RMP.3:8 - Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

Failure	Why it fails	Repair
“We use the standard scale.”	Familiarity conceals whether administration, scoring or the construct relation fits this inquiry.	Recover the qualified relation and actual use; obtain a domain result or return the defeated design premise.
Three readings become three specimens.	The information claim silently changes its unit and dependence.	Keep observation and inference units distinct and use the applicable sampling and analysis rationale.
A completed reporting checklist is treated as a justified protocol.	Reporting detail cannot select or validate the research relation.	Connect each consequential choice to the question and supplied Method.
Every adaptation is either forbidden or hidden.	The first suppresses legitimate inquiry; the second removes criticism of selection and timing.	State justified commitments and preserve actual reasons, timing and scope of change.
A lost comparison is annotated but its original claim survives.	The record becomes more transparent while the design remains defeated.	Return the failed dependency to RMP.2 and identify what narrower work is still supported.
Each remaining need is tested with all others favourable.	The combined arrangement may be infeasible or incapable of criticism.	Apply the joint-input test to admissible combinations.
The protocol substitutes for permission or a scientific conclusion.	Research preparation does not supply either result.	Obtain the exact owner decision or the later analysis and criticism.