PSDA.5:4.2 - Vary the decision-changing contents

Ask what the proposal is meant to achieve, why that result matters, and what other way could address the concern. Generate some ideas independently before group discussion when early advocacy could anchor the whole inquiry. Then use differences and objections to construct additional candidates.

Useful prompts include changing the intervention mechanism, obtaining arrangement, scale, timing, resource allocation, or commitment. Consider combining compatible actions, retaining the present arrangement, declining a proposed change, and obtaining information before a larger commitment. These are prompts, not a mandatory taxonomy or a required number of options.

When the known menu supplies no way to obtain a material desired consequence, use PSDA.6:4.2 to distinguish that end from the initially proposed means. Where their relationships need construction, use the backward branch of PSDA.8:4.2.1: trace necessary conditions and possible sufficient routes, propose a combination of means, and test that whole combination forward under the same assumptions. Return the resulting alternative here with its conditions and open transitions. An incompatible combination prompts another construction or a revised formulation; it does not prove that the desired result is impossible. Reuse an adequate direct construction without building another network.

Describe “no new action” against a real baseline. It may still include already authorized maintenance, contractual duties, continuing costs, deterioration, or exposure. It is not a cost-free, consequence-free empty world.

For a staged direction, say what happens first, what later choice remains open, which observation could inform it, and what delay or irreversibility the first commitment introduces. Do not call a probe reversible merely because it is small; obtain the direct feasibility, consent, safety, and recovery premises when they matter.