NSTD.6:1 - Problem frame

Use this pattern when a team must decide whether one narrative rendering version, including an unaccepted candidate, is good enough for one declared reader or listener use. An editor may evaluate a directly authored or already existing product without knowing how its author produced it. State whether the present question concerns that product’s current quality, a promised source-to-result relation, or assurance about actual construction work; these questions need different evidence.

Evaluated object kind: NarrativeRenderingVersion@Context, an identifiable version of a narrative account in a form a reader can use. A seminar script, slide sequence or generated draft can express such an account. Select the narrative and its intended use within a larger source collection or teaching programme; evaluating that collection’s authority, the generation method or the whole programme is a different question. Missing source relations or poor quality are possible findings, not reasons to exclude a narrative candidate before evaluating it.

First useful move: identify the narrative version, reader and intended use, then select the relations and characteristics on which that use depends. Compare an adequate account with a deficient one. Distinguish those from a question about a different object, such as the generation method rather than its resulting narrative.

What goes wrong if missed: readability, elegance, engagement, expert approval, or generated fluency substitutes for epiplexity, source-return discipline, and bounded use.

What this buys: a repeatable evaluation that can feed E.23 improvement without confusing characteristics, measurements, eval programs, evidence, assurance, or gates.

Quality target: this pattern evaluates quality for one declared use under source-structure selection fit, NarrativeRenderingEpiplexity, ordering recoverability, temporal-posture and role fit, source-return readiness, bounded engagement, and owner-routed evidence, assurance, ethics, publication, and work claims.