PSD.16:4.3 - Locate the interference and its actual consequence

Describe how one contribution defeats or weakens a condition needed by another. “Modelling and discussion happen together” is not yet a conflict. “The only modeller also controls the discussion, so a contested assumption is entered without its holder being able to correct it” names an interaction that can change the result.

Follow the conflict far enough to identify its receiving consequence. Does it exclude a material alternative, change an attributed value, invalidate evidence use, obscure dissent, prevent meaningful participation, or exceed the engagement’s remit? Separate a technical limitation, a value difference, an evidence gap and an authority dispute; they have different returns.

Inspect what is actually shared: a person’s attention, a model, a data basis, access to participants, a decision horizon or a rule for closing a claim. Do not solve an evidence gap by voting, or a value dispute by accelerating the model. Use an adequate available specialist result when it answers the question.

When the interaction remains uncertain, compare continuing under that uncertainty, narrowing the return, correcting the arrangement and obtaining further information. Select an observation, rehearsal or outside contribution only when its obtainable result can change the next action enough to warrant its effort, delay and displaced work under C.11.DUA; use A.15.9 for the outside contribution. Existing knowledge may already settle the action. Where a consequential condition is unsupported, lower or stop only the relying claim. Unaffected inquiry can continue when its own conditions remain valid.