Readme

Start with the missing result

Two people can use the same word for different problems; two models can answer different questions despite displaying the same measure. PSDA.1 and PSDA.2 make the formulation and boundary examinable. PSDA.3 constructs complementary model claims. A clear question with adequate models needs none of that work again: it can enter directly at an alternative, value, uncertainty or comparison result.

When familiar proposals cannot obtain a desired consequence, start with PSDA.5. Its constructive return through PSDA.6 and PSDA.8 helps build a different combination of means and test it under the same conditions.

If the proposed intervention is already familiar but its value is disputed, PSDA.6 separates attributed concerns, protected conditions and compensating trade-offs. PSDA.8 compares consequences only under a declared rule. PSDA.9 tests where the conclusion holds or reverses. A retained set or bounded conditional comparison can be the complete answer; the authorized chooser makes the later choice.

If a discussion contains reports and opinions but no usable conclusion, B.5.SD constructs the missing inference with competent contributors. Professional facilitation can supply the participation conditions through PSDA.13. It may also supply the subject integration when the facilitator has that competence. A clear direct explanation needs no meeting.

An assisting agent can explain or apply these Methods in ordinary language. Ask for the actual objects, differences, grounds and next useful action, rather than a list of framework names.

A comparison can be correct and still answer too little

Consider a constructed inquiry about a pumping arrangement. One formulation concerns rated capacity; another concerns access to assistance when roads fail. The second changes the boundary and model question. A capacity model does not establish that people can reach help or that a mobile pump can be deployed. PSDA.1–3 preserve those differences before a comparison is used.

For an illustrative analytical slice, fixed pumps have losses 2 with normal roads and 3 with road access lost, at cost 8. Mobile pumps have corresponding losses 1 and 9, at cost 5. With assumed road-loss probability p and cost weight λ, lower-is-better scores are 2 + p + 8λ and 1 + 8p + 5λ. Fixed pumps score lower when 7p > 1 + 3λ. At λ = 0.5, the mobile score is lower for p = 0.2, but the fixed score is lower for p = 0.6.

PSDA.6 keeps the assumed trade-off distinct from protected service conditions. PSDA.7 keeps the missing probability basis visible. PSDA.8 supplies the conditional comparison and PSDA.9 exposes its reversal. Neither assumed input is established by this arithmetic. The incumbent and a staged direction may also remain live outside this two-option slice. A whole-investment recommendation therefore requires additional qualified premises or a narrower return.

Now suppose deployment is unavailable in the required window. The mobile branch loses its applicability; inserting a convenient probability cannot repair it. The fixed-option arithmetic remains valid at its stated scope. A professional adviser uses PSDA.14 to return what the recipient can rely on, while the governing decision remains separate. An analyst studying the relation for understanding can instead stop with the bounded model result.

Practical entries

Bring the question that is blocking useful work. The examples below show how professional support uses intellectual inquiry and returns a qualified answer, and how a changed premise can send that use back. They are not a catalogue or a required sequence. Use the pattern index or search when another question is live; an adequate direct result can finish the task. The Architectural Reference and its Architectural Rationale explain how the contributions fit together. You can ask an assisting agent: “Explain this and give me your comments in ordinary language, without framework jargon.”

If the useful future contribution itself is still unclear, use the general C.40.OCN opportunity construction (FPF C.40.OCN:1) directly. You can construct an opportunity and stop at its next question without appointing an adviser. When a distinct performer must recommend a development direction to a recipient, use the advising profile or the second example below.

PSDA-CARD-01 — Turn a contested situation into a usable recommendation

• Situation: A municipal committee needs advice on a pre-season pumping arrangement. Operations staff emphasize capacity, residents raise unequal protection, and responders question safe access and deployment.
• Question: What can the inquiry recommend while preserving those differences and the committee’s investment authority?
• First useful result or blocker: Attributed formulations and a usable inquiry boundary; then a conditional comparison whose omissions remain visible in the recommendation.
• Start with: PSDA.11 for the receiving question and authority boundary. If these are adequate, enter at the missing participation, formulation, model or comparison result.
• Stop or return: Return the supported advice or its limitation through PSDA.14. Reopen the dependent model, alternative, scope or recommendation when a material concern or premise changes. The committee retains the later choice.

The constructed flood-pump application begins with an independent inquiry team preparing a return for the committee. PSDA.12 discovers affected people and concerns beyond those able to attend. PSDA.1 preserves different formulations: insufficient capacity, unequal protection, fragile maintenance and unsafe deployment. Their consequences inform the PSDA.2 boundary: compare the pre-season pumping arrangements while keeping material downstream effects and mobility constraints visible. Long-term relocation remains outside this inquiry.

That boundary changes the modeling question. PSDA.3 keeps nominal pumping capacity separate from whether people can reach assistance and whether a mobile pump can arrive when roads fail. PSDA.4 compares a capacity-only calculation with a bounded combination of attributed inquiry and conditional technical analysis. The combination is useful only if its contributions can be obtained and their subjects, conditions and meanings can be joined. PSDA.13 lets participants correct the claim “the pumps protect the district”: a capacity result does not answer the separate access question. A concern map supplies questions for comparison, not numerical weights.

PSDA.5 retains the current arrangement, fixed pumps, mobile pumps and a still-incomplete staged direction. The following slice compares only fixed and mobile pumps. Its loss and cost figures are illustrative units, not measured impacts or a complete investment account.

With an assumed road-loss probability p and cost weight λ, the illustrative lower-is-better scores are 2 + p + 8λ and 1 + 8p + 5λ. PSDA.6 keeps the trade-off premise separate from protected conditions; its §4.5 constructs compatible preferences when the exchange still needs elicitation, with a deterministic worked case in §5.5. PSDA.7 retains the missing basis for p and the uncertainty conditions needed here. PSDA.8 supplies the comparison, and PSDA.9 exposes its reversal: fixed pumps score lower when 7p > 1 + 3λ. At λ = 0.5, mobile pumps score lower for p = 0.2, but fixed pumps do for p = 0.6. Neither input is established for the committee’s decision by this calculation.

The PSDA.14 return therefore retains the conditional comparison while withholding a whole-investment ranking. Access, assistance and protection conditions remain unqualified; the baseline and staged direction were not disposed of by the two-row calculation. A further result is requested through A.15.9 only if its obtainable contribution warrants the burden. Even resolving road access would not by itself settle the value trade-off.

Suppose the committee authorizes a study, and a qualified source then establishes that mobile deployment is unavailable during the required window. PSDA.15 returns to the mobile alternative and its consequence premises; this is not a reason to insert a convenient value of p. Preserve the earlier conditional calculation as such, but do not use it as the current investment basis. If a newly affected group reveals an omitted consequence, return to the boundary as well. Study authorization still leaves pump procurement to its own decision.

PSDA-CARD-02 — Recommend a development direction without taking the choice

• Situation: A separate advisory team must recommend a ninety-day reliability direction for a service organization: internal development, an external provider or a mixed human–AI arrangement.
• Question: Which direction or information-gaining step do the available premises support, and which claims remain conditional?
• First useful result or blocker: A retained set with its comparison limit, or a supported direction or bounded probe recommendation when the missing premises become available.
• Start with: PSDA.11 for the engagement; then use PSDA.5, PSDA.6, PSDA.7, PSDA.8, PSDA.9, PSDA.14 at the first missing result. The profile and development-direction application supply the connected account and its other holder cases.
• Stop or return: Give the supported advice with its material limits. Use PSDA.15 for a real changed-premise or follow-up question, preserving independent claims. The authorized chooser decides whether to commit or probe.

In the constructed organization case, the committee has the stated mandate, and the advisory service’s competence, confidentiality and conflict conditions are met. Reliability takes priority over throughput; security, critical-service continuity and a bounded probe budget are protected. The operating account identifies the recovery contribution, an interface account describes the current arrangement, and a priority statement supplies the receiving value. These inputs help define the PSDA.5 alternatives, but none compares all three whole arrangements.

The first PSDA.14 return retains internal development, the provider and the mixed arrangement, and states that their whole-arrangement comparison is missing for this recovery result and horizon. Inspect an adequate existing specialist result before commissioning another. Through the profile’s A.15.9 return, request the bounded comparison only when its attainable contribution warrants the complete acquisition burden. The supplier chooses how to produce its result; the adviser retains the recommendation question.

Now add qualified arrangement and security results that cover all three directions. They exclude the specified provider because it cannot preserve the security boundary; internal development remains feasible. A separately qualified probe proposal specifies the remaining question, distinguishing observations, feasible resources, exposure and stops. Compared with immediate commitment, it supports obtaining that information at bounded cost. Using the needed value, uncertainty, consequence and robustness results from PSDA.6, PSDA.7, PSDA.8, PSDA.9, PSDA.14 can recommend considering that probe first while retaining internal development. Those additional premises support the stronger return. They establish neither a throughput effect nor permission to perform the probe.

For a later probe of AI configuration A, PSDA.15 needs a viable arrangement: an owner can report material changes, competent suppliers can interpret them, and the committee can receive the consequence in time. If observations now concern configuration B while the evaluation still covers A, block advice to extend or deploy B pending the premises needed for that use. Keep the earlier advice about A and an independently supported internal-development claim. An observation notice does not itself choose an operational fallback or revoke permission.

The human branch makes a different missing premise visible. An engineer considering evidence review and interface coordination may have permitted access to review material, yet lack a basis for independent capability and transfer; coordination practice and feedback may also be unavailable. Retain the conditional opportunities. Neither course attendance nor the organization’s arrangement comparison supplies those human development results.

PSDA-ENTRY-03 — Find what is wrong when the report is on time

• Situation: Weekly reports arrive on time, yet the planner must telephone colleagues to recover identifiers before using them.
• Question: Is the difficulty incomplete information, incompatible identifiers, an unsuitable deadline, or a misleading record?
• First useful result or blocker: Distinct formulations with an observation that could separate them, or the exact missing fact that prevents stating what is wrong.
• Start with: PSDA.1 to compare the formulations. If the discrepancy is already understood and only a recording correction is needed, make that correction through the responsible practice.
• Stop or return: Stop when the formulation and available facts suffice for the current question. Open a causal-model question only when different explanations change the next useful action; return to the formulation if a check changes what was actually wrong.

The report-handoff application follows that conditional continuation: causal alternatives can inform a bounded answer, while missing evidence, a recipient’s objection or later observations can change it. A diagnostic check, temporary operational help and research answer different questions and may occur at the same time.