RMP.10:0 - Use This When
Use this pattern only after A.3.1.MR has recovered an ordinary candidate account or honest lower result and a named receiving decision still cannot be made without a larger evidence programme. Typical triggers are heterogeneous settings, disputed variants, tacit cues or judgments, incomplete records, consequential use, or a need for a stronger held-out application.
Begin with the receiving decision and the few candidate-account claims whose uncertainty changes it. Select evidence forms for those claims rather than collecting every available trace or interview.
The first useful result is a claim-to-evidence matrix and sampling decision. It states what would support, contradict, split, or lower each claim and why the selected evidence form can distinguish those outcomes. This makes the specialist burden visible before the study grows.
Use the larger evidence programme only when ordinary candidate recovery is insufficient for the named decision. No observation, interview, log, or synthesis backdates a Method into past Work, promotes a log into a MethodDescription, or admits a Method without A.3.1.
RMP.10:0.1 - Working Distinctions
| Evidence or result | Contribution retained here | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| occurrence observation and artifacts | overt actions, results, versions, coordination, and traces for one Work occurrence | observed recurrence does not identify a Method by itself |
| Critical Decision Method (CDM) probe | recalled critical-incident cues, options, judgments, and counterfactual reflections | recall and interviewer effects remain visible; CDM supplies no event-log claim |
| event-log analysis | recorded recurrence, sequence, deviation, and conformance relative to declared log semantics | tool traces describe recorded events, not intent, tacit contribution, or a MethodDescription |
| contextual observation or protocol elicitation | coordination, workarounds, or otherwise inaccessible reasoning when their particular risk is named | these moves are selected separately; CDM and process-mining sources do not support them by proxy |
| expert synthesis | claim-to-evidence matrix, decision-relevant sampling, contradiction-by-scope rule, choice of further checks, and stopping rule | disclose the synthesis rather than attributing it to the specialist sources |
| candidate Method account | a scoped episteme about a possible reusable way of doing | Method identification remains with A.3.1 |