HCD.21:5.1 - Different reasons, no common window

In this constructed case, six adults in a paid programme must compare the grounds of two diagnostic accounts. They all understand the supplied quantities. A, B and C can work Tuesday evening; D, E and F can work Thursday morning. A proposed knowledge-based match pairs A with D, B with E and C with F. None has an agreed common window. The match therefore supplies no live comparison.

Within each window, participants’ short initial responses show usable differences: A favours resistance, B questions measurement and C has not separated observation from cause; D, E and F show corresponding contrasting grounds. The designer forms a triad in each window and allocates a permitted case, two explanation turns per person, reconciliation and a personal return. The triad size follows the available thirty-minute sequence, not a general advantage of three.

The organiser sends the task and asks each triad to confirm its channel and precise time by Monday noon. E does not reply. The organiser establishes whether a willing replacement with Thursday access is available. If none is, D and F can use a prepared alternative reason with qualified help, while E receives a separately feasible later opportunity. This changes the task’s source of contrast and may change what its result shows about peer explanation; the missing conversation is not reported as completed.