HCD.5 - Select Human Capability-Development Methods

Type: Human Capability Development practitioner method-selection pattern Status: Stable

HCD.5:0 - Use This When

Use this pattern to select how to develop a particular contribution. For a known person, begin with a qualified target and an initial or recent attempt. For a future audience, begin with the intended contribution and the entry conditions that would call for different teaching or practice. Return conditional design choices until evidence about a particular learner supports applying one of them.

The first useful result is a Method-selection account: a justified set of capability-development Methods, the target contribution and proposed mechanism for each, their task and learner fit, required support, evidence limits, burden and risk, surviving alternatives, and the observation that would change the selection. The result can contain one Method or a small coordinated set. A future-audience result states the entry evidence on which each choice depends. Selection does not establish target engagement, learning, transfer, or effectiveness.

The practical gain is discrimination. A person who calculates correctly but accepts an unsupported cause receives a different development proposal from someone who cannot perform the calculation, cannot recognize when the Method applies, or lacks the data and permission to act. An external constraint is returned to its owner instead of being disguised as a need for more training.

Do not use HCD.5 to diagnose a disorder or human limitation, design the full practice task, assign a provider, launch an intervention, or infer development from participation. Use HCD.3 when rival causes still change the human target. Use HCD.6 to turn a selected Method into representative tasks, HCD.7–HCD.8 for support and provider arrangements, and HCD.9–HCD.14 for enactment and evidence.

HCD.5:0.1 - Working Terms

Name in this pattern	What it denotes
development target	The smallest supported change in the person’s contribution that the proposed development should address under the named conditions. A score, trait label, activity, or programme topic is not the target by itself.
starting attempt	A condition-qualified observation of the person’s relevant action before the selected development. Record the task, help received, work product, result, and important errors rather than only a score.
conditional design hypothesis	A proposed Method choice for a future learner whose entry evidence would meet stated conditions. It identifies the required evidence without asserting that any person already meets those conditions.
capability-development Method	A repeatable way of arranging human action, task, information, feedback, support, and correction to pursue a named development target. Its description guides action; it does not establish that the Method was enacted or effective.
proposed mechanism	The reason the Method is expected to change the target, stated as a testable local claim rather than a technique label. Causal effect remains unestablished until compatible evidence supports it.
observed target change	A difference in the selected target between observations under stated conditions. It can inform the next development decision before its cause is established.
target engagement	A change in the selected target attributable to an intervention. Evidence must concern that target and justify the attribution; a theory label or assigned activity does neither.
Method set	One Method or a small combination whose members make distinct necessary contributions to the same bounded target or task. A catalogue of plausible techniques is not a selected set.
surviving alternative	A serious alternative that remains compatible with the current evidence and would change the development action or evidence plan.
non-training return	A return naming the external constraint, owner, blocked HCD decision, safe interim boundary, and retry condition when a human-development Method is not yet the supported next move.

The target, selected Method, Method description, provider, enacted development Work, observed target change, and later capability claim remain different objects. HCD.5 selects the Method and records the description and conditions needed by the next design use; later evidence determines what was enacted and what changed.

HCD.5:1 - Problem Frame

The same poor result can arise from different action failures. A person may lack a usable explanation, make a recurrent calculation error, fail to distinguish situations that call for different Methods, or combine individually correct steps badly in a whole task. The same visible failure may instead come from missing data, inaccessible sources, absent permission, an unsuitable tool, an unavailable specialist, or an unsafe workload.

Development Methods act differently. A worked example can expose reasoning that unsupported problem solving hides, but unchanged guidance can obstruct an experienced learner. Part practice can stabilize a recurrent operation, but it cannot teach when to use it. Whole tasks can expose coordination, but they can overload a novice when a true prerequisite is missing. Feedback can change the next attempt only when its information identifies an actionable difference.

Method selection connects a qualified target and starting attempt—or explicitly assumed entry conditions for a future audience—to a plausible change mechanism, while preserving the task, learner, support, evidence, burden, and risk conditions under which that mechanism might help.

HCD.5:2 - Problem

The common shortcut is treatment by label: “deliberate practice,” “coaching,” “mastery,” “retrieval,” “interleaving,” “motivation,” or “AI tutor” is prescribed because the term sounds relevant. The label hides what the person must do differently and which observation would show that the proposed target changed.

Another shortcut chooses the activity that is easiest to provide. A lecture substitutes for missing project access, repeated calculation substitutes for causal discrimination, or a score substitutes for feedback. The intervention can be delivered successfully while the limiting contribution remains untouched.

The opposite failure is an exhaustive menu with no selection. The practitioner needs a small justified Method set, one serious alternative, and a precise return when the next step is not human development.

HCD.5:3 - Forces

A familiar technique is easy to commission, while its mechanism may not match the observed action or later-Work target.
Whole-task practice preserves coordination, while a true prerequisite or recurrent suboperation may need focused preparation.
Guidance can help a novice begin, while the same guidance can become redundant or answer-bearing as knowledge grows.
Repetition supplies more attempts, while repeated practice history alone does not establish causality or a universal hours threshold.
Feedback is widely available, while its information content, timing, receiver, and opportunity for correction determine what it can change.
A self-regulation plan can support an already endorsed goal, while goal enactment is not the same as capability or transfer.
Supported performance can make practice possible, while it can hide the human contribution the target requires.
A small source effect can justify a candidate mechanism, while population, task, measure, horizon, and provider differences limit transfer to this person.
Human development can be useful, while access, authority, environment, provider, safety, clinical, or target-domain problems may own the next action.

HCD.5:4 - Solution

Recover the target action and its observed or proposed entry conditions, compare a small set of Methods that propose materially different change mechanisms, and select only the Method or combination whose task fit, learner fit, support, burden, risk, and evidence plan remain credible. Return external constraints before prescribing development.

Use observations of the target to decide whether to continue or change practice. Report the conditions and what changed; a before/after difference alone does not identify the intervention’s effect. Obtain additional causal evidence only when the receiving decision needs that stronger claim and the inquiry is feasible and worth its cost. If the target observation is unavailable, leave change unknown rather than treating it as a demonstrated lack of improvement.

HCD.5:4.1 - Bind the Selection Use

First distinguish selection for a known person from design for a future audience. Name:

the person and participation basis, or the future audience and its assumptions; identify the receiving decision and decision owner in either case;
the later-Work contribution, configuration, horizon, protected result and critical-error conditions;
the qualified target for that person and any still-plausible rival explanation, or the target contribution and proposed entry conditions for each design branch;
the person’s starting attempt, including task, permitted and received help, work product, result, errors, uncertainty and evidence window. For future design, state instead the entry task or existing evidence that would distinguish the branches, the allowed help and the response that would select or reopen each choice;
current strengths, prior relevant practice, available time, access, tools, AI posture, provider contribution, environment, privacy, safety, and other protected conditions; and
the observation that the receiving decision would use after the Method is applied.

For future design, keep unknown learner, support and resource values as assumptions with a return condition. Apply a personal choice only when the person’s entry evidence supports it. If rival explanations then change the human target or next action, return to HCD.3. If the target-domain Method, correctness criterion, access, permission, tool, specialist result, or safe participation condition is missing, issue a non-training return to its direct owner. Do not make the missing value into a motivation, practice, or knowledge deficit.

HCD.5:4.2 - Generate a Small Candidate Set by Mechanism

Use the observed action difference, or the stated difference between possible entry conditions, to generate serious candidates. The following cues are questions, not an exhaustive intervention classification:

Observed difference	Candidate Method question	Boundary to preserve
the person lacks a usable representation or cannot follow expert reasoning	Would an explanation, demonstration, integrated worked example, or prompted self-explanation expose the decision-bearing relation?	Guidance should fit prior knowledge and later be reduced or changed; understanding the example is not independent performance.
the person cannot yet notice the difference named by an instruction	Would HCD.6.1 make that difference discernible through an accessible contrast and a response that uses it?	The encounter must be feasible from the learner’s existing capabilities; noticing the difference and performing the target action remain separate.
the person performs an operation when named but does not recognize when it applies	Would discrimination practice across contrasting situations improve recognition and Method selection?	Repeating execution with the Method name supplied cannot test this target.
a recurrent component is slow or error-prone and constrains the whole task	Would focused part practice with immediate correction stabilize that component?	The component must contribute to the later task; part success does not establish whole-task coordination.
separate contributions are adequate but their coordination fails	Would sufficiently whole-task practice with bounded support expose the interfaces and stopping conditions?	A true prerequisite may still need preparation; task realism does not excuse unsafe or uninterpretable complexity.
the next attempt repeats a known, actionable difference	What information-specific feedback, corrective activity, and retest would let the person change that action?	Praise, a score, or another attempt is not enough when it does not identify the difference to change.
the person has an endorsed goal and feasible action but misses a stable cue	Would a bounded if–then plan or environmental cue support enactment?	Goal attainment is not capability, and a plan cannot repair an unavailable or unsafe action.
competent participation in complex Work is needed	Would demonstration, coaching, guided participation, or supervised workplace practice provide the missing contribution?	The provider, task, access, supervision, and consequence boundary must be real; the label “apprenticeship” establishes none of them.
the observed limit disappears when data, permission, workload, tool, or support is restored	Is the supported next move an access or arrangement change rather than a development Method?	Return the condition to HCD.7, HCD.8, or its direct owner and preserve any remaining human target separately.

Spacing, retrieval, interleaving, cue focus, support fading, and other practice features may refine a candidate when their mechanism matches the target. Their names do not select the Method. HCD.10 chooses the condition-sensitive practice change after the governing Method and observations are present.

If a local proficiency model is being used, connect the candidate mechanism to its proposed transition rather than selecting a Method for a level name. Recover the starting response, the intended difference and the condition that distinguishes them from HCD.4:4.2.1–4.2.2. For N24 (HCD.6:5.6), correct calculation with a supplied unit rules against arithmetic repetition as the present target. Contrast and supported whole performance are serious alternatives for making unit selection available. If later evidence separates cue-dependent selection from cue-resistant selection, reconsider that mechanism and its task; the model’s new wording alone is no reason to repeat an unchanged Method. Pass the selected connection and its uncertainty to HCD.6.

HCD.5:4.3 - Compare Method Fit and Evidence

For each serious candidate, record:

Selection position	Required content
target contribution	The exact human action or judgement intended to change and its role in later Work.
proposed mechanism	How the Method is expected to change that target, what source or prior observation supports the expectation, and which rival explanation remains live.
task and learner fit	Starting performance, prior knowledge, task complexity, similarity, support dependence, and the reason this Method fits better than the serious alternative.
enacted form	The minimally sufficient explanation, demonstration, practice, feedback, correction, plan, coaching, or support change; identify a qualified professional description when local design would be unsafe or under-specified.
provider and access need	Competence, time, data, tools, AI, environment, supervision, permission, privacy, and peak-load conditions required for the Method.
burden and risk	Learner and provider effort, displaced Work, error exposure, overload, autonomy, fatigue, clinical or safety risk, and the cost of another attempt or probe.
evidence plan	Starting observation, observation of target change, independent or changed-condition attempt where relevant, later-Work evidence needed for the stronger claim, and contamination or measurement limits.
alternatives and stop	Surviving alternative, rejected candidate with reason, condition for stopping or returning, and smallest change that reopens selection.

Compare candidates at comparable enactment effort. A richly specified Method does not defeat an unnamed alternative; make only the smallest alternative description needed to expose a decision-bearing difference. Preserve source limits instead of transporting one average effect, hours threshold, cue, sequence, or professional arrangement to a different task and population.

HCD.5:4.4 - Select a Coherent Method Set

Select the smallest set whose members make distinct contributions to the target. For a combination, state:

which target or task difference each member addresses;
whether it prepares a prerequisite, enables the first attempt, supplies feedback, supports correction, or tests changed performance;
which order is required by dependence and which order is merely convenient;
which help is allowed during each observation and what the person must do without an answer-bearing cue; and
when the set stops, changes, or returns because comparable observations show insufficient target change, another limitation appears, or a provider condition fails.

Do not accumulate techniques as insurance. If two candidates propose the same contribution at higher burden, retain the lower-burden adequate candidate unless a material evidence, safety, participation, or future-use value justifies the difference. If methods address different supported targets, keep those targets and evidence plans distinct even when one programme coordinates their enactment.

HCD.5:4.5 - Record the Method-Selection Account

Result position	Required content
selection boundary	Person and participation basis, or future audience assumptions; later-Work contribution, configuration, horizon, evidence window, receiving decision, decision owner and outside owners. Mark which conditions are observed and which are proposed.
target and start	For personal selection: qualified target and starting attempt with its conditions, strengths, errors, help, uncertainty and still-plausible rivals. For future design: target contribution, assumed starting conditions and the entry evidence that would select or reopen each branch.
selected Method set	Each Method’s action, proposed mechanism, intended target contribution, enacted form, required support, and stop condition.
comparison	Serious alternatives, comparable effort, task and learner fit, evidence, burden, risk, and reason for selection or rejection.
evidence plan	Observation of target change, permitted help, independent or changed-condition observation where material, stronger later-Work evidence, and inference limits.
disposition	`selected Method set`, `conditional design hypothesis for stated entry evidence`, `non-training return`, or `Method description or provider result blocked`.
continuation	The practice-task design, provider/access result, first enacted attempt, missing professional description, outside-owner question, or smallest condition that reopens selection.

For a future audience, return only a conditional design hypothesis tied to the stated entry evidence and planned diagnostic branches. Do not turn an audience description into an individual prescription. When a competent professional Method or provider result is required and unavailable, name that result rather than writing a generic local substitute.

HCD.5:4.6 - Recognition and Assurance

Recognition. Use HCD.5 when the question is “What kind of development activity could change this person’s specific action?” and a worked example, whole task, focused component practice, feedback loop, coaching arrangement, self-regulation aid, or support change would lead to different next Work. For a future audience, ask the same question conditionally for each proposed entry branch.

Assurance. Stronger reliance needs a qualified target, condition-compatible starting evidence, a task- and learner-matched mechanism claim, source limits, credible provider and access conditions, material burden and risk, and an observation that can detect target change without conflating helped performance with learning. Attribution of that change to the intervention requires a further basis; it is not implied by this observation. Clinical, safety, employment, legal, provider-competence, and target-domain correctness decisions require their direct owners.

HCD.5:4.7 - What Changes in Practice

A practitioner stops asking, “Which learning technique should we use?” and asks, “Which exact action must change, what Method could change it under these conditions, what serious alternative remains, and what observation would show that the target—not merely the activity or score—changed?” When the answer is access, permission, data, workload, or specialist input, the work leaves Method selection with a named return.

HCD.5:5 - Archetypal Grounding

HCD.5:5.1 - Correct Calculation, Unsupported Cause

In a constructed pump case, flow remains 100 m³/h while measured power rises from 20 to 22.4 kW, so the calculated energy per unit volume rises by 12%. The person computes the ratio correctly but concludes that the controller change caused the increase. Current facts leave at least resistance, regulation efficiency, and measurement error as live explanations.

The target is not unit conversion or arithmetic. It is proposing competing explanations, stating a discriminating observation, and keeping the conclusion conditional. A selected Method set uses one worked explanation that makes the rival predictions visible, a coached discrimination attempt, and a later changed case in which the person must choose the next observation without the Method or answer supplied. Focused unit practice remains a surviving candidate only if a separate starting observation shows a unit error. Generic repetition of the original calculation is rejected because it does not address the target.

The selection account records the proposed reasoning mechanism, teacher feedback needed, safe stipulated data, changed-condition observation, and the limit that this exercise does not establish engineering capability or the causal effect of the Method.

HCD.5:5.2 - Execution with a Cue, Failure to Select

A person can apply a finite comparison correctly whenever C.11.CRC is named, yet chooses a local score when a new situation requires comparing complete configurations. More worked examples with the PatternID printed beside the task would rehearse execution while preserving the selection failure.

HCD.5 selects discrimination practice across cases in which a finite comparison, a sensitivity result, or a source check is appropriate. Early feedback names the decision-bearing cue; later tasks remove the answer-bearing Method label and change the configuration or horizon. The intended observation is correct recognition and selection before execution on the changed case. It can support this performance claim without yet establishing whether the practice caused the change. HCD.6 supplies the actual representative task set; HCD.9 records what happened in each attempt.

HCD.5:5.3 - Missing Project Access Is Not a Practice Dose

A participant can explain the target Method on a supplied case but cannot apply it in their work because the project data and permission for a small safe trial are absent. The missing access changes the next action before any learning-technique comparison. HCD.5 returns the exact data, permission, owner, blocked practice decision, and retry condition to HCD.7 or the direct project owner. It preserves any supported human target but does not prescribe a longer course or call non-participation low motivation.

HCD.5:5.4 - Future Audience Design Hypothesis

A learning-product author expects entrants to differ in unit work, causal discrimination, and Method recognition. HCD.5 may propose conditional branches: focused component preparation for an observed unit error, worked explanation and coached discrimination for an unsupported cause, and Method-selection practice for cue dependence. The author still needs entry tasks that distinguish those conditions. The branch is not a frequency claim about engineers or a prescription for any person not yet observed.

HCD.5:6 - Bias-Annotation

Lenses: Gov, Arch, Onto/Epist, Prag, Did. Scope: selecting capability-development Methods from a person’s qualified target and starting evidence, or proposing conditional choices for a future audience.

Recurring bias	Likely drift	Repair
technique allegiance	One school or branded intervention becomes the default.	Compare proposed mechanisms and a serious alternative against the exact target and starting attempt.
activity bias	Attendance, repetition, coaching time, or content exposure substitutes for change in the target.	Name the observation of target change and distinguish it from an intervention-effect claim.
deficit bias	A tool, access, authority, workload, provider, or specialist failure becomes a human limitation.	Issue a non-training return while preserving any separately supported target.
score bias	A scalar selects an intervention without the underlying action or error.	Recover the task, work product, help, error pattern, and inference limit.
novice-default bias	Guidance is kept constant despite changing prior knowledge.	State the learner-fit condition and the rule for reducing, changing, or removing support.
dose bias	More hours or repetitions are presumed causal.	Specify the Method contribution and observation; keep practice history as evidence rather than mechanism proof.
feedback optimism	Any response from a teacher or tool is called useful feedback.	State the information that identifies the action to change and the opportunity for correction.
motivation rhetoric	A theory label explains non-enactment without target or context evidence.	Compare cue, feasibility, support, environment, and the observed target before selecting a self-regulation Method.

HCD.5:7 - Conformance Checklist

The selection concerns either a known person with a qualified target or a future audience with explicit entry assumptions; the intended contribution, horizon, receiving decision and decision owner are recoverable.
A personal selection uses a starting attempt with its conditions, help, work product, result, errors, strengths and uncertainty. A future-audience proposal identifies the entry evidence needed to distinguish its conditional branches without asserting that a learner has supplied it.
External access, Method, tool, authority, provider, specialist, clinical, safety, or environment constraints are returned to their direct owners rather than renamed as training needs.
Every serious candidate states a proposed mechanism, target contribution, task and learner fit, minimally sufficient enacted form, required support, burden, risk, and evidence plan.
The comparison includes one serious alternative at comparable enactment effort and preserves source population, task, measure, horizon, support, and causal limits.
Whole-task, part-practice, explanation, feedback, coaching, planning, and support candidates are selected by their contribution, not by label.
A selected combination assigns one distinct necessary contribution to each member and states required versus convenient order.
Intended help, permitted help, actual availability, received help, and independent action remain distinct.
Observed target change is distinguished from attendance, satisfaction and the intervention’s effect. Assistance conditions limit the performance claim; later capability, transfer and retention need their own grounds.
The result records surviving alternatives, rejected candidates with reasons, stop conditions, and the smallest change that reopens selection.
A future-audience result is conditional on stated entry evidence and does not prescribe for an unobserved person.
HCD.5 selects no provider, full task set, programme choice, intervention launch, clinical action, employment action, or effectiveness conclusion.

HCD.5:8 - Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

Anti-pattern	Why it fails	Repair
“Use deliberate practice”	The label omits the target, task, feedback, refinement, provider, and evidence limits; accumulated practice is not a universal cause.	Specify the proposed mechanism and enacted form for this target, or choose another Method.
“They need more examples”	Examples may improve representation or preserve cue dependence; the action difference is unknown.	Compare worked explanation, discrimination practice, and independent selection against the observed error.
“The score is low, so reteach”	A score can mix arithmetic, recognition, support, access, and measurement error.	Recover the claim-sized starting attempt and live rivals first.
“Whole tasks are always best”	Missing prerequisites, overload, or safety conditions can make a whole task unusable.	Prepare the true prerequisite and retain sufficiently whole practice for the contributions that must combine.
“Remove all help”	Abrupt withdrawal can test the wrong thing or make practice unsafe.	Select help and its change by target, current knowledge, task, and intended observation.
“Feedback works”	A score, praise, or generic comment may not identify the next action.	Specify information content, receiver, correction opportunity, and retest.
“Write an if–then plan for any gap”	A plan cannot create capability, access, authority, or an unendorsed goal.	Use planning only for a supported enactment target with detectable cue and feasible response.
“The missing project proves low motivation”	No human inference follows from unavailable data or permission.	Return the access condition and retry predicate to its owner.
“Select every plausible technique”	The list hides contribution, sequence, burden, and stop conditions.	Keep the smallest coherent Method set and one serious surviving alternative.

HCD.5:9 - Consequences

The practitioner gains a reasoned bridge from a qualified target to a practice design and evidence plan. Different error patterns receive different candidate mechanisms, and a provider or access failure can stop unhelpful development before time is committed.

The cost is more precise starting evidence and explicit comparison. A selected Method may require a competent provider, safe task, additional observation, or professional description that is not yet available. Some familiar interventions will remain only conditional hypotheses, and observed failure to change the target can warrant reselection.

HCD.5:10 - Rationale

A development activity is useful only through the contribution it changes for the receiving later-Work use. Technique names and average effects compress away the holder, task, starting action, support, and evidence boundary that determine local fit.

Mechanism comparison keeps the proposal generative without claiming causality in advance. The observation of target change makes failure informative: it can challenge the selected Method before a poor later result is blamed on the person. A small Method set preserves complementarity while preventing a catalogue from masquerading as a choice.

HCD.5:11 - SoTA-Echoing

The working question is: How should a practitioner select a human-development Method that fits one qualified target and starting attempt rather than merely choosing a familiar intervention label?

The selected best-known line is target-, task-, learner-, and evidence-sensitive Method selection. Paas and van Merriënboer’s 2020 review (COG-05) supports integrated information and worked examples for avoidable novice load while requiring guidance to change with prior knowledge. Wisniewski, Zierer, and Hattie’s 2020 meta-analysis (MOT-05) shows why feedback must be selected by information content, task, receiver, and opportunity to use it rather than by the claim that “feedback works.” Sheeran and colleagues’ 2020 meta-analysis (MOT-01) distinguishes an intervention’s effect on its proposed target from that target’s contribution to the later outcome. Its health-behaviour population and small average effect do not establish professional capability transfer. HCD uses this distinction to limit causal claims while allowing local decisions based on condition-qualified observations.

The serious ordinary alternative is intervention by family label: prescribe deliberate practice, mastery, coaching, motivation work, retrieval, interleaving, or AI tutoring from a broad diagnosis or a low score. It is cheaper to commission, but it cannot explain why the selected activity should change this action rather than a rival limitation. HCD.5 adapts the source line into the bound selection positions in §§4.1–4.5 and rejects a universal technique or dose.

Macnamara, Hambrick, and Oswald’s 2014 meta-analysis (BEH-02) is limit evidence: observed deliberate-practice histories account for different and incomplete shares of performance variance and do not establish a universal hours threshold or causal intervention. Sheeran and colleagues’ 2024 planning synthesis (MOT-03) supplies a bounded if–then planning candidate only when a goal is endorsed, a cue is detectable, and an action is feasible. Carpenter, Pan, and Butler’s 2022 review (COG-01) supports spacing and retrieval as candidates for durable access under source-specific conditions, not as a complete curriculum or default Method for every target.

The selected line costs more than matching labels to a catalogue, but it preserves target fit, external returns, provider needs, risks, and an observation capable of changing the selection. Reopen it when stronger source evidence changes a relied-on mechanism or limit, when target observations contradict the expected change, when the task or learner conditions change, or when a lower-effort selection practice preserves the same decision-bearing values.

HCD.5:12 - Relations

HCD.1: can supply the later-Work demand and protected contribution boundary.
HCD.2: can expose programme components that need Method selection; HCD.5 does not choose the programme.
HCD.3: supplies a qualified human target or non-training return when rival causes matter.
HCD.4: can supply current strengths, priority characteristics, trade-offs, and condition-qualified profile evidence.
HCD.6: turns the selected Method into representative tasks, permitted help, variations, and result criteria.
HCD.7: establishes whether the required people, sources, tools, AI, access, environment, and checking contributions are available.
HCD.8: builds a missing development arrangement only after the required provider or environment result is explicit.
HCD.9 and HCD.10: enact the selected focused practice and adjust its variation, spacing, interleaving, progression, or help from observed attempts.
HCD.11–HCD.13: supply stronger same-holder performance, transfer, retention, and support-dependence evidence; HCD.5’s mechanism claim does not substitute for those results.
HCD.14: may revise the selected Method when compatible evidence changes the target, mechanism, fit, support, or result expectation.
Target-domain, clinical, safety, legal, employment, privacy, organization, provider, and specialist practices: retain correctness, risk, participation, authority, and competence decisions.
Explanation Design: when the selected activity needs an explanation, EXD.1 establishes the question, EXD.2 constructs an example that exposes the relevant relation and its limits, and EXD.5 guides the learner’s own explanation and correction. Use the needed contribution within HCD.6 task design or HCD.9 practice; HCD.10–HCD.13 retain progression and the performance, transfer and retention questions.
Learning-product practices: may enact a selected explanation, task, feedback interaction, plan, or schedule for a declared audience; the product does not make the Method effective for a person by publication.