PSD.6:4.2 - Recover candidate Methods as ways of doing

For each serious candidate, describe the action in plain language: what participants do, with what accepted inputs, to produce which result under which conditions. When the proposed reusable way is already recoverable, use A.3.1 to identify it.

Use A.3.1.MR only when several grounded occurrences or direct sources create a candidate-recovery question about what reusable way the material may show, and no Method has yet been established. It returns provisional source-traceable candidate accounts, a distinguishing question, or an honest lower result; Method identification remains a separate A.3.1 question.

If the way is known and only its wording is unclear, clarify the statement; use E.10 only if an FPF kind or relation question remains. If a prospective recipe lacks a decision about its intended action or applicability, return that missing design question to the person designing the engagement Method. A missing design choice is not by itself a reason to reconstruct past practice.

For a concrete contrast, three grounded inquiry accounts may leave two explanations plausible: a fixed question sequence with local exceptions, or a reusable rule that changes questions when a concern is challenged. That is a candidate-recovery question for A.3.1.MR. A new proposal saying only “interview residents” leaves its intended return and conditions unstated: ask its author to make those design choices, without inventing earlier inquiries. Once the proposed way is sufficiently stated, apply A.3.1 without requiring such a history.

For example, an attributed-mapping Method elicits a participant’s claims, explores their implied connections, checks the rendering with that participant, and retains unresolved differences. A conditional-analysis Method evaluates named alternatives under stated conditions with qualified models and returns consequences and limits. Their labels are insufficient; their actual contributions and applicability make comparison possible.

A source description can explain a Method without demonstrating its effectiveness in this engagement. Keep instructions, reported applications, direct comparative evidence, and practitioner competence distinct. A document about several Methods is not automatically a U.MethodDescription of one composite Method; A.3.2 governs that membership.