Public units
| Unit | Reader use |
|---|---|
| Method Engineering Principles Framework Readme | Follow connected decisions about Methods, their descriptions and support; see how changed conditions return work to the contribution that must change. |
| Citation | Cite this framework or one pattern with its author, title, release date, and publication address. |
| Preface | Understand the distinctions that keep Method, description, Work, support, evidence, and culture connected without collapsing them. |
| PLUS-ME profile | Understand the production and situated-use profile, its source choices, worked application, costs and alternatives. |
| Production MethodDescription | Use the bounded reusable action, source-profile variation, results and stops without inferring performed Work or Method parts. |
| Cross-Pattern Application | Follow the release case to a bounded architecture decision and separate support results, or compare explanations of a pattern language for a named reader and use. |
| Framework Boundary and Refresh | Check scope, example forms, source limits, external-result use, edition identity, and reopen conditions. |
Part I - Method Focus, Architecture History, Repertoire, Situational Criteria, and Recovery
| § | ID & Title | Status | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ME.1 - Choose and Reopen the Project’s Method-Engineering Focus | Keywords: Method of interest, process, project, case, workflow, methodology, capability, tool, support. Queries: “What needs to change when the team says its methodology is failing?” “Is the blocking question about a Method, its description, the Work, or surrounding support?” Select the smallest Method-related focus and the condition for reopening it or returning to the owning practice. | FPF A.15.6, C.11 | |
| 2 | ME.19 - Recover Why and How a Professional Method Architecture Differentiated | Keywords: professional history, Method differentiation, lineage, institutional change, tools, regulation, diffusion, causal explanation. Queries: “Why did this profession acquire these different Methods and arrangements?” “Which sequence, rival explanation, and observations support the historical account?” Recover how the architecture differentiated and which historical claims can inform a current choice; qualify causal reliance separately from a descriptive sequence. | ME.1; FPF C.28, A.10 | |
| 3 | ME.2 - Recover a Reusable Method Repertoire and Its Lineages | Keywords: Method repertoire, method base, reusable practice, source edition, family, variant, lineage, provenance. Queries: “What usable Methods and candidate accounts are hidden across our manuals, tools, and remembered practice?” “Which reuse and derivation claims have a recoverable source?” Build an inspectable repertoire with identities, status, applicability, source references and return conditions, and supported lineage, including gaps that change the receiving choice. | ME.1; FPF A.3.1, G.5, G.11 | |
| 4 | ME.18 - Reconstruct a Candidate Method Account through a Specialist Evidence Programme | Keywords: tacit practice, observed Work, logs, interviews, reconstruction, rival accounts, evidence programme, uncertainty. Queries: “What way of working can we reconstruct from incomplete and conflicting records?” “Which additional observations would change the candidate account?” Combine evidence around the unresolved claims when ordinary Method recovery is insufficient; return a qualified candidate account, its alternatives, and the exact remaining evidence need. | ME.1, ME.2; FPF A.3.1.MR, A.10 | |
| 5 | ME.3 - Build or Reconsider Situational Method Requirements and Fit Criteria | Keywords: situational Method Engineering, requirements, applicability, fit criteria, constraints, capability, authority, evidence timing. Queries: “What must this Method contribute in this project situation?” “Which limits concern the Method and which concern performers, support, or the domain result?” “Is this Method requirement justified under these conditions?” State decision-relevant criteria and their evidence needs so later comparison and validation can judge the required contribution under the actual conditions. | ME.1, ME.2; FPF C.11, A.10 | |
| 6 | ME.4 - Recover Methods and Decision-Relevant Contributions from Documentary Packages and Corpora | Keywords: documentary corpus, source-local recovery, methodology package, handbook, standard, Method content, contribution, source role. Queries: “Which useful contributions are hidden in this source or plural library?” “What is an asserted Method, a candidate account, or neighboring tool, support and cultural material?” Recover a bounded source-local dossier at the depth the receiving use needs; preserve single-source exits and keep returned Work-recovery accounts distinct. | ME.1, ME.2, ME.3; FPF A.3.1, C.2.1 |
Part II - Individual Qualification, Method-Architecture Alternatives and Construction
| § | ID & Title | Status | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | ME.5 - Qualify Individual Methods, Candidate Accounts, and Local Connections | Keywords: Method qualification, candidate account, local connection, applicability, minimum conditions, evidence, rejection. Queries: “Which individual candidate is usable for this bounded result?” “Can one unmet condition settle the choice before an architecture comparison is needed?” Qualify each Method, account, or local connection against the receiving criteria and retain its actual epistemic status, unresolved premise, and reason to keep or reject it. | ME.2, ME.3, ME.4; FPF A.3.1, A.10 | |
| 8 | ME.6 - Compare Method-Architecture Alternatives and Simultaneous Enactment Conflicts | Keywords: Method architecture, simultaneous Work, project view, process view, case view, allocation, support, conflict, trade-off. Queries: “How do plausible Methods interact when their enactment overlaps?” “Which alternative changes provisional-result use, authority, shared capacity, or burden?” Compare materially different Method, Work, allocation, description, support, and cultural structures while keeping the receiving result and serious alternatives visible. | ME.3, ME.5; FPF C.32.MWA, A.19, C.11 | |
| 9 | ME.6.MC - Compare Method Arrangements through a Mathematical Model | Keywords: method comparison, mathematical model, composition, shared resource, information, ordering, counterexample. Queries: “Does a changed arrangement preserve the required answer?” “Can its shared resources and allowed interactions supply the needed result?” Construct the comparison and return its consequence to the method decision. | ME.3/.6; MATH.17/.18; CMP.14 when interactions matter; FPF C.29 | |
| 10 | ME.7 - Resolve a Proposed Method Whole into Obtaining Relations or a Candidate Account | Keywords: Method whole, composition, direct relation, candidate design, invariant, variation, realization, trial. Queries: “Does the proposed Method whole already exist through obtaining relations?” “What can we specify and test while it is still a proposal?” Return supported direct relations or a prospective candidate-whole account with its current support and gaps; select realization or a trial only when its attainable contribution is worth the whole burden. | ME.5, ME.6; FPF A.3.1, A.22, A.15.2 | |
| 11 | ME.25 - Transform a Method Using a Mathematical Construction | Keywords: method construction, transformation, preserved result, regrouping, approximation, changed requirement. Queries: “How can a mathematical transformation produce a different way of working?” “Which properties survive, and which practical demands change?” Reconstruct the changed procedure, distinguish it from a redescription, and compare its contribution with the incumbent. | ME.3/.6/.7; MATH.17/.18; FPF C.29 and C.11.DUA |
Part III - Method Descriptions, Representations, and Enactment Support
| § | ID & Title | Status | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | ME.8 - Author a MethodDescription or Candidate Method Account for Named Uses | Keywords: MethodDescription, procedure, manual, description content, planner, performer, review use, applicability, stops. Queries: “Which Method claims does this user need for this action?” “What must the description preserve from the Method or candidate account?” Author a use-bounded description with actionable content, conditions, evidence limits, source references, and return conditions; retain the distinction between an admitted Method and a prospective account. | ME.2, ME.3, ME.7; FPF A.3.1, A.3.2, C.2.1 | |
| 13 | ME.9 - Relate Method Representations across Their Different Uses | Keywords: complementary representations, MethodDescription, view, viewpoint, diagram, text, task-specific profile, exposure, omission. Queries: “How should performers, method engineers, support builders, and assessors see different claims about the same Method?” “Which omissions or conflicts across those uses need a shared decision?” Relate the representations chosen for different Method-related actions through their shared MethodDescription or candidate account: show where their claims correspond, conflict, or must remain separate, while keeping each selection’s source, established status, grounds for use, omissions, and conditions for reconsideration. | ME.8; FPF C.37, C.2.1, E.17.0, C.29, E.24.PUB, A.22 | |
| 14 | ME.22 - Compare Method Descriptions by Content and Representation | Keywords: description revision, content versus form, representation comparison, comprehension, application, confounding, causal attribution. Queries: “Did the new guide add needed content, improve its presentation, or change both?” “What does this comparison justify for the same receiving use?” Compare the smallest informative contrasts, retain losses and evidence limits, and return a bounded revision decision rather than a claim of Method effectiveness. | ME.8; ME.9 for cross-use relations; FPF A.6.3.RT, C.37, A.10 | |
| 15 | ME.10 - Configure an Enactment-Support Arrangement, Adding a Method Base When Needed | Keywords: method base, retrieval, edition selection, tailoring, enactment support, tool, permission, confidential material, feedback. Queries: “Can named users find and use the right Method material for their actual tasks?” “Which smallest configuration repairs a failed retrieval, comparison, tailoring, or support task?” Build and test the support arrangement against named user actions, mandatory conditions, current editions, and explicit stops. | ME.8; ME.9 when complementary representations are allocated to unlike named Method actions; FPF C.37, A.22, A.13, A.15.1, A.2.8.PER |
Part IV - Trial and Separate Coherence, Fit or Transfer, and Worth Decisions
| § | ID & Title | Status | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | ME.11 - Trial the Method in Representative Work | Keywords: Method trial, representative Work, discriminating case, performer, support conditions, observation, evidence. Queries: “What happened when this Method was tried in actual Work?” “Which trial conditions would test the claimed contribution and expose its limits?” Plan and observe representative or discriminating enactment and return occurrence-level evidence for the later coherence, fit, transfer, and practical-worth decisions. | ME.3, ME.7, ME.10; FPF A.13, A.15.1, A.10 | |
| 17 | ME.12 - Verify Method and MethodDescription Coherence | Keywords: verification, coherence, description mismatch, missing stop, inconsistent representation, obsolete edition, correction. Queries: “Which relied-on Method claim fails to agree with its description, representation, or supporting material?” “Where is the smallest correction that restores the named use?” Locate the expected agreement, the conflicting evidence, and the maintained result that owns the claim; return a bounded coherence result and repair target. | ME.8–ME.11; FPF A.10, B.3 | |
| 18 | ME.13 - Validate a Method’s Situational Fit and Transfer | Keywords: validation, situational fit, transfer, adaptation, changed conditions, capability, support, domain result. Queries: “Does this Method fit the situation in which we need it?” “Which claim survives when the project, industry, performer, or support conditions change?” Compare original and receiving conditions with actual Work evidence, identify relevant adaptations, and return the supported fit or transfer claim and its limits. | ME.3, ME.11; FPF A.10, G.11 | |
| 19 | ME.14 - Evaluate a Method’s Practical Worth Against Current Alternatives | Keywords: practical worth, alternatives, burden, coordination cost, tooling, opportunity cost, trade-off, replace, stop. Queries: “Is this Method worth its total burden compared with current alternatives?” “Who receives the benefit and who bears capability, support, exposure, or recovery costs?” Compare keeping, revising, replacing, branching, and stopping under the actual situation, with explicit consequences and the evidence that can change the choice. | ME.11–ME.13 for the trial, coherence or fit questions actually needed; FPF A.19, C.11, A.10 |
Part V - Variants, Introduction into Practice, and Cultural Continuation
| § | ID & Title | Status | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | ME.15 - Maintain Method Variants, Provenance, and Reuse | Keywords: Method variant, reusable semantics, provenance, branching, version, adaptation, lineage, reuse. Queries: “Did this change alter a reusable way of working or only its description and support?” “Which applicability and evidence claims belong to the resulting branch?” Identify meaningful variants and maintain their derivation, status, and reuse conditions; return other changes to the description, Work, or support subject they actually affect. | ME.2; ME.8–ME.14 for their specific live questions; FPF A.3.1, G.11 | |
| 21 | ME.16 - Introduce a Method into Practice and Decide What to Keep or Change | Keywords: introduction into practice, adoption, authorized Work, capability development, assistance, observation, revision, contribution. Queries: “What changed when this Method was introduced into a real practice?” “Which observations support keeping or changing the Method, its description, introduction strategy, or support?” Follow the bounded introduction from intended changes through actual Work and later use, and qualify any causal claim about the outside result. | ME.10, ME.14, ME.15; ME.11 when a trial is selected; FPF A.13, A.15.1; C.28 for actual causal reliance | |
| 22 | ME.17 - Deliberately Continue and Change Method-Engineering Culture | Keywords: Method Engineering culture, practitioner population, generation, transmission, recognition, selection, memory, retention, loss. Queries: “Which cultural relation should deliberately continue or change across this practitioner population?” “What observations distinguish transmission or retention from publication and local use?” Define a bounded cultural claim, retain action-changing explanations, and decide what can continue or must change; select an intervention or observation only when its attainable contribution warrants its full burden. | ME.15, ME.16; FPF C.20, C.36, G.11 |
Part VI - Pattern-Language Production and Situated Use
| § | ID & Title | Status | Keywords & Search Queries | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | ME.21 - Reconcile and Allocate Source Contributions for Method Use | Keywords: conceptual synthesis, semantic allocation, source roles, exact subtraction, merge, split, unresolved remainder. Queries: “What should survive from these partly agreeing sources, and where should it live?” “Is the needed answer already supplied?” Produce one justified Method-content allocation with its current supplier, conditions, source return and candidate limits. | ME.4; FPF F.0.1, F.1, F.0.2, E.4.DPF; ME.5/ME.7 for identity or composition | |
| 24 | ME.23 - Choose Whether and How to Build a Problem-First MethodDescription Pattern Language | Keywords: pattern-language architecture, problem-first entry, MethodDescription, profile, material relation, specialization, parthood. Queries: “Do these uses need a pattern language, or will a direct Method description suffice?” “Which relation changes the next answer without inventing Method parts?” Allocate bodies by their subjects and independent results, preserve inherited answers and direct-description exits, and state material dependencies and loss. | ME.8, ME.21; FPF A.3.2, B.1.5, A.22, E.8, E.11.PFP | |
| 25 | ME.24 - Test and Refresh Method-Source Coverage by Reconstruction from Patterns | Keywords: source coverage, reconstruction, missing condition, held-out contribution, source change, affected refresh, unavailable basis. Queries: “Can this language reconstruct the action and stop it promises from the source?” “What must return when one premise changes?” Return the reconstructed contribution or exact loss and its repair destination; retain independently supported results and widen the question when the dependency boundary is unknown. | ME.4, ME.21, ME.23; ME.12/ME.15 for known repair; FPF F.0.2, G.11 | |
| 26 | ME.20 - Use Pattern-Language Knowledge to Continue Situated Method Engineering | Keywords: PLUS-ME, situated use, pattern language, unfolding, next result, changed condition, CGUS, chooser, performer. Queries: “Which pattern contribution can supply the Method Engineering result needed now?” “What becomes blocked, unknown or worth reconsidering after this new fact?” Continue or stop at the bounded useful result; formalize CGUS only when its own question requires it and keep an ongoing-Work decision separate. | Direct ME result for the current question; FPF E.11.PUA, E.11.PUR, A.22.CGUS, A.15.7 when applicable |