MDPE.13:3 - Solution
Design the recurring arrangement rather than treating its output as a neutral verdict. Bound one cultural-development decision, describe the current arrangement through several concern-specific views, expose its feedback into later practice, compare materially different alternatives, and select a design together with observations that can reveal its benefits and harms.
The following questions can be answered together and revised as conflicts appear. They are not stages or levels.
MDPE.13:3.1 - Bound the decision
Name:
- the event, class, scene, ensemble, platform use, archive use, competition, or other practice setting;
- the family of variants whose treatment may change;
- the practitioner or practice-developing Agent making the design decision;
- the participants and affected parties whose encounter, recognition, choice, safety, access, or later practice matters; and
- the decision the arrangement must support.
For example: “The festival team must decide how social-floor, battle, workshop, and short-video uses will recognize and select urban-kiz movement variants without making camera visibility the whole-practice objective.”
If the practice boundary is unclear, use MDPE.8. If the variants do not yet exist, use MDPE.9. Availability of variants does not establish their recognition or value.
MDPE.13:3.2 - Describe the current arrangement with several views
Use only the views that can change the decision.
| View | Show | Question answered |
|---|---|---|
| encounter and participation | event or medium, access conditions, invitation, admission, consent, refusal, exit | Who can actually meet or participate in the variant, and who is filtered out first? |
| recognition | variant, recognition task, capable recognizer or sensing System, representations, comparison conditions, uncertainty | Which difference can be distinguished, by whom, and in which Music or Dance situation? |
| selection and authority | decision, chooser, criteria, evidence, authority, permission, affected parties | Who may decide what, and whose judgement or rights constrain that decision? |
| mediation and visibility | venue, schedule, camera, recording, publication, recommendation System, format, metrics | What is amplified, obscured, reordered, or transformed before people respond? |
| feedback and contest | returned observations, rewards, exclusion, performer or teacher adaptation, appeal, revision, refusal, alternate venue | How can the arrangement change later practice, and how can a harmful effect be challenged? |
These are views of one arrangement. A partner can recognize timing while a jury selects a battle result and a camera mediates visibility during the same festival occurrence.
Ground the current arrangement in actual Work and relations. A policy, scoring table, syllabus, event page, model, or platform description is evidence about an arrangement, not the arrangement itself. When a recognition Method, authority, or feedback relation is missing, report that missing result and the design decision it prevents.
MDPE.13:3.3 - Find the pressure that changes later practice
For each important selection or visibility relation, ask what a rational participant is likely to optimize. State the expected change as a hypothesis, not as an observed fact.
Examples of feedback hypotheses include:
- a camera-framed battle may reward large, brief, front-facing distinctions over partner-readable timing;
- one school progression may favor material that is easy to name and assess over material learned through varied embodied situations;
- a fixed-duration music programme may exclude slow-form or installation-like performance Methods;
- a recommendation System may amplify already visible material and make popularity appear self-validating;
- expert criteria may preserve subtle lineage distinctions while freezing one historical interpretation.
For each hypothesis, identify the affected Agent or practice, the predicted change, a plausible rival explanation, and an observation that could distinguish them. Use MDPE.12 for the resulting comparison and C.28 only when a causal claim needs stronger support.
MDPE.13:3.4 - Create materially different alternatives
Do not compare the incumbent arrangement with a cosmetic rewrite. Change at least one load-bearing relation: who recognizes, who chooses, which evidence matters, how access is allocated, how alternatives remain available, or how feedback and contest work.
Common arrangement families, used as examples rather than a closed taxonomy, include:
| Arrangement family | Likely gain | Likely burden or failure |
|---|---|---|
| expert jury or curator | subtle discrimination and programme coherence | gatekeeping, narrow canon, conflicts of interest |
| participant or peer selection | situated knowledge and local legitimacy | popularity loops, coordination cost, incumbent-network advantage |
| performer or creator choice | autonomy and experimentation | weak receiver input and hidden affected-party costs |
| algorithm-mediated visibility | scale and responsive ordering | opaque criteria, metric gaming, feedback amplification, format narrowing |
| several independent views with retained alternatives | plural evidence and protection from one-selector failure | slower decisions, unresolved conflicts, greater explanation cost |
| rotating, random, or exploration allocations | access for unusual or not-yet-legible variants | lower immediate fit and possible arbitrary harm |
Use novelty–quality–diversity reasoning when one ranking would destroy useful alternatives or stepping stones. State which dimension of diversity matters and why.
MDPE.13:3.5 - Select a bounded arrangement and plan observation
Compare alternatives for the current decision. Keep non-equivalent criteria separate: safety or consent may be a veto; partner experience, technical control, novelty, continuity, accessibility, resource burden, and commercial return may produce trade-offs rather than one score.
Use C.11 when an OptionSet is ready. The selected result includes:
- the bounded setting, variants, participants, and intended use;
- the chosen encounter, recognition, selection, mediation, feedback, contest, and exit relations;
- the Agents, technical Systems, Methods, capability, evidence, authority, permission, and resources required;
- the predicted benefit, burden, excluded alternative, and affected party for each important trade-off;
- the observations and time horizon that can change the decision; and
- implementation, rollback, or reopening conditions.
The result is complete when it lets the responsible Agent choose and organize implementation Work. It does not claim that the arrangement already operates or that the culture has selected or retained anything. Implement the chosen event, teaching, judging, platform, publication, or community change through its direct Methods. Observe later recognition, selection, transmission, retention, and loss separately.