RMP.1:10 - Rationale

The four conditions separate the reason to inquire from the activity used. Unresolvedness prevents personal ignorance from masquerading as novelty. Non-routine choice distinguishes epistemic design from ordinary Method execution. Criticism-ready systematicity makes defeat and narrowing possible. A bounded communicable result distinguishes an episteme contribution from an immediate action, token, or private update.

The supplied-answer stop has equal standing with the passing branch. Research is not improved by repeating a question that qualified current evidence already answers. Exact non-member returns avoid the opposite error: adjacent practices remain valuable and can reopen RMP.1 when they expose a new mechanism, validity, transfer, measurement, source, or evidence question.

Beginning with the receiver but withholding its authority preserves relevance without advocacy capture. Stating the criticism demand before design comparison prevents a favored apparatus or prestige hierarchy from choosing the question.