KCAE.COMPOSE:4.3 - Compare alternatives before selecting the whole

Distinguish a sequence, concurrent work, mutually exclusive alternatives and supportive explanation. A prerequisite must be obtained before the dependent step. Concurrent work requires the shared conditions to hold together. Alternatives offer different ways to obtain the same needed result; listing them together does not authorize doing both.

For a small set, enumerate the feasible combinations. For a large set, retain a bounded frontier: start with several promising receiving methods; expand each at its unresolved inputs; reject combinations with demonstrated contradictions; and retain distinct ways to complete the result. A beam width or a search budget is a declared approximation. It offers tractable search, not proof that the retained set is optimal. Inspect some excluded paths when a cheap screening rule could hide complements. If exact optimality matters, formulate the actual finite optimization problem and obtain an algorithm and assumptions that justify that claim, rather than relabelling heuristic ranking.

A partial arrangement needs enough retained meaning to continue: the receiving result, selected contributions, already obtained results, still missing results, proposed joins, known failed conditions, source editions and remaining search or execution allowance. Keep “result obtained” distinct from “a method could produce it.” In software these can be fields; in a small inquiry an annotated sketch is sufficient. Two arrangements that mention the same methods can differ because one has obtained a required case fact and the other has not.

Choose an unresolved contribution whose possible answers can change completion. Search by the result it must provide, its receiving meaning and necessary conditions, rather than by all the outgoing links of a favored candidate. Add a new candidate to each partial arrangement it can actually extend; qualify its source and joins before treating the extension as feasible. An unknown condition calls for a case fact or a conditional branch. A demonstrated failed join calls for a supplied transformation, a replacement contribution or another arrangement. Merely lowering that arrangement’s score does not construct the repair.

Retain materially different alternatives within the budget: for example, a fast route requiring a receipt capability and a slower route that works without it. Prune a branch on a demonstrated failed necessary condition, or on a justified dominance comparison under the same result and conditions. Do not call unlike results dominated because one has a lower retrieval score. If a budget forces removal of an unresolved branch, retain that search limit in the return; do not describe the remaining candidate as the only possible solution.

Assess each whole for result sufficiency, dependencies, total burden and risks. Do not sum normalized within-group selection probabilities as the value of a set. Do not discard a method merely because its independent value is small: receipt reconciliation and safe resend can jointly solve a problem that neither solves alone. Compare that set with a direct manual reconciliation alternative under the same receiving result.

For example, a mapping from local job IDs to destination IDs may have almost no standalone value to the user. Retain it when it supplies the exact connection between a useful local record and an acceptance check. Its correctness, source basis and cost still need qualification. Neither the mapping’s low direct task score nor its small size is a reason to discard the only valid join.