HCD.2:5 - Archetypal Grounding
HCD.2:5.1 - Constructed Personal Case: Learner-FP6
Learner-FP6 is a constructed pedagogical holder. The stipulated entry attempt shows that this person can build a device model but confuses a flow unit, the recipient of the result, and the organizational permission needed for the proposed action. The intended later-Work outputs, mandatory tasks, 340 learner-hour limit, available teacher and worked examples, and protected critical errors are held fixed for this comparison. No observation of actual learning is claimed.
Two six-hour candidates replace harder optional cases rather than add time:
| Candidate | Finite change and intended contribution | Burden, dependence, and evidence gap |
|---|---|---|
| focused preparation | Allocate two hours to selecting the result recipient, two to checking the required organizational permission and tracing consequences for other systems, and two to checking flow units and constraints before the next whole task. The mandatory tasks, later variation, and final result remain unchanged. | Uses an explicit prerequisite route and keeps teacher feedback inside the existing arrangement. It may isolate the three weaknesses clearly, but the comparison still needs a changed-condition whole-task attempt to show whether the contributions combine. |
| supported whole-task preparation | Use the same six learner hours for a complete decision task in which the person must calculate with the flow unit, address the right recipient, and obtain or respect the required permission. A worked example and bounded teacher questions support the first attempt; a changed case then removes answer-revealing help. | Tests integration earlier but may conceal which prerequisite failed. Selecting, demonstrating, and reviewing the extra case consumes teacher preparation and feedback Work that must fit an established capacity or be priced separately. |
HCD.2 returns two comparable descriptions, the common output and evidence plan, and the unresolved provider-load and changed-condition evidence. It does not choose between them. An independent attempt showing three separable errors would strengthen focused preparation; success on the components but failure to combine them would strengthen the whole-task candidate. Either observation reopens only the affected comparison claims.
HCD.2:5.2 - Unknown Audience: FoundationsProgramme A, B, and C
A learning-product author has two intended outcomes: checked performance of complete selected work tasks, and lower effort to learn a previously untaught Method while preserving correctness. These are design aims, not observed gains. The author has an audience hypothesis, three 340-hour compositions, and no named learners. A allocates 202/96/42 hours to general/domain/joint application, B allocates 88/204/48, and C allocates 136/136/68. C is described in more detail; that detail does not establish dominance.
The HCD.2 boundary returns a learning-product design question to HCD.28: preserve the two outputs, audience assumptions, three alternatives, learner and teacher resource coordinates, support assumptions, and individualization questions. Use C’s existing material and develop only the smallest missing A/B fragment for one closed task family with the same output, entry assumptions, representative attempt, feedback, retry, access, and resource account. Do not fabricate one future learner or require three complete courses before comparison becomes useful.
If the learner budget falls from 340 to 204 hours while both outputs remain fixed, none of the three original candidates is launchable as described. Multiplying every activity by 0.6 or hiding reading and practice outside the budget does not close the task. The return asks for a new candidate that identifies the removed or replaced 136 hours and preserves the mechanisms needed for the outputs. The separate 240-hour teacher calculation does not replace learner time or establish a competent available service. A 170-hour ThinkingFoundations-only offer answers a narrower output question and therefore is not an improved version of the same candidate set.
HCD.2:5.3 - One Feasible Candidate Is Not a Winner
A named person has a qualified near-term engineering task and strong entry evidence. Only one candidate currently fits the deadline and available project access; a second candidate depends on an unavailable specialist. HCD.2 may return the feasible candidate, its finite comparison with the current configuration, and the exact specialist result that blocks the other candidate. It does not invent a weak rival, call the feasible programme universally best, or infer that the programme will work. A later provider result, deadline change, or changed task reopens the bounded comparison.
HCD.2:5.4 - Two Unfinished Lines and an Attractive New Start
In this constructed case, Lena has six learner-hours and two 45-minute sessions with a suitably qualified teacher in the coming week. The sessions can each return feedback early enough for a learner correction and subsequent check. The programme must preserve preparation for Friday’s report. A second line concerns work next month; a simulation method might open a further project option.
Recover the remaining contribution of each line:
| Line | Existing evidence and remaining useful result | Remaining burden in this window |
|---|---|---|
| A — justify a dashboard anomaly | Lena computes the indicator correctly. She still needs to distinguish two plausible explanations, select a discriminating observation and correct her reasoning on a changed case under the allowed reference. This is needed for Friday’s report. | Two learner-hours for attempt, feedback use, correction and check; one 45-minute teacher session, including preparation and review. |
| B — adapt a data query | A query works on the practised structure. The remaining task is to adapt it to a changed structure and check the result with the permitted reference. No further topic reading is needed on the stipulated evidence. | Two learner-hours and one 45-minute teacher session for the remaining attempt, correction and check. |
| C — explore simulation | This is a proposed start, not an acquired contribution. One supported model and a contrast with the current analysis would inform whether a further simulation programme is worth constructing. That decision ends this exploration. | Two learner-hours and one 45-minute teacher session for the bounded exploration and its review. |
All three fit the six learner-hours but need 135 teacher-minutes; only 90 are available. Counting A’s completed calculation and B’s completed query as closed learning would conceal this competition. There are at least two comparable continuations that preserve Friday’s requirement:
- Continue A and B; defer C. Four learner-hours and 90 teacher-minutes are allocated to the two remaining task contributions. Completion is intended, not guaranteed by those allowances.
- Continue A and open C; pause B. The same four learner-hours and 90 teacher-minutes supply A and the exploration. On the stipulated pause arrangement, preserving B’s partial work takes another half-hour now and returning to it requires a further half-hour next month. Its remaining practice is still owed, and its later use must tolerate that delay.
The two continuations have different closure, option and transition consequences. HCD.2 returns those differences and a boundary of these two compatible active lines, not a universal maximum of two or a choice made for Lena. If the next project now requires simulation while B’s later use is cancelled, opening C and retiring B can become preferable; unfinished status is not a reason to retain obsolete work.
Under the original work estimates, a confirmed third timely teacher session would make the three-line candidate feasible at six learner-hours and 135 teacher-minutes. This widens the available comparison without establishing that taking all three is preferable.
Suppose instead that A’s next attempt reveals another correction requiring one learner-hour and a further 45-minute teacher session before Friday. A now consumes three learner-hours and both sessions. The previous two-line continuations no longer fit. With the same help, a candidate can keep only A active and pay B’s half-hour pause cost: 3.5 learner-hours and 90 teacher-minutes. Retaining B or starting C as described requires additional suitable help or a changed arrangement. HCD.9’s result changes the remaining work; HCD.14/.15 reopen the affected comparison.