KCAE.USE:4.4 - Compare complete feasible arrangements

Construct at least the credible existing or simple arrangement and the proposed alternative at the same receiving result. A small dossier can use full reading with a cache. A large evolving corpus can use full-text plus semantic retrieval and independent block inspection. A structured codebase can use qualified symbol navigation. Include what each needs for source preparation, assessment, delivery, updates and recovery. An unsupported capability such as history deletion makes an arrangement unavailable until that capability is supplied.

Eliminate a choice that violates a hard condition before comparing cheaper variants. Then compare quality and cost by workload segment. An untested semantic route can be a reasonable initial design hypothesis for frequent cross-language questions; it does not need an artificial history of lexical failures to be considered. Equally, a graph is not earned by its name: identify the relations its intended queries actually require and the cost of maintaining them.

Use a break-even calculation only for commensurable quantities. Suppose A costs 180 engineering minutes to prepare, 8 minutes per source change and 6 minutes of recurring human effort per request. B costs 780 minutes, 28 minutes per change and 2 minutes per request. For N requests and U changes, B uses less of this measured/estimated effort when 4N exceeds 600 + 20U. With U = 10, that is N greater than 200. These invented values omit model charges and elapsed delay, which remain separate constraints. Neither arrangement is acceptable solely because its effort total is lower; it must supply the required result.