ME.14:0 - Use This When

Use this pattern when a practitioner must decide what to do with an admitted Method or status-preserved candidate relative to current alternatives. Use the available basis at its supported strength: observations, credible estimates, domain judgement or a structural constraint can support a present choice. Begin with the decision and alternative set: keep the present Method, revise it, replace it, branch by situation, or stop the Method change or use.

The first useful result is a practical-worth comparison row. It names the Method or candidate status, decision situation and receiver, one current alternative, the available evidence and its limits, domain results, burdens, capability and System demands, direct relations, side effects, opportunity cost, reversibility, evidence strength, unresolved trade-off, and the action the row can support. Include the status quo, stopping, or the next best use of scarce Work when it can change the decision.

Here practical worth is Plain practice wording for the situated judgment that a Method-related course is worth keeping, changing, replacing, branching, or stopping relative to named alternatives. It is not a universal score, Method admission, fit result, causal attribution, or organization-wide adoption decision.

Use C.11.DUA §4.3 directly when the whole question is a requirement’s justification; ME.3 §4.4 applies it to a situated Method criterion. Return to ME.14 when a Method-related course also needs comparison. Do not use this pattern when no current alternative or decision receiver is named. Conformance, familiarity, one favourable occurrence or Method popularity alone does not establish comparative worth. ME.5 qualification, ME.12 coherence and ME.13 fit can inform the present comparison; each retains its own scope. A missing stronger empirical result can limit this decision without erasing an independently supported current choice.