ME.Preface:7.5 - Worked connected application — H, L and W

This is a constructed application, not a report of completed empirical validation. A Method engineer wants a small language for reviewing and adapting a Method description.

Handbook H, edition 3, §4, supports reuse of an earlier review after a display-only change. Paper L, edition 1, §2, limits that reliance to matching reviewed claims, question and qualification window. A returned MR account W, version 2, reports that a team shortened a warning; it preserves two rival explanations, harmless redundancy and a missed condition. The new language must not turn that report into an admitted shortcut Method.

First use. ME.4 preserves H and L source-locally; W remains a separately returned candidate account. ME.21 reuses ME.12’s existing coherence contribution and carries L’s narrower condition into the description. Tool-specific layout instructions remain at H. The allocation produces a conditional reuse answer and an unresolved W remainder, not a new Method count.

If that one description settles the receiving use, ME.8 is sufficient and the engineer stops. For recurring allocation, review and source-return questions, ME.23 connects independently useful entries: the review relies on the allocated condition, and a missing coverage relation returns to the affected source decision. This arrangement does not establish three parts of a review Method.

ME.22 compares earlier prose A with revised prose B that adds the matching-condition and source-return stop, then compares B with a table C preserving those same claims. Merely comparing A with C could not separate the added content from the new presentation. Textual comparison can reveal that A lacks a needed stop. A claim that C helps readers more than B needs an appropriate comparison of their actual use; the table’s appearance is not that evidence.

ME.24 reconstructs the promised reliance answer. A topic entry and source citation are insufficient if the condition cannot be recovered. Its first result names the missing condition or confirms recoverability only for this bounded case.

Changed condition, supplied only after the first answer. H becomes available only as excerpts. A new receiving use requires rechecking an argument outside them, and the retained allocation contains only its locator, not the argument. The recheck now has an unavailable basis. Return that dependent use to source recovery, use a separately justified sufficient basis, or narrow or stop it. Keep the earlier result with its historical basis, L’s independently supported condition and W’s unresolved status. Another pattern that copied the missing premise is affected even if its file did not change.

ME.20 continues from this newly missing result. If only source availability changed, reconsider the current judgment. If the reader instead asks whether publication is authorized, identify that new use and its required result. A prior review is not publication authorization. In actual Work, the chooser and performer remain explicit.

A useful answer to this case preserves the first action, condition and stop, distinguishes the three source roles, makes no invented part Method, and localizes reconsideration without losing another dependent use. A rehearsal of these answers tests the explanation. It does not measure production cost, human performance, transfer or causal superiority.