PSD.17:4.6 - Test the receiving consequence and competing explanations
Compare the later observation with the intended consequence at the same scope. Preserve the actual result even when the intervention did not work as hoped.
| Professional consequence | A useful observation | An unsupported stronger inference |
|---|---|---|
| Participation and dissent | A material affected concern can enter, be corrected and remain attributable in the receiving inquiry. | More attendees or fewer objections means equal influence or consensus. |
| Uncertainty and evidence | The practitioner preserves the relevant configuration, horizon, qualification and unclosed premise. | A complete model or fluent explanation means every input is adequate. |
| Recommendation return | The account preserves the compared subset, inference, dissent, limits and the appropriate direction, set, probe, request, blocker or abstention. | A signed-off report is necessarily useful advice or an authorized later choice. |
| Receiving use | The named receiver can recover what this result permits and where it must return. | Delivery, access or a positive reaction proves understanding, reliance, implementation or effect. |
| Continuation | The identified contribution appears in an independently observed later use under stated conditions. | One coached performance proves long-term retention or practice-wide adoption. |
Distinguish a useful local outcome from an explanation of why it occurred. An improved return might reflect the exercise, prior experience, a more skilled facilitator, additional time, a different problem, easier evidence or changed authority. Keep those alternatives live where the evidence cannot distinguish them.
When the next question is how this practice may develop, retain credible rivals whose difference can change the answer; do not manufacture a fixed number. Return the supported forecast or continuation with its material uncertainty. Select a new discriminating observation only when it is obtainable and worthwhile for that question. For example, an explanation-rich case library may support later independent use, or its effect may disappear without a mentor. A later uncoached case can inform that distinction; it does not isolate every causal influence.
Use B.5 and B.5.2 for hypotheses and testable consequences, C.28 for an actual causal claim, and A.3.3 only if a state-space and transition-law claim is needed. An ordinary uncertainty about continuation does not require a mathematical cultural-evolution model.
Ask practitioners and affected participants what was preserved, excluded or made harder. Retain dissent about the intervention itself. Reflective examination of practice can reveal a harmed relationship or lost contribution that a report count misses; it does not replace direct evidence needed for a claimed effect.