PSD.16:4.2 - Separate the structures that matter
Begin with the action whose contribution is unclear: for example, asking a participant to correct the meaning entered in a model. Use B.1.5.EW to explain what encompassing inquiry is being performed through that action now, which constituent operations make it possible, and which conditions of the whole change its performance. Follow each connection only as far as it changes this engagement. A missing skill, an unavailable contribution or a misunderstood operation may need a local correction before any rearrangement of the engagement.
When the arrangement decision depends on several different structures, use C.32.MWA to relate their accounts. The following distinctions help when they change that decision.
| Account | Example in a decision-support engagement | Distinction to preserve |
|---|---|---|
| Reusable Method and its composition | Attributed inquiry contributes claims to conditional analysis under specified joins. | A Method’s parts and necessary order are not the meeting’s calendar or every activity performed there. |
| Work, its constituents and its temporal relations | Correcting an attributed statement can be part of recovering a concern within an ongoing inquiry. Separately performed model revision may overlap that inquiry; a calculation can require an earlier result. | Explain the constituent connection and any before-and-after dependence separately. Timing alone establishes neither parthood nor a composite Method. |
| Decision subject and affected Systems | Pumping equipment, access routes, service recipients and later operating arrangements. | A hierarchy among these subjects is not a hierarchy of inquiry Methods or participants. |
| Participation and authority | Residents contribute concerns; specialists qualify premises; a board receives advice and holds the investment choice. | Being present, having expertise, facilitating discussion and having permission to decide are different. |
| Descriptions and models | A concern map, a capacity model and a comparison note describe different claims for different uses. | Document sections and model nodes are not world-side parts, actors or authorizations. |
| Professional-cultural continuation | A community later reuses or rejects the engagement’s facilitation variant. | A local choice or visible workshop does not establish transmission, uptake or effectiveness. |
State the correspondence that the current decision uses: for example, which participants can correct which model assumptions, which evidence can qualify which comparison, or which decision owner can change the receiving question. Preserve important losses in the description. A short map may omit timing details that the proposed arrangement now needs.
At a revealing moment, ask how a changed condition of the encompassing inquiry changes the selected action, and how a limitation in that action restricts the inquiry. Recover an unknown operation, obtain a qualified contribution, or practise the combination with its whole conditions still present. Stop the decomposition at an understood operation or sufficient available contribution.
Use the direct FPF pattern when a stronger relation claim matters: A.3.1 for Method identity, B.1.5 for Method composition, and the applicable Work or authority pattern for those distinct claims. A Method stack requires explained constituent connections, not a count of activities. If a changed whole no longer supports its old identity, reidentify it rather than preserving a convenient label.