HCD.2:4 - Solution

Compose each candidate as a finite change from the person’s current mastered and supported configuration. Keep complete later-Work tasks, human and external contributions, practice and correction, resources, evidence limits, and future options visible on one comparison basis. Return the comparison without making the final choice.

HCD.2:4.1 - Bind the Personal Comparison

Name:

1. the exact human holder and the basis for their participation;
2. the receiving decision, decision owner, later-Work family, configuration, horizon, and protected result or critical-error conditions;
3. a compatible HCD.1 demand account or equivalent qualified later-Work input;
4. the current performance evidence, supported contributions, unresolved gaps, and any HCD.3 target or HCD.4 profile that the comparison actually uses;
5. the professional Methods, target-domain criteria, source access, tools, AI posture, specialists, provider contributions, environment, authority, and time that are available or still assumed; and
6. the development stake that the candidates must address without silently changing it.

HCD.1, HCD.3, and HCD.4 can supply these inputs, but their PatternIDs are not ritual prerequisites. Compatible direct evidence is enough for the positions the current comparison consumes. Use diagnosis only when rival causes would change the programme.

If personal evidence, participation, later Work, or support conditions are missing, stop the personal comparison at the affected claim. For an unknown audience, issue the learning-product design return to HCD.28. When a product variant comes back for a named person, test its entry assumptions, intended contribution, assistance and burden against that person’s compatible evidence before using it as a programme candidate. For a missing target-domain Method or correctness criterion, return the exact qualified outside-owner question. If no candidate can make the supplied development stake feasible, return that constraint and the surviving alternatives to the separate navigation or target decision rather than weakening the stake inside HCD.2.

HCD.2:4.2 - Compose Task-Closing Candidates

1. Select representative complete tasks. State the required result, important variants, critical errors, Work products, conditions, and stopping rules. A topic or Method name is only a discovery cue.
2. Decompose only far enough to allocate contributions. For every material contribution, state what the person must recognize and perform, what may be retrieved from a current reference, what controlled AI help may supply, and what requires a specialist or other provider. Keep the human check required for assisted output explicit.
3. Separate prerequisites from simultaneous complements. A prerequisite must be available before the relevant practice can proceed. A reference, tool, or specialist contribution may instead remain part of the same later Work. Do not teach every complement as if it had to become unaided personal performance.
4. Construct finite changes from the baseline. Add, substitute, remove, or retain programme elements relative to the person’s current configuration. Explain which task combination each change is intended to close, which future option it opens, and which existing contribution it might displace or weaken.
5. Include the complete development loop. Account for preparation, demonstrations or explanations where useful, representative attempts, feedback, correction, retries, changed-condition or later checks, and the access and provider contributions that make those activities possible.
6. Keep downstream elaboration explicit. HCD.5 can select the development Methods, HCD.6 can design the practice tasks, HCD.7 can establish available support, HCD.8 can compare obtaining or building a missing contribution and establish the preparation or operating test the selected route needs, and HCD.9–HCD.10 can specify practice and progression. HCD.2 needs enough of those contributions to make a candidate comparable; it does not pretend that an unperformed elaboration already exists.

Recover the relevant vertical within each complete task, using FPF B.1.5.EW when the connections are unclear. Ask what the person or available contributors must perform together while the encompassing work is under way. Adequate performance of isolated constituents can leave their coordination unavailable. Keep already attained contributions and include development only for the missing or insufficiently transferable ones. Include the variety of constituent Methods that the intended task variants require; a single rehearsed path may leave the person unable to choose a different continuation. Check shared time, attention, equipment and assistance as a combined demand rather than counting the same available resource separately for every part.

For example, in a stipulated dance case, strength and recall of the figure are adequate but balance during rotation is not. A programme adds suitable rotational-coordination practice and return to the figure under varied relevant conditions; it need not repeat the already mastered strength and recall work. HCD.3 distinguishes that gap from other causes, HCD.6 designs the practice and HCD.10 distributes its variation. A domain practitioner supplies the exercise and performance criterion.

When candidate programmes rely on different ways of developing the same contribution, carry the relevant HCD.4 local model into this comparison. Name which entry evidence makes each route usable, which qualitative change it proposes and what evidence supports the relations it relies on. HCD.6:4.2.1 supplies task and help alternatives; compare their whole learner/provider burden and the observation that could redirect them. Do not count crossed model nodes as equal units of gain or require every candidate to follow one presumed ladder. In the N24 case (HCD.6:5.6), contrast-first and supported-performance-first routes have the same target but different entry reliance, preparation and learning opportunities. The selected plan remains revisable; it is not the person’s recorded trajectory.

HCD.2:4.2a - Compare a New Start with Unfinished Learning

When another component would start alongside unfinished learning, recover what is still needed for the contributions already being developed before treating the addition as feasible. A learning line here is the remaining development towards one declared task contribution or a bounded future option. Several exercises can belong to one line; completing an exercise need not close that line.

Start from the person’s current programmes and recent attempts, including paused work that still needs maintenance or would incur a restart cost. For each relevant line, recover the intended later use and its threshold under allowed support, what the person has already demonstrated, and what remains unsupported. Then describe the remaining practice, feedback, learner correction and checks needed for that use. Include the provider and access windows that make them possible. Include a delayed or unassisted check only when the intended use requires it.

Compare the proposed new start with continuations that finish an existing contribution, preserve necessary practice, or deliberately pause or retire a line. Compare remaining benefit and burden; time already spent is not a reason to finish. A future option can justify a new start, but name what the bounded exploration will make possible or settle and when it returns for a decision. Calling every new topic an option leaves no stopping condition.

Construct a feasible boundary on concurrent learning for each candidate. Place the remaining attempts, feedback and correction in the available learner and provider windows; check attention blocks, shared tools and any assistance needed at the same time. Count a shared activity once when it serves several lines, while retaining different observations needed for different claims. Include maintenance, transition and restart costs of a pause. A sum of course hours can fit even when feedback arrives too late for correction or two lines need the same scarce practice window.

State which lines can remain active together and under what condition another can start: for example, an existing contribution is closed to its declared criterion, one line is paused with its consequences accepted, or additional usable capacity becomes available. The result can be a conditional set of compatible lines rather than a fixed count. Splitting one line into more modules does not change its remaining demand. Carry this boundary and its protected work into the programme comparison; the authorized decision owner still chooses whether to start, continue or pause.

Return actual attempts and help from HCD.9 to this account. A successful episode removes only the remaining work its evidence settles; the wider contribution can still need a changed-case attempt or another required check. HCD.11–13 supply stronger observations only where the intended claim needs them. Failed correction, a changed later task or a lost provider window changes the remaining work or feasible boundary through HCD.14/.15. When the required result is established, remove the completed work from the open set while retaining any needed maintenance. These changes can tighten or widen the boundary.

HCD.2:4.3 - Make the Descriptions Comparable

Describe every candidate on the same decision-bearing positions:

Unequal detail is itself a comparison gap. Develop only the smallest missing fragment needed to compare the same task, output, conditions, support, and resource coordinates. Do not require complete competing courses when one closed task family can discriminate the alternatives.

HCD.2:4.4 - Compare the Finite Programme Changes

Use C.11.CRC to compare each realizable candidate configuration with the person’s current configuration. Name the baseline, finite addition or substitution, candidate configuration, horizon, scenarios, result and resource coordinates, interactions, uncertainty, transition, reversibility, and option effects.

For HCD.2, the decision-bearing coordinates normally include:

• closure of the required later-Work outputs and protected critical-error conditions;
• learner, teacher, assessor, specialist, tool, and transition burden;
• dependence on references, AI, cues, project access, authority, and provider availability;
• preservation of current strengths and practice needed by other contributions;
• the qualified expectation and evidence plan for supported, independent, changed-condition, transfer, and delayed performance; and
• future development options and the cost of reopening a closed route.

Use dominated, non-dominated, beneficial, harmful, or indeterminate only for the candidates, coordinates, horizon, conditions, and evidence actually compared. A programme is not non-dominated merely because it was generated, and one feasible candidate is not dominant merely because no rival is ready. HCD.2 supplies the comparison claim; C.11 supplies any later bounded choice from the complete choice inputs.

HCD.2:4.5 - Return the Programme-Comparison Account

Return one account containing:

When a final choice is requested, pass this account to the authorized decision owner and the applicable decision Method. Preserve the option set, preferences, belief state, outcome model, protected conditions, probe worth, and authority required there. Do not turn the HCD.2 comparison into authorization, commitment, launch, or proof of effect.

HCD.2:4.6 - Recognition and Assurance

Recognition. Use HCD.2 when the live question sounds like “Which way could this person become able to do the whole job?” and the alternatives differ in preparation, practice, support, time, or future options. The smallest useful result may be one comparable task fragment rather than a complete curriculum.

Assurance. Stronger reliance needs same-holder and condition-compatible inputs, qualified target-domain tasks and error criteria, credible provider and access claims, complete resource coordinates, and explicit evidence limits. A programme can be compared before it is chosen or run. Effectiveness, transfer, retention, provider operation, and personal development require their own observations.

HCD.2:4.7 - What Changes in Practice

A practitioner stops asking, “Which course covers all the topics?” and asks, “Which finite programme change closes this person’s complete later-Work tasks, with what human and external contributions, at what burden, and what evidence is still missing?” A detailed course becomes one candidate; an unknown audience receives a design question rather than an invented personal profile.