ME.3:4 - Solution

Build criteria from the receiving situation outward. State required contributions and conditions, assign each criterion to its actual subject, preserve allowed variation, and defer every fit or selection verdict to the pattern that evaluates the relevant subject or structure. For a disputed criterion, start with its existing context and the appraisal in §4.4; build or update other criteria only where that question needs them.

Recognition is cheap: recurring Work, a changed constraint, or one plausible capability, access, authority, evidence, or burden failure is enough to expose a criterion question. Assurance is later and row-specific: the named observation, edition, and window must support satisfaction before qualification or architecture work may rely on that row.

ME.3:4.1 - Pattern-Use Unfolding

1. Bound the situation family. Name representative Work, receiving result, affected subjects, decision window, recurrence expected, important variants, and ordinary exclusions. Recover the subject of each project, process, or case claim under A.15.6; attach a criterion to the plan, Method, Work, result, or other subject it constrains. Several accounts concern one Work only when their claims support that reading.
2. State required contributions before candidates. Describe the reusable actions, results, or preserved conditions that one Method or named Method relations must contribute. Do not write a familiar candidate’s current procedure as the requirement unless that exact feature is independently non-negotiable.
3. Use source prompts without importing kinds. Ask what goal, procedure, rationale, framing, mindset, intended use, representation, tool, scope, and adaptation conditions a source makes visible. Place the answer with its actual subject. A stated mindset may be description content; an obtaining capability or cultural relation needs separate evidence.
4. Recover conditions around enactment. State performer capabilities, technical and organizational conditions, inputs, support/provider access, responsibility, covering Work assignments, permission and decision-authority relations, evidence timing, reversibility, and other Work or result constraints. Keep these conditions distinct from one another and from the performed Work and its decision result.
5. Separate variation from invariants. Name lawful branches, substitutions, timing ranges, and local adaptations. Mark non-negotiable result, safety, confidentiality, authority, or evidence conditions explicitly. If a criterion’s justification is the live question, use §4.4 to appraise it while retaining its current force. An already justified criterion needs no new appraisal.
6. Set burdens at the right level. Attach time, attention, capacity, delay, meeting, or cost limits to a participant, Work scope, and window. Keep individual burden distinguishable from combined peak demand and burden transferred to another participant or period.
7. Name evidence and observations. For every decision-changing criterion, state what record or observation a later evaluation needs, its edition or window when material, and what would count as satisfied, failed, or unknown. Do not turn the requested evidence into a fit verdict.
8. State acceptance, stop, and reopen rules. Say when the criteria set is adequate for its next use, which missing fact stops that route, and which situation or source change requires rebuilding it. A stop may route to capability, support, authority, product, or Work redesign rather than Method selection.
9. Return without selecting. Publish the criteria by subject and decision level. Send individual subject questions to ME.5 and combined structure questions to ME.6 only when their own entry conditions hold.

ME.3:4.2 - Record the Result

Use the rows that carry the present result. For a disputed criterion, retain the relevant existing context and return the recommendation described in §4.4.

ME.3:4.3 - What Changes in Practice

Teams stop asking whether a methodology “fits the context” as one opaque question. They can see whether the live issue is a Method contribution, a description gap, missing capability, covering assignment, permission, decision authority, provider access, Work timing, receiving-result condition, or combined burden. Later qualification and architecture comparison receive explicit conditions instead of a precomputed winner.

ME.3:4.4 - Appraise a Disputed Criterion

Use C.11.DUA §4.3 when the practitioner needs to decide whether a Method criterion or protective requirement is justified. Recover the person, system or receiving result it protects, the particular failure or exposure, the governed activity or quantity, the evidence and threshold basis, and the protection the requirement adds under these conditions. Compare that contribution with the burden, delay and displaced protective work. Use the relevant domain judgement and measurement or causal analysis where the question needs them; a label such as safety does not supply that basis.

Return supported retention, tightening, revision, replacement or removal only among meaningful alternatives. Keep the requirement’s current force and the authority and time needed to change it explicit where they determine the feasible continuation. A recommendation can be complete while amendment remains unavailable. Continue under the current allowed options until the governing authority or agreement changes the requirement; if none meets the receiving need within the window, return that limitation. A later amendment does not restore an opportunity already lost.

Carry the useful reason and limit in the same criteria or recommendation result. Finish when it answers the present question at a supported strength. Choose a further study only when its obtainable result could change that answer enough to warrant the full burden.