ME.21:5 - Archetypal Grounding
ME.21:5.1 - One review action, two conditions and a candidate shortcut
This is a constructed case. A Method engineer is preparing guidance for reusing an earlier review of a Method description.
- Handbook H, edition 3, §4, says to reuse the earlier review when only the description’s display changes.
- Paper L, edition 1, §2, says that reuse also depends on the same reviewed claims, question and qualification window.
- Returned account W, version 2, reports a team that reused a review after shortening a warning. It retains two rival explanations: the warning was redundant, or the team missed an important condition.
The documentary dossier preserves H and L separately. W remains candidate evidence. Current ME.12 already supplies the coherence check and owner-specific correction; ME.15 distinguishes a description change from changed reusable Method semantics.
The engineer’s allocation is:
| Contribution | Allocation and practical reason |
|---|---|
| Recheck a relied-on claim against its prior basis | Reuse ME.12. The sources do not require another general coherence Method. |
| Reuse the earlier review for a display-only change | Carry it as a conditional use of that result: the relied-on claims, question and qualification window must still match. H’s shorthand does not erase L’s limit. |
| Shortening the warning | Retain W’s rival accounts and the missing comparison. Do not create an admitted “shortcut Method” from one reported occurrence. |
| Layout instructions for the handbook’s publishing tool | Keep them in H. They do not belong in the reusable Method claim. |
The first useful result is the conditional reuse answer, not a new pattern count. A description author can now state the condition and the exact return to ME.12.
ME.21:5.2 - A changed source does not erase a former result
Later, H is available only as excerpts. The retained dossier contains merely a locator for the argument used by the allocation, and a new receiving use requires checking that argument. Return that recheck as unavailable and lower the dependent use. Preserve the earlier result with its historical basis, L’s independently supported condition and unrelated allocations. Reopen only what relied on the missing argument.
If the complete argument had already been preserved with a suitable basis, loss of current website access alone would not establish that the earlier claim was wrong.