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.