ME.24:4 - Solution
Attempt the promised reconstruction, retain the exact loss or success at its tested scope, and follow changed premises to the claims and uses that depend on them.
ME.24:4.1 - Make the coverage claim testable
State the source edition or bounded corpus, the candidate language edition, the receiving use and the contribution that should survive. Include the intended action, first result, applicability, stop and source/evidence qualifications that can change that use.
Choose the source cut by the promise. A source-complete extraction commitment needs its stated full recovery basis; a gap-only claim needs a recoverable prior baseline and a bounded delta. F.1 can select a question-relative source cut, but it does not replace an exhaustive domain review when that is what the claim requires.
Keep the candidate’s allocation and source returns available. An absent or stale baseline is a result to return, not a reason to assume that the visible subset is complete.
ME.24:4.2 - Reconstruct in the direction the question needs
From a source contribution, try to recover its usable meaning through the language. Follow the actual reader entry and full bodies. Can the reader obtain the action and result, recognize the condition or stop, and recover the source basis or retained instructional remainder?
From a promised language answer, return to its supporting sources and allocations. Does the cited material support that action and status, or only a similar topic? A pattern that combines sources must retain the reason for the combination and the differences that affect use.
One direction may settle the question. Use both when the language claims source coverage and the risk includes unsupported additions. A held-out passage or a source condition omitted from the authoring route can expose a loss that the destination map misses.
For a promise about performing a composite Method, also recover a constituent action within its ongoing whole and the conditions that make that combination possible. Change an encompassing requirement and ask what must change in the action. A reader who can repeat the steps but cannot recover that dependence has not yet recovered this promised use. Likewise, available lower-level skills and a known whole procedure can conceal a missing intermediate coordination. A promised actionable account must expose that gap or give a usable return to the contribution that closes it. Retain genuine earlier-result dependencies; a list of simultaneous activities alone does not explain constitution.
ME.24:4.3 - State the reconstruction result
Use the smallest accurate disposition:
| Result | Practical consequence |
|---|---|
| The contribution is recovered within the named scope. | Retain that bounded coverage claim and its source conditions. |
| A warranted specialization preserves the source contribution under narrower conditions. | State the narrower use and what broader use is not supplied. |
| Instructional or source-local detail is deliberately omitted but recoverable. | Give the source return; do not promise a self-contained use that depends on the omitted detail. |
| An action, condition, relation, source qualification or return is missing. | Name the failed promise and the smallest content or relation repair. |
| The language contradicts the supported source or merges incompatible claims. | Return the contradicted claim or allocation to ME.12 or ME.21. |
| The basis is unavailable or too weak for the required reconstruction. | Keep the question unresolved, retain the usable remainder and name the missing source action. |
These are ordinary result descriptions, not a universal status taxonomy. An omission becomes a defect when it blocks a promised use; an irrelevant source detail does not have to become a pattern.
A positive reconstruction concerns the inspected claim and use. It does not establish Method identity, effectiveness, transfer or complete coverage of an uninspected corpus.
ME.24:4.4 - Follow a changed premise
- Name the changed source or use fact. Distinguish changed content, changed qualification window, unavailable access, defeated evidence and a different receiving question.
- Recover what relied on it. Identify the allocation, Method/candidate claim, description, pattern relation or reader use that consumed the changed premise.
- Classify the resulting change at its owner. ME.21 handles allocation; ME.8 description content; ME.12 a contradicted maintained claim; ME.15 a reusable Method variant or a non-variant change; ME.23 the language arrangement. Use the direct source, evidence or access result where that is the actual question.
- Retain independent results. State why an unaffected result’s relied-on basis still holds. A different file or nearby paragraph alone does not establish independence.
- Repeat the affected reconstruction. Compare the repaired action, condition, result and source return with the same promised use. If the promise itself changes, identify the narrowed or different use rather than report the original test passed.
If the dependency boundary cannot be recovered, widen the affected inquiry. Localized refresh is a conclusion about dependence, not a default limit on effort.
ME.24:4.5 - Keep the first use light
For one contribution, a short answer can name the failed promise, supporting or missing passage, affected destination, retained results and next action. Retain a more detailed account only when another user must repeat, compare or rely on it. Its C.2.1 identity follows its claims, named coverage question and effective reference scheme, not a map identifier alone.
A cold-reader reconstruction is appropriate when author familiarity could supply the missing answer or a changed condition must be recognized without a hint. Obtain the initial answer before disclosing that condition. A desk reconstruction remains useful evidence, but it is not a fresh-reader or actual-enactment result.