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.