HCD.4:5 - Archetypal Grounding
HCD.4:5.1 - Constructed Positive Case: ImpactReview-17
ImpactReview-17 is a constructed pedagogical case. ImpactReview-17-Domain-Oracle-v1 supplies engineering correctness and criticality criteria for PumpWorks-Config-Baseline-42 and AI-Assist-M4. The observations and decision conditions below are stipulated case data.
The human holder is Engineer-P14. The later-Work demand is independent review of AI-proposed change-impact claims under a forty-five-minute case limit, current source/configuration access, auditable evidence, and bounded safety and maintenance specialist returns. The work permits a routine reminder to construct and test an alternative hypothesis, while the engineer must supply the case-specific rival and its test. The explicit probe prompt in HCD.3:5.1 names that operation without supplying its answer. Self-initiated recall remains a separate question. HCD.4 keeps four claim rows:
| Claim in the constructed profile | Current evidence | Target and trade-off disposition |
|---|---|---|
| source/configuration trace | 8/8 under the stipulated configuration | Preserve; do not trade traceability for speed. |
| independent AI-output challenge | 2/4 planted-error cases; both misses are unfamiliar variants | Priority gap; target 4/4 and zero accepted seeded safety-critical omissions, while the forty-five-minute limit remains a visible cost. |
| bounded specialist return | 2/2 relevant cases | Preserve the authority boundary; do not internalize specialist judgement. |
| auditable evidence return | 8/8 | Preserve; no aggregate may hide a missing critical-error record. |
The resulting comparison says: preserve the three supported claims, investigate independent AI-output challenge as the limiting gap, keep the prompt-design rival live, and do not select a programme. The current profile is not one score; the target is not proof of mastery or transformation.
Engineer-P14 faces one person-level self-development-focus choice within a separately pre-authorized twelve-hour allocation. The constructed decision record captures the chooser’s inputs and application of C.11:
| Decision value | Constructed case value |
|---|---|
DecisionSubject | Engineer-P14. |
DecisionSubjectGranularity | Person-level; Engineer-P14 participates directly in the comparison. |
OptionSet | O1 preserve the profile without selecting a change; O2 make independent AI-output challenge the priority for later programme comparison while preserving the three supported claims; O3 defer a human profile-change priority and return the live prompt-design question to the Method/tool owner. |
EvaluativeMeasure | Prefer fewer accepted seeded safety-critical omissions while preserving source/configuration trace, specialist authority, auditable evidence, the forty-five-minute case limit, and reversibility. |
BeliefState | Two unfamiliar misses, a small sample, and a live prompt-design rival remain. |
OutcomeModel | A two-case prompt comparison can still change which of O2 or O3 survives, while differences between the cases remain unresolved. This supplies evidential input rather than an isolated causal prompt effect. O1 leaves the observed critical-error gap unchanged. |
| dependence layer | Evidential baseline only; no causal intervention or capability-change claim is used. |
ChoiceRule | Choose a profile-change priority now only if it survives the live nonhuman rivals and no feasible decision-changing probe is worth its cost; otherwise emit probe again for the smallest feasible probe that can reverse O2 versus O3 within the allocation and protected conditions. |
ProbeActionSet | Two further unfamiliar seeded-error cases, with one first attempt per case: one uses a neutral prompt, the other an explicit counter-hypothesis prompt. Observe whether Engineer-P14 generates and tests a counter-hypothesis, and whether they reject the wrong AI claim. Keep the same sources, tools, specialist routes, and forty-five-minute limit per case. |
ProbeBudget | Two hours remaining for this pre-choice probe inside the twelve-hour allocation. |
CostToProbe | Up to ninety minutes for the two attempts, plus thirty minutes reserved for preparation and comparison: two hours in total. |
| value of information | A tested counter-hypothesis and rejection of the wrong claim only with the permitted reminder would strengthen O3: the observed human contribution works under that assistance condition. It would not establish self-initiated recall. Misses under both prompts would strengthen O2. Interpret either result with the small sample and unresolved case differences. The seeded critical-error boundary makes this possible change in choice worth the bounded cost. |
| probe-worthiness | Feasible and worth its cost. |
ChoiceResult | probe again with this two-case comparison, one attempt per prompt condition. No profile option is selected yet. |
| next question and authority | Return the new observations to HCD.3 and the updated comparison to HCD.4. The accountable manager owns time allocation, Work assignment, and employment consequences; safety and release owners retain their authority. |
Applying the stated ChoiceRule returns probe again: the probe fits the two-hour budget, preserves the protected conditions, and can still change which of O2 or O3 survives. Engineer-P14 participates in the comparison. The pre-authorized time supplies resources for the bounded probe; safety, release, and employment decisions remain with their authorized owners.
HCD.4:5.2 - Missing Case: ReleaseWork-R9
For Engineer-E27, HCD.1 can return a prospective ReleaseWork-R9 demand hypothesis, but no compatible current profile comparison is supportable. The actual Work occurrence, occurrence-produced result claim, occurrence-bound result record, representative observations, and obtaining SYSE.21 supplier result required by XRI-21 remain distinct missing values.
HCD.4 may retain prospective target claims for AI-output challenge, configuration-impact reasoning, evidence return, specialist coordination, critical-error detection, and unfamiliar-variant adaptation. It cannot populate current claim rows, claim a current-versus-target gap, or select a profile priority.
Return profile-decision-blocked. The blocked choice is any preserve, investigate, defer, narrow, specialist-evidence, or profile-change decision that depends on current holder evidence. The incomplete HCD profile does not justify claims of mastery, a current-versus-target gap, or transformation, or decisions about a programme, allocation, or employment. This boundary applies to uses of that unsupported profile; separate decisions need their own sufficient evidence and appropriate authority. Retry with a compatible same-holder demand frame, claim-by-claim current and target evidence under the intended configuration and evidence window, direct target-domain and specialist boundaries, holder participation, and—if a choice is requested—the current DecisionSubject, pre-existing OptionSet, comparison basis, applicable inquiry values, authority, and ChoiceRule. Do not fabricate HCD.2 alternatives to complete the record.
HCD.4:5.3 - Unlike Case: Clinical and Participation Profiles
For an adult seeking treatment for social anxiety, use qualified clinical care for diagnosis, treatment targets, provider competence, safety, and outcome interpretation. Symptom scales, exposure ladders, treatment plans, and provider pathways inform that clinical work; they do not by themselves establish a profile of the person’s contributions in later Work.
HCD.4 may compare condition-qualified contributions for a separately legitimate non-clinical participation or later-Work question only when the person and clinical owner supply a safe boundary and compatible evidence. A symptom change alone does not demonstrate the later-Work contribution. HCD.4 does not select treatment, and clinical safety must not be traded against productivity. Managerial authority over allocation confers neither clinical competence nor clinical decision authority and does not replace the person’s consent. If the required boundary or evidence is missing, return profile-decision-blocked; route a clinical question to its clinical owner.
HCD.4:5.4 - Constructed Ordinary Case: Preserve a Supported Profile
Engineer-K6 asks which of two already proposed profile priorities to retain for next month’s review of the same kind of configuration note, using the same sources, AI support and specialist return. A qualified HCD.1 demand account supplies a forty-five-minute case limit, source traceability, independent challenge of AI claims and auditable return. This constructed case stipulates current same-holder observations and the target-domain correctness criteria.
At the current forty-minute working pace, source traces and evidence returns are complete in eight of eight representative cases, and four of four seeded incorrect AI claims are rejected. In four additional, compatible cases at a twenty-minute pace, traces and returns remain complete, but only two of four seeded incorrect claims are rejected. The sample supports these condition-qualified rows; it does not establish mastery, an isolated causal effect of pace or transfer to other tools.
K6 is the person-level chooser and participates directly. The current options are O1, preserve independent challenge together with trace and evidence return at the present pace, and O2, prioritize twenty-minute completion. The comparison first preserves rejection of the seeded critical errors and then prefers less review time within the forty-five-minute limit. The outcome account uses the observed contribution and trade-off under each pace. The uncertainty about other tools lies outside this receiving use.
The explicit ChoiceRule selects the option supported for all required contributions before preferring speed. Applied to these rows, it returns choose now: O1: preserve the present profile; the faster option loses a required contribution. The result keeps the claim rows, options, rule, reason and same-configuration limit. This is the completed profile-priority choice. It neither selects a programme nor authorizes a release, allocation or employment action; those decisions retain their direct owners.