Method

The six working sections unfold one reusable way. They express information dependencies and permit iteration; they are not six separately admitted submethods or a schedule. Return to the earliest changed claim, not automatically to the beginning.

1. Recover the later Work and the reason to explore

Describe what the holder might contribute, for whom, in what situation and over what horizon. Distinguish the receiver’s useful result from the holder’s desired learning, status, product or technology use. Ask what would remain unsatisfactory if nothing changed, and whether the receiver actually cares about that difference.

Keep alternative formulations when they materially change the opportunity. One inquiry may concern recovering an acceptance premise; another may concern supporting shift handoffs. Those are not merely two implementations of one already accepted result. Use PSD.3 when competing formulations require substantive problem-structuring work.

Start from a qualified demand or problem account when one exists. If the reason to explore is only a supplier’s enthusiasm, preserve it as a search lead, not as an established need. If the receiver says the proposed result is unnecessary, revise the contribution or reject that lead.

2. Search neighboring technologies, uses and characteristics

Search from more than one direction. Work from an affected use toward possible support, from a technology toward unlike applications, and from a desired characteristic toward different ways of obtaining it. For each lead, record the source and the concrete difference that could matter.

Use explicit value questions to generate possibilities, rather than scoring only the first available products. Keeney’s 2012 value-focused brainstorming is a historical Method anchor for that move and for individual generation before group anchoring when a group is involved. It is not a requirement for a workshop, proof of current prevalence or a reachability theory.

Name the generation operation actually used—for example, substitute the receiving use, vary the required characteristic, combine two support contributions or remove an assumed technical constraint. Keep the search scope, source dates and stopping reason sufficient for the next use. Search time, idea count, novelty score and geographic distance from an archive are not evidence of practical value.

Stop widening when the inquiry has enough materially distinct leads to expose the decision-bearing unknowns at its chosen effort, or when a missing domain premise prevents useful further construction. State unsearched areas if their omission can change the return. Do not claim exhaustive search.

3. Turn a lead into a problem and a proposed promise

For each serious lead, connect four things in ordinary language: the receiving situation, the useful difference, the proposed contribution and the evidence or hypothesis linking them. Then ask whose facts or judgment can confirm whether that difference matters at the needed scale.

For example, “use a new model in engineering” may become “help a receiving engineer recover which acceptance conditions a supplied evidence package does not yet support.” The proposed promise concerns recoverable qualification information, not faster approval, higher quality or automatic acceptance. Those stronger benefits need separate evidence.

Keep the niche, problem and promise distinct. A niche names the possible fit. The problem explains why the missing or inadequate result matters. The proposed promise says what could be supplied and judged. A useful research opportunity need not be a commercial offer; it still needs a worthwhile question and an inspectable result.

Reject or revise a lead that has no supported worthwhile problem after proportionate inquiry. If value remains uncertain, retain a problem hypothesis with the exact confirming question, not a positive value claim. A provider’s existing promise is evidence about what it offers, not that this receiver needs it or that it will be fulfilled.

4. Construct different directions with their supports

Build materially different possibilities for addressing the problem or realizing the contribution. Change the intervention, the work performed, the distribution of contributions, the support, the timing or the proposed result where those differences matter. Distinguish a different result premise from a different way of obtaining one result.

A direction should say more than “train,” “buy,” “automate” or “hire.” State the prospective contribution, the holder change if any, necessary access and support, protected conditions and the transition that would have to become possible. One option may develop a capability; another may make an existing capability usable through better access; a third may obtain a qualified external contribution.

Use PSD.8 for the live alternative-construction question. Use direct HCD, OCE, AI, target-domain and other results for what the proposed changes would require. After one result/use/acceptance premise is stable, OCE.8 can compare whole organizational obtaining arrangements. Before that point, forcing every lead into the same-result comparison would conceal the still-open opportunity question.

Retain the obtaining baseline, a smaller repair, a staged direction or no change when they genuinely answer the inquiry. Do not count a fragment as a complete direction merely to populate a table, and do not discard a potentially useful contribution only because its supporting arrangement is not yet designed.

5. Qualify dependencies and bound reachability

Identify the premises whose absence would block the proposed transition or change its value. Typical dependencies concern holder capability, usable access, available support, resources and time, supplier contribution, acceptance, authority, safety or continuing Work. State who owns each premise and what result is adequate for this exact use.

Use those results through the profile’s single A.15.9 import; do not perform an unqualified diagnosis or invent a supplier’s answer. Inspect adequate existing results and retain the useful conditional opportunity. Select a new request only when its obtainable contribution warrants the complete acquisition burden for this inquiry.

For each material transition, state the relevant starting condition, the proposed change, the enabling premises, the evidence and uncertainty, and what could prevent completion within the horizon. Keep the joint condition visible: two individually feasible steps may compete for the same person’s time, data access or budget. A chain is not feasible merely because each box sounds feasible.

Use the strongest honest wording:

A person’s capability envelope, an access/expression differential and a particular recovery test answer different questions. None alone selects an intervention or proves learning transfer. An AI benchmark, an organization allocation result and a provider promise have equally specific boundaries. Do not transfer one holder’s mechanism or evidence to another by analogy.

Obtain the human, AI, engineering or other domain result establishing which changes are feasible for this holder and horizon; keep reachability conditional while that result is missing. A curriculum sequence, an archive entry or a “zone of proximal development” label can help identify a possibility to investigate.

6. Preserve useful stepping stones and return the next question

For a stepping-stone claim, name the option or region it could open, the enabling transition and the evidence that supports that connection. Distinguish a candidate stepping stone from one whose retention is already justified under an applicable policy. A data-access inquiry can be a candidate stepping stone toward representative evaluation; it does not itself demonstrate capability or authorize use of the data.

If a generation archive is useful, use C.18 with this named generator, its operators, descriptors, source/lineage and retention basis. A retained archive can preserve exploration value beyond the current front. Front membership needs its own comparator and admissibility; neither archive nor front is a recommendation or permission.

Claim a changed possibility space only when it matters and the earlier and candidate generation conditions are recoverable. A newly visited region inside the same admissible space is not an expansion. If a new access relation, operator or building block makes a formerly unavailable region reachable, state that exact change and its evidence. C.18 and the direct causal owner govern any stronger claim; this Method does not infer it from novelty.

When choosing which opportunity or question to consider next, declare the receiving policy: relevant value, burden, delay, protected conditions and uncertainty. A partial comparison can be enough. An actual C.19 pool policy is used only when that pool and policy exist; there is no default explore/exploit setting.

Return the useful opportunity and the unresolved distinction that limits it. Where the recipient needs a next inquiry question, state what its plausible answers could change. Before recommending a probe or request, compare its attainable contribution with its full burden and alternatives through C.11.DUA and A.15.9. A selected probe retains its feasibility, exposure, authority, and execution conditions; an inactive probe creates no request or omission record.