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.