HCD.7:4 - Solution
Translate the selected programme, Method, and practice tasks into required contributions; assign each contribution to an identified provider or resource; and test competence, access, timing, capacity, constraints, human checking, and fallback before calling the arrangement enabled.
HCD.7:4.1 - Bind the Development Use
Name:
- the human holder or defined learner class, participation basis, programme or practice recipient, and receiving decision;
- the later-Work target, selected HCD.5 Method, HCD.6 practice set, required work products, protected errors, and intended evidence uses;
- the calendar, attempt and feedback timing, learner workload, provider windows, peak periods, and decision deadlines;
- project, source, data, environment, tool, AI, privacy, confidentiality, accessibility, permission, safety, and authority conditions; and
- every direct owner whose competence, result, or authorization the arrangement consumes.
For a class-level design, state the audience assumptions and capacity range. Do not infer that a particular person fits the arrangement. When that person becomes known, recheck their task, access, participation, support, and accommodation conditions rather than inheriting the class average.
HCD.7:4.2 - Allocate Contributions, Not Labels
Construct one contribution allocation:
| Allocation field | Required content |
|---|---|
| contribution and recipient | The explanation, demonstration, case, access, feedback, check, assessment, specialist result, coordination, or fallback needed; who or what uses it; and which task or result it enables. |
| provider and scope | Identified supplier, contribution-specific competence, authorization, independence where needed, and explicit non-responsibilities. |
| timing and service condition | Required date or interval, concurrency, response or feedback deadline, duration, handoff, and dependency on other contributions. |
| access and constraints | Data, source, project, environment, interface, accessibility, privacy, confidentiality, safety, legal, employment, or organizational conditions. |
| capacity | Preparation, delivery, checking, correction, coordination, fallback, and peak-load effort; competing uses and unavailable periods. |
| evidence and fallback | Evidence that the provider and access are available for this use; failure signal; feasible fallback or exact missing result and retry condition. |
One person or tool may fill several rows, but each row keeps its own competence, workload, and constraints. Several providers may jointly supply one result, but their interfaces and the person responsible for the final judgement remain explicit. A catalogue, contract, platform account, or calendar slot is evidence input; none establishes every row by itself.
HCD.7:4.3 - Test Competence, Access, Timing, and Capacity
For each contribution:
- Check competence and scope. Obtain evidence suitable for the task and consequence. Familiarity with content, teaching ability, domain judgement, facilitation, and independent assessment are not interchangeable.
- Check authority and independence. State who may provide feedback, access confidential data, change a project, judge a protected criterion, authorize a retry, or make the later decision. A helpful participant is not automatically the authorized assessor.
- Check actual access. Verify source edition or data, credentials, project permission, environment, tool or model availability, interface, and accessibility during the required window.
- Check total and peak capacity. Include preparation, learner contact, review, correction, coordination, disputes, fallback, and competing work. Test the busiest window and the promised feedback interval, not only the total.
- Check handoffs and fallback. Make the next provider, due time, result form, and failure signal visible. A fallback is feasible only when its competence, access, capacity, and authority also fit.
- Return exact gaps. If a contribution is unavailable, state the blocked practice or evidence use, current supported design, safe interim boundary, and retry condition. Use HCD.8 when obtaining or building that contribution must be compared; a build decision is not a prerequisite to that comparison.
An enabled arrangement can be small: one learner, one task, a source, a teacher feedback window, an assessor, and a fallback. It need not establish a complete institutional service when the bounded use needs less.
HCD.7:4.4 - Arrange AI and Tool Support without Attribution Drift
For each AI or tool use, state:
- the exact permitted contribution, such as search, example generation, calculation, drafting, critique, translation, or accessibility support;
- the data and confidentiality boundary, model or tool condition when it changes risk, and prohibited uses;
- the human action that remains, including selection, source verification, assumption and calculation checks, error challenge, explanation, judgement, or authorization;
- time for prompting, checking, correction, escalation, and recording support actually received;
- a fallback for outage, unsafe output, incompatible data, or unacceptable uncertainty; and
- which practice or evidence uses require a changed-support or unassisted attempt.
AI access can improve equipped performance without establishing human learning. A no-AI observation answers only the bounded contribution and conditions it was designed to expose. HCD.10 selects a justified support change; HCD.11–HCD.13 interpret the resulting evidence.
HCD.7:4.5 - Keep Peer, Teacher, Assessor, and Specialist Work Distinct
Peers can expose alternative reasoning, rehearse feedback, notice a question, and help a learner prepare a revision. Those contributions can reduce avoidable teacher burden. They do not replace a teacher or assessor contribution whose result needs task competence, calibration, independence, authority, or a protected-error judgement.
A teacher may explain and coach while another assessor judges the independent result. A specialist may supply a bounded domain fact without teaching the whole task. An organization may enable project access without becoming the capability holder. State each contribution and handoff rather than turning all participants into one generic support role.
HCD.7:4.6 - Return the Arrangement or Exact Missing Contribution
An HCD.7 result contains:
| Result position | Required content |
|---|---|
| arrangement boundary | Human holder or learner class, programme or practice, later-Work target, participation, calendar, evidence uses, protected conditions, and receiving decision. |
| contribution allocation | Every required learner, reference, tool, AI, peer, teacher, assessor, specialist, environment, organization, and fallback contribution. |
| provider basis | Supplier, competence, scope, authority, independence, access, data boundary, timing, capacity, peak load, and evidence of availability for each contribution. |
| human checking and attribution | Consequential AI or tool outputs, required human checks, checking capacity, and the distinction among joint, supported, and independent performance. |
| coordination and fallback | Handoffs, deadlines, failure signals, dispute path, and feasible fallback conditions. |
| disposition | enabled development arrangement, supported design with exact missing contribution, or class arrangement awaiting personal fit. |
| continuation | Practice start condition, personal-fit input, HCD.8 obtain-or-build question, provider return, schedule or capacity change, or smallest condition that reopens the arrangement. |
Call the arrangement enabled only when every contribution needed for the bounded start and evidence use has a supported provider, access route, capacity window, and fallback or safe stop. A missing later optional contribution need not block an earlier independent result; state its reach rather than declaring the whole design impossible.
HCD.7:4.7 - Recognition and Assurance
Recognition. Use HCD.7 when a plan says “a teacher will support,” “peers will review,” “the platform provides feedback,” or “AI will help,” but the concrete contribution, recipient, timing, capacity, human check, or fallback is still unclear.
Assurance. Stronger reliance needs contribution-specific competence and authority, actual access during the required window, total and peak capacity, privacy and safety conditions, feasible handoffs and fallback, and evidence appropriate to the protected result. Service operation, provider competence, learning, transfer, and retention remain separate conclusions.
HCD.7:4.8 - What Changes in Practice
A practitioner stops asking, “Do we have a teacher and an AI tool?” and asks, “Which exact contribution must reach which learner or task, who can supply it under these data and authority conditions, does capacity fit the critical window, what human checking remains, and what happens when it fails?” Missing support becomes a named result, not a surprise during practice.