HCD-FEASIBLE - Make a development proposal fit the work and available support

Situation: A development proposal contains useful topics and exercises, but its complete tasks, learner effort and provider contribution have not been shown to fit together.

Question: What can be offered within the available time and support while preserving the intended contribution to later work?

First useful result or blocker: A comparable, feasible arrangement or task fragment; otherwise the target, resource or support constraint that prevents the comparison.

Start with: HCD.2 - Compose and Compare Human Capability-Development Programmes for Later Work for one known person with compatible work, target and starting evidence. For an author with a future audience, start directly with HCD.28; its product variants can later supply the personal comparison.

Stop or return: Stop with the comparison needed for the present decision. Return a missing support contribution to its provider, a changed intended outcome to its owner, or a non-training cause to the practice that can address it. Programme comparison does not authorize launch.

1. Establish whose contribution the proposal concerns. For one person, HCD.1 - Derive Human Capability Demand from Representative Later Work supplies the required contribution and its basis. HCD.3 - Diagnose Whether a Capability, Misconception, or Behaviour Limits Work distinguishes a human development target from a tool, access, assignment or other limitation. Where simultaneous work competes for development effort, HCD.4 - Architect a Balanced Human Capability Profile Across Simultaneous Work supplies the priorities and contributions to protect. HCD.2 consumes those results in comparing feasible alternatives. For a future audience whose individual learners are not yet known, it returns the design question and available fragments to HCD.28. A product variant returns to HCD.2 only with the named person’s compatible starting evidence, work, support and participation conditions.
2. Make the alternatives comparable through complete tasks. In the constructed programme-design application, three compositions each use 340 learner hours over 34 weeks. A change from ten to six hours per week leaves 204 hours: each original proposal exceeds the allowance by 136 hours. HCD.2 asks what work, practice and evidence would be removed or replaced. Merely multiplying allocations by 0.6 does not show that the promised outcomes survive.
3. Construct the missing development contribution. Retain the detailed task fragment already available for one option and construct the smallest comparable fragment for another, using the same intended output and audience assumptions. HCD.5 - Select Human Capability-Development Methods selects how to develop the target action from the starting evidence, or proposes conditional choices from stated entry assumptions for a future audience; HCD.6 - Design Representative Practice Tasks turns that choice into a whole task, criterion, permitted help and relevant variation. If the learner cannot yet notice a distinction required by the task, HCD.6.1 - Help a Learner Discern a Needed Distinction in Practice helps design an accessible contrast and use the learner’s response to guide the next attempt. Return the noticed distinction to the whole task; recognizing it does not establish the ability to perform that task. These results let HCD.2 compare what the options actually provide.
4. Test the support needed at the time of use. HCD.7 - Arrange Providers, Access, Tools, and AI Support for Human Capability Development uses those tasks to establish actual feedback, assessment, access and capacity. The example’s 240 teaching hours divided among twelve participants is a planning allocation, not twenty hours of individual contact each. Doubling participants with unchanged individual checking demand doubles that checking work. HCD.8 - Obtain or Build Missing Human Capability-Development Support with Bounded Recursion enters only for a missing contribution that must be obtained or built. Return its cost and operating limits to the comparison.

A useful substitution may emerge from this fragment comparison. It does not yet establish that a complete 204-hour programme exists. Changing the intended outcome is another possible decision, which must be explicit before comparing a narrower offer.