HCD.25:4.3 - Reconstruct the correspondence and try to break it

Have learners explain each case’s local connection before transferring it: which input or condition warrants which action and which result it can support. Then ask what corresponds across the cases. Keep the source case and the proposed receiving use identifiable. A label such as feedback or validation is too broad when the actual operations differ.

Test the proposed correspondence with a changed condition that could reverse the action. Change the relevant relation while retaining a familiar surface, or preserve the relation while changing its presentation. Ask whether the same operation is still warranted and why. HCD.6.1 develops this contrast construction; the present method arranges it across project owners and recipients.

The answer may be positive, conditional or negative. A model can be reused while a new observation is required. A calculation can be repeated for new inputs without establishing that the new inputs are true. An appealing technique may have no supported use in the receiving project. Warranted rejection is a useful result when it prevents a false transfer.

Where participants disagree, locate the missing ground. The project owner can clarify a factual condition; a qualified provider can resolve a subject issue. If neither is available, retain the comparison’s supported part and the precise unresolved connection. Do not fill it by analogy alone.