fpf.tools
Library / Operations Management Principles Framework
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 5732–5745

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 05:29:54 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 05:30:57 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 07:30:20 UTC

OPS.20:4.5 - Keep action-changing explanations and select useful inquiry

Retain credible non-equivalent explanations whose different consequences could change the continuation or warranted claim. Do not invent another explanation to fill a fixed count. Common rivals include:

  • the carrier and visible rule are sufficient for independent use;
  • case replay, coaching, local authority, or a forum is needed for unfamiliar cases;
  • practitioners cannot recognize applicability even though they can recover the content;
  • required support or permission is absent;
  • the Method no longer fits the changed operating condition.

For a needed comparison, state the consequences that differ and what an attainable observation could settle. Use sufficient current observations when they answer the receiving question. Select a new contrast only if its contribution warrants its whole cost, delay, practitioner burden and displaced service, including the effort of designing it; use C.11.DUA when that demand needs appraisal. Use B.5 and B.5.2 for a needed durable hypothesis account, C.27 for temporal adequacy, A.3.3 for a state-space and transition-law claim, and C.28 for causal reliance.

If the observations cannot distinguish the explanations, retain unknown for that explanatory question. An independently supported current continuation or local response can finish while the explanation remains unresolved. An unavailable contrast withholds only its dependent claim; it creates no study commitment or omission record.