PSD.9:5.2 - Development directions do not share a universal improvement score
For the ninety-day service-organization case, a qualified strategy result gives reliability priority over throughput for the current horizon. That premise helps frame the comparison but does not supply numerical weights or a causal effect estimate.
| Proposed holder-specific input | What the value account may use | What it must not infer |
|---|---|---|
| Human capability result for representative later Work. | The supported performance distinction and the person’s relevant protected conditions. | Course attendance, assessment performance, retention, and transfer are not one interchangeable development value. |
| Organization result for positions, interfaces, and continuing service. | Contribution and service consequences for the named arrangement. | A local team’s gain is not automatically a gain for the organization or another team. |
| AI/model evaluation for a named version and environment. | The qualified performance, resource, oversight, and failure distinctions. | A benchmark percentage is not a person’s capability measure or the whole service’s reliability. |
The adviser keeps those premises in their own meanings. A common service-level comparison is possible only after qualified domain results connect each direction to that same service and horizon. Without that connection, “human 4, organization 4, AI 4” is not a meaningful equal score. The return requests the missing consequence relation rather than normalizing the three numbers.