its correct answer and continued on the changed task, satisfying S1’s allowed justified-retention branch for this reader. This supports that bounded continuation, but the reader’s prior time-accounting knowledge exceeds S1’s stated audience prerequisites. The stronger audience-compatible value still needs appropriate reader evidence of explained correction or justified retention under the declared support. The current missingness result does not by itself select that inquiry. |
The same missing task-and-key inspection constrains subject validity and task/criterion validity: a correct explanation can coexist with a false offered key. The evaluator’s correct answer supplies neither that component nor evidence of its inspection.
The overall S1 conclusion is repair needed and insufficient evidence for the declared supported-use conclusion. The 4 for task/dependency coverage and 3 for example discrimination cannot compensate for the missing evidence. The next material change is precise: add the concurrent worked contrast and make the intended criterion/support arrangement available. The next observation is also precise: an appropriate reader uses that arrangement, with the first attempt and actual assistance preserved.
This replay is a worked diagnostic judgement at the declared grain. It does not validate the scale’s reliability or claim that the original walkthrough was a complete S1 evaluation.