MMP.13:4.6 - Test the claimed consequence and revise the assumption that matters

Check the derivation at the level needed for its use. In a finite model, normalization, enumeration or an exact calculation may suffice. For an approximate frequentist procedure, simulation at fixed parameter values can expose bias or coverage failures under the assumed law. For a posterior computation, a suitable simulation-based calibration check draws parameters and data from their joint model and tests the inference computation. These are different checks. Agreement under a model does not establish that the model describes the subject.

Select such work for an unresolved claim. A routine use of an applicable exact result need not become a new simulation study, and simulated datasets are not additional subject observations.

When a premise or target actually changes, recalculate the affected target and uncertainty; reuse unaffected results. Compare a plausible alternative dependence, prior scale, inclusion probability or target-population weight only when that comparison can change the intended use or returned claim. State whether an altered result comes from changed records, changed assumptions or a changed target, and keep a material disagreement visible. A sufficient inference under unchanged grounds needs no invented alternative.

If observed failures call for a richer model, return the model-criticism and revision question to the relevant subject method and MMP.11. If the desired effect is not causally identified, return that identification question. Designing a new observation is a further choice when the existing result is insufficient; it is not part of every inference.