HCD.1:5 - Archetypal Grounding
HCD.1:5.1 - Constructed Positive Case: ImpactReview-17
ImpactReview-17 is a constructed pedagogical case. Its answer key, ImpactReview-17-Domain-Oracle-v1, supplies the engineering correctness and criticality criteria for PumpWorks-Config-Baseline-42 and AI-Assist-M4. The review events and evidence below are stipulated case data.
The human holder is Engineer-P14. The later-Work family is independent review of AI-proposed change-impact claims for mixed physical/software pump-controller changes before separate integration, assurance, and release decisions. The constructed 2026-Q4 conditions include the named configuration and AI assistant, current source access, a forty-five-minute case limit, recoverable audit records, and bounded safety and maintenance specialist returns. Final integration, safety, release, and employment authority remain with their direct owners.
The stipulated work permits a routine reminder to construct and test an alternative configuration hypothesis. The engineer must supply that hypothesis and its test; neither another person nor the AI may supply the case-specific rival or rejection decision. Remembering to initiate the operation without a reminder is a separate, stronger question.
The evidence packet stipulates eight representative review occurrences: four familiar and four unfamiliar variants; four include a plausible but wrong AI dependency claim; two require a specialist return; and every case requires a recoverable audit record. HCD.1 returns this human capability demand for Engineer-P14:
- recognize when the independent-review Method applies;
- trace each release-affecting claim to the current source and configuration;
- independently challenge plausible AI output rather than treating supported output as the person’s contribution;
- request, delimit, and preserve required specialist returns;
- return auditable evidence; and
- detect every seeded safety-critical omission within the protected time and authority boundary.
Within this example, the stipulated criteria and observations support qualified current demand for Engineer-P14. The case shows how to derive required human contributions from representative Work; demand does not establish the person’s current capability. Operational use needs qualified current target-domain criteria, safety or specialist inputs, and representative evidence for the actual person and Work.
HCD.1:5.2 - Missing Case: ReleaseWork-R9
For Engineer-E27, the accepted architecture supports a prospective demand hypothesis for 2026-Q4 ReleaseWork-R9: AI-output challenge, configuration-impact reasoning, evidence return, specialist coordination, critical-error detection, and adaptation across unfamiliar mixed physical/software variants may be required. This hypothesis guides observation; it is not qualified current demand.
The stronger conclusion is blocked by distinct absent values:
| Missing value | Blocked HCD.1 use | Non-substitute and retry |
|---|---|---|
XRI-21-supplier-result-missing | Any demand claim that consumes current engineering-culture enactment, its bounded practice-change decision, retained alternatives, or evidence gaps. | The current SYSE.21 MethodDescription and its constructed PumpWorks demonstration can shape questions but are not an obtaining supplier result. Retry with a compatible obtaining SYSE.21 result—or a receiver-permitted qualified direct substitute—for Engineer-E27, the Method, Work, period, and evidence use. |
later-Work-occurrence-missing | Treating ReleaseWork-R9 itself as current later-Work evidence. | A plan, architecture, MethodDescription, or constructed occurrence does not establish enactment. Retry when an admitted performed Work occurrence identifies Engineer-E27, configuration, period, and actual performer. |
later-Work-result-claim-missing | Any demand claim whose evidence consumes the occurrence-produced result, quality, error, or consequence. | A planned result or demonstration result is not the occurrence’s result. Retry with the produced result or a supported direct claim tied to the admitted occurrence. |
result-record-missing | Any record-dependent inference about that occurrence or result. | An orphan document would not establish the Work or result. Retry when a current result record links the admitted Work occurrence to its produced result; omit this requirement where qualified direct observations are sufficient. |
representative-observation-evidence-missing | Upgrading the prospective hypothesis to qualified current demand. | A target repertoire, curriculum, course completion, platform score, or constructed case is not representative observation evidence. Retry with holder- and condition-compatible observations or a named qualified representative case set covering performed Method, configuration, work products, quality and critical errors, AI/support posture, specialist returns, variants, and evidence window. |
These rows do not collapse into “insufficient data.” Each names a different missing input, blocked conclusion, misleading substitute, and retry condition. Recovering one row changes only the conclusions that consume it.
HCD.1:5.3 - Unlike Case: Clinical Ownership
Return an adult’s request for treatment of social anxiety to a qualified clinical specialist as an outside-HCD return. HCD.1 may address a separately posed, legitimate question about that person’s non-clinical participation in later Work, supplied by the person or qualified clinical owner. Diagnosis, treatment choice, provider competence, safety, consent, and clinical outcome interpretation remain with the qualified clinical route.