PSD.10:5 - Archetypal Grounding
PSD.10:5.1 - Which flood-pump uncertainty matters now?
In the illustrative pre-season inquiry, nominal permanent and mobile capacity meets the assumed inflow only with the stated units operating. The model omits arrival delay. The team cannot turn that conditional result into “mobile service is reliable”.
| Relied-on or proposed claim | Evidence limit | Decision-linked return |
|---|---|---|
| Nominal mobile capacity is adequate. | The capacity calculation assumes operating units on site. | Use for capacity only. It does not discriminate the missing deployment arrangement. |
| Mobile units can serve the district after road loss. | No qualified arrival and deployment result exists for that condition. | Ask for the route-loss deployment result; M remains conditional for the service comparison. |
| The two technical models corroborate the inflow assumption. | They reuse the same inflow dataset. | Retain one shared evidence dependency, not two confirmations. |
| Pumping-service hours represent all affected residents’ loss. | Reachable assistance and property protection have different meanings. | Return the missing consequence relation or keep separate accounts; a tighter inflow estimate will not settle the value question. |
If a direct deployment result later supports a bounded arrival range, the account changes only the affected claim and its uses. If the range still spans service failure, the result is a discriminating question for robustness, not an unconditional feasibility claim. If all arrangements share an unsupported power-supply assumption, that common uncertainty can invalidate all of them even while their relative order stays fixed.
PSD.10:5.2 - Development evidence with three different limits
For a ninety-day organization recommendation, suppose the adviser has an immediate human assessment, a queue model for the current team, and an offline AI benchmark. Each can inform a different bounded claim.
The human assessment does not establish retention or transfer to later service Work. The queue model does not establish the performance of a reallocated or mixed arrangement without its staffing and interaction premises. The benchmark does not establish current-version service reliability under the operating distribution and oversight arrangement.
The return names three possible supplier questions at their own grain: representative later-Work capability, changed-arrangement service consequences, and exact-version operating evaluation. Only questions that could change the live recommendation are pursued. Averaging the three “confidence” labels would repair none of these gaps.
PSD.10:5.3 - A bounded input to SensorCo’s strategic commitment
SensorCo’s illustrative twelve-month question concerns defending devices, offering an integrated service, licensing data, or exiting a segment as generic AI inspection prices fall. The strategy team owns the strategic comparison; the board separately holds commitment authority.
Suppose the integrated-service direction relies on an uncertain repeat-demand claim, while the licensing direction relies on a still-unqualified permission premise. The PSD return names the repeat-demand conditions that could alter the service comparison and the exact rights interpretation missing for licensing. It supplies neither the strategic facts nor a permission judgement by itself.
Under the decision-linked uncertainty relation, STR.11 may use the supplied result only for this commitment and compatible horizon. A changed alternative, claim scope, demand question, evidence window, or commitment reopens that use. If the result is unavailable or incompatible, the strategic receiver uses a qualified direct source or keeps the exact gap; a MethodDescription or analogy is no substitute for the result.
PSD.10:5.4 - Cheap non-use
An analyst needs to recover which calibration edition a measurement cites, and no candidate comparison is being made. Use the source and evidence practice directly. A decision-linked uncertainty account would add no current result.