Jump to text
On this page
Copy and source
Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-14 19:58:00 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-14 19:58:38 UTC · last check 2026-10-15 02:45:12 UTC

IS.8:5 - Archetypal Grounding

IS.8:5.1 - From a jointly solved case to a locally led change

In a constructed case, an external facilitator and a service team have repaired a referral process. During that work, the expert noticed that incomplete requests arose from a field that could be completed only by the receiving agency. The team supplied local examples but did not make that diagnosis. A report that the team now leads implementation would therefore be premature.

The agreed next capability is narrower: the local lead should reconstruct a failed receiving episode, identify the missing contribution and obtain its owner’s response. The mentor demonstrates the earlier reasoning, then observes a bounded new case involving an eligibility clarification. HCD.9’s feedback identifies where the local lead first treated an external rule as an employee’s knowledge gap. The lead revises the inquiry and obtains an interpretable answer from the rule owner. A later unfamiliar case tests whether that recognition is available without the mentor’s prompt.

If the local lead performs that operation but still needs a specialist to judge a proposed target adaptation, the result is local facilitation with that declared specialist return. The service can retain it. Neither the specialist’s continued presence nor the completion of the original referral repair settles the broader capability question.

IS.8:5.2 - Useful AI assistance and the holder’s own contribution

A facilitator uses an authorized AI service to compare de-identified episode descriptions. It proposes three possible explanations. If the human must learn to judge those alternatives, the practice must expose that judgement and its consequences; submitting the AI’s answer does not demonstrate it. If the agreed result is reliable AI-assisted facilitation, evaluate that combined arrangement under its actual access, competence and protection conditions. A model change or unavailable service reopens the relied-on condition. Human learning evidence does not establish how an AI itself acquires a new capability.