PSD.11:4.2.1 - Construct and question a qualitative consequence network

Use this branch when the important consequences are understandable in ordinary terms but no qualified model yet connects the alternatives to them. It returns conditional consequence profiles and precise questions for investigation. It does not turn an elicited relationship into an established causal law. Reuse a sufficient domain model instead; use a quantitative or dynamic model when timing, magnitude, feedback or joint risk decides the answer.

1. Recover the participants’ reasons. For each affected party, name the desired state, the proposed action, any required resource and the quality by which that party would judge the result. Ask both “why is this needed?” and “how could it be obtained?” Attribute each answer; a modeler’s hypothesis about another person’s intention stays a hypothesis. Separate a required result from a prescribed task: two ways may obtain the same result while distributing work and discretion differently.
2. Construct explicit relationships. Write each important arrow as a sentence. For an external provision, identify who needs what, why, who could supply it and through which work. For a necessary combination, state which conditions must hold together; for alternative means, state whether either suffices and whether both may coexist. For a quality contribution, explain how an action or intermediate condition supports or impairs that quality. Keep necessity, sufficiency and a merely favorable contribution distinct. Name the conditions and evidence or attributed judgement supporting each sentence. A plausible relationship without support remains an open relationship.
3. Check the network before using it. Trace each material consequence to the alternative and to the affected party’s criterion. Ask the provider whether the proposed provision is possible and the affected party whether the criterion and stated effect capture their concern. Inspect missing intermediate steps, double-counted paths and contradictory accounts. Do not repair disagreement by deleting one party. If a cycle matters, bound its time steps or obtain an appropriate model; repeatedly circulating a favorable label supplies no additional evidence.
4. Evaluate one complete alternative at a time. Hold its configuration and initial assumptions fixed. Carry established or conditional results through necessary combinations and alternative means using their stated meanings. A necessary unfulfilled condition blocks the claimed conjunction; an unknown necessary condition leaves that conjunction unsupported unless another condition already defeats it. One sufficient supported route can establish the stated disjunction even when another route remains unknown. If no route is supported and at least one remains unknown, retain the unresolved result; if every modeled route fails, that modeled disjunction fails. Apply the same discipline to external provision: the receiver’s result cannot be established through a provision whose availability is unknown. For contributions, retain the incoming supporting, opposing and unknown grounds together before judging the destination. Do not add signs, count arrows, or promote several weak claims to a strong claim merely because there are several. Distinguish no investigation, an investigated but unknown effect, and opposed grounds.
5. Ask a question that can settle the disputed transition. Present the affected person or qualified source with the actual incoming grounds and criterion: would these conditions suffice, only help, obstruct, or leave this outcome unresolved, and why? Record the answer, its scope and dissent. An acceptable judgement may retain a conflict or say that no conclusion is supported. If an unexpectedly favorable or unfavorable result exposes a missing condition, return to the relationship or source rather than adjust the final label to match expectations.
6. Compare the resulting profiles. Apply :4.3–:4.5 to the same consequences for all alternatives. Keep a supported trade-off separate from an unknown effect that could reverse it. Return the explanation paths with the profile; a diagram is optional. Mark any judgement on which the comparison depends so that the recipient can challenge it.
7. Work backward only when the question requires it. If the recipient asks how several desired conditions could hold together, trace their necessary conditions and candidate sufficient routes backward. Propose a combination of means, ask what incoming conditions would justify each disputed intermediate judgement, then test the whole combination forward under the same assumptions. Set aside a combination with an incompatible condition. Keep a combination with an unsupported decisive transition conditional, naming the missing relationship instead of treating missing evidence as refutation. A failed current combination is not proof that every possible design fails. Do not weaken the recipient’s criterion merely to find a solution.
8. Revise by dependence. When a source or judgement changes, identify the changed relationship, rerun its downstream consequences for affected alternatives, and recheck the comparison. Reopen the boundary if an omitted party or consequence appears. Preserve independent claims and the earlier result with its earlier conditions.

Use ordinary prose categories appropriate to the subject. If a named language or solver is used, declare its version, propagation rules, treatment of unknown and conflicting evidence, and structural restrictions. A solver’s satisfying assignment is a model result, not a commitment by participants or evidence that the arrangement will work.

For an inquiry that also needs to construct and question the underlying actors-and-goals model, the Reference’s goals-and-dependencies walkthrough connects this branch to the inquiry’s purpose, model views, explicit initial assumptions and a return from unexpected results to new source questions. It follows a staffing conflict through a revised allocation and its limited use. The present branch supplies the consequence analysis within that larger inquiry.