HCD.25:5.1 - Repeating a calculation or obtaining another observation
Three adults in a distributed programme compare permitted fragments from their projects. The learning target is to distinguish a reused inference from new evidence about the world. The following facts and criteria are stipulated for the exercise.
| Case | Available basis | Receiving question and warranted move |
|---|---|---|
| A: release capacity | A checked rule of two active hours per change plus one hour per batch of at most four; ten changes and 24 available hours; unchanged inputs and rule | The same plan is reviewed again. Reuse the checked 23-hour calculation with its conditions instead of pretending that another identical calculation is an independent capacity observation. |
| B: instrument installation | A qualified earlier measurement at the previous installation; the measurement procedure is available, but a relevant installation condition has changed | Decide whether the new installation meets its criterion. Reuse the qualified procedure where applicable, but obtain a current observation under the changed condition before treating the old result as current evidence. |
The learners first notice a surface similarity: both projects have an earlier successful report. They reconstruct the different dependencies. A’s conclusion consumes unchanged inputs under a supplied rule. B’s conclusion requires an observation of the present installation, and the old observation does not supply it. The shared lesson is to follow the result’s conditions, not to require a new test or reuse every prior result automatically.
Now change A: available specialist time falls to 22 hours. The earlier calculation for ten changes remains 23 hours, but the plan no longer fits. Recalculate the permitted number: nine need 21 hours. This changes the decision without itself measuring a worker’s productivity. Change B differently: the next decision concerns only a transcription of the earlier measurement, with no claim about the new installation. The earlier result can support that narrower use. These changes break the original action choices while preserving each project’s identity.
For the own-case return, a participant presents two reports as corroboration of a sensor reading. The supplied provenance shows that both copied the same original observation. The participant must identify one observation with two reports, then decide whether that basis serves the current question. If independent corroboration is required by the given criterion, a further copy cannot supply it. A new observation is warranted only if that unresolved requirement matters and an appropriate observation can actually be obtained.
The organiser checks the learner’s correspondence and next action; the sensor specialist retains the actual measurement criteria. A cue pointing out the copied source would make the correction helped. The example therefore supports a teaching construction and its conditional answers, not a report of observed transfer between professions.