RMP.6:4 - Solution
Recover the claim, threat and receiving question. Use sufficient existing examination results first. Compare real candidate contributions, select only useful obtainable work, and keep the decision separate from actual performance and its interpretation.
RMP.6:4.1 - Name what could fail and what would change
State the exact claim and its scope, the analysis or source basis, the proposed use and the uncertainty that remains. Recover the relevant RMP.5 claim and criticism when supplied; use compatible direct inputs otherwise.
Turn a general concern into a discriminating question. For example:
- Is the reported computation obtainable from the identified data and analysis?
- Does a plausible analytical choice change the substantive interpretation?
- Does new corresponding material support the target relation?
- Does the model or measure have support for this intended use?
- Do apparently corroborating accounts have independent evidential contributions?
- Which difference between the original and receiving context can change the relation?
These questions identify possible contributions, not six mandatory tests. Select the question whose answer can alter the current claim or use. A merely imaginable failure does not establish a defect or a reason to commission research.
Identify the Method and criteria that make a result interpretable. If a domain criterion, source relation or admissible comparison is missing and could change the selection, return that precise input. Do not manufacture a success threshold from a preferred outcome.
RMP.6:4.2 - Reuse the examination that already answers
An existing result can answer the present credibility question when its claim, relevant material, Method, criterion, assumptions and scope support the proposed use. Recover those relations and the result’s qualifications. Repeat only the affected examination when a changed premise, execution defect or new use makes it necessary.
A result’s age alone does not invalidate an unchanged premise. Actual expiry of a required calibration, permission or applicable criterion can matter. The relevant owner supplies that condition; RMP.6 does not infer either validity or invalidity from a date label alone.
If the existing basis is sufficient for this question, return the answer and its needed limitation. The current account may already be complete. An unused test catalogue, comparison table or separate justification for not testing is unnecessary.
RMP.6:4.3 - Match the credibility move to the threat
| Move | Comparison to make | What the result cannot establish by itself |
|---|---|---|
| Computational reproduction | Use the identified data, analysis and relevant environment to compare the output actually obtained with the reported result under a justified tolerance. | Agreement does not establish the model’s substantive adequacy, a causal claim or transfer to another setting. Missing access and unsuccessful execution are not discrepant outputs. |
| New-data replication | Compare a target claim using new material and a justified corresponding design. State what is held comparable, what differs and the agreement criterion. | A matching or non-matching significance label alone does not settle effect magnitude, uncertainty, equivalence or every proposed explanation. |
| Robustness or sensitivity | Examine plausible analytical, parameter, missingness or model choices that can change the conclusion under the declared question. | Favorable selected variants do not establish robustness over unexamined choices; a changed target quantity is a different claim, not another interchangeable estimate. |
| Validation for a use | Examine the empirical and conceptual relation between the model, measure or result and its intended use under supplied domain criteria. | Fitting to calibration material or checking implementation does not by itself establish adequacy for the intended use. Use challenging material separate from fitting where the claim requires it. |
| Triangulation or corroboration | Compare what differently limited Methods or sources contribute, their dependence and the relation expected among their results. | Agreement among copies is not independent corroboration; differing results need not be averaged into a common claim. |
| Transfer examination | Identify differences between source and receiving populations, settings, periods, materials or practices that can change the claimed relation. | Success in the source context does not supply an unrestricted target-context result. |
Use a disciplinary variant with its explicit meaning when that changes the examination. The moves are a repertoire, not stages or a maturity scale. Several can be useful together only when their contributions and the relation between their results justify the combination.
A test must bear on the actual threat. Reproducing a simulation cannot replace a missing mechanism comparison. An inter-coder reliability procedure cannot validate a reflexive thematic interpretation merely because both involve interviews. Replicating a unique historical event is not the test of its source chronology; source criticism or corroboration may be.
RMP.6:4.4 - Compare contribution with the whole obtainable burden
Compare only real alternatives, including adequate existing results and no additional testing. One targeted examination can be enough; a fixed count of alternatives or tests adds no assurance.
For each serious candidate, state which possible result could change the answer, what the attainable material and Method can discriminate, what limits would remain, and the whole arrangement needed to obtain and interpret the result. Include:
- access to sources, participants, specimens, data and code;
- qualified personnel, instruments, preparation and computation;
- actual performance, interpretation and any independent return the claim needs;
- participant effort, protection, legitimate restrictions and permissions;
- timing, delay, shared capacity, necessary records and displaced work.
Use the precision the choice needs. Do not invent probabilities, monetary values or a universal credibility score when a qualitative comparison or a supplied bound settles it. The value of research includes a defensible contribution to knowledge, later inquiry and several receiving questions; immediate commercial payoff is not its sole measure.
Test resource combinations when candidates share or compete for capacity. Two examinations that can each require four to six non-overlapping investigator-days do not form an assured ten-day programme while six plus six remains admissible. Choose a useful sufficient subset, obtain a genuinely different arrangement or decline the combined programme. A shorter arrangement still has to warrant its burden.
RMP.6:4.5 - Return the current decision and specify only selected work
Choose the result that the current facts warrant:
| Present condition | Result |
|---|---|
| An adequate existing examination answers the selected credibility question | Return that answer, its basis and the qualification needed for use. |
| An additional examination has a relevant contribution and a worthwhile obtainable arrangement | Select the comparison and state what its possible results would change, its required inputs, criterion and remaining limits. |
| The present question can finish without additional testing | Return the supported claim, narrowing, refusal or explicit uncertainty with the reason or limitation the receiver needs. Infeasibility or low value of testing does not improve the evidence. |
| A missing input prevents this particular selection | Name the exact result, owner interface, affected choice and condition for reconsidering it. A missing-input return does not commission obtaining it. |
These are current answers, not mandatory documents. A material unknown can remain a limitation of a completed no-new-test answer when no acquisition is selected. Use a hold only for the particular selection it actually prevents.
For selected new work, make the proposed comparison executable and interpretable before relying on it. State the target claim, material and design correspondence, relevant Method, criterion or tolerance, possible interpretation-changing differences, obtaining arrangement and useful stop. A new or changed design may need RMP.2; consequential operational choices may need RMP.3. Actual conduct and deviations need an adequate RMP.4 trace.
The selected examination remains prospective. Its specification and permitted arrangement do not establish that it was performed or that it produced a favorable result.
RMP.6:4.6 - Interpret an actual return without changing its kind
When an examination returns, compare what was performed with what the intended claim and criterion require. Retain justified deviations and their effects. Distinguish the following:
| Actual return | Interpretation and continuation |
|---|---|
| The comparison was completed and supports the target relation under its criterion | State that bounded support and the limits left outside the comparison. |
| The comparison was completed and yields a consequential discrepancy | Examine whether it bears on the same claim and whether changed material, Method, execution or context explains the discrepancy; revise or return the affected claim. |
| The comparison was completed but remains inconclusive | State the unresolved discrimination and the support that still obtains; do not convert it into agreement or evidence of absence. |
| Access, execution or interpretability failed | State what could not be examined and why. An unattemptable or failed computation is not a discrepant computational result. |
For replication, preserve the estimate, uncertainty, design correspondence and stated success criterion. A changed criterion may be defensible, but it must be identified and justified rather than silently substituted after seeing the result. A single discrepancy does not automatically falsify every associated explanation; equally, a favorable repeat does not confer unlimited credibility.
Return a changed or defeated claim to RMP.5, a design premise to RMP.2, an operational mismatch to RMP.3, or a missing trace relation to RMP.4. A materially different research question requires its own qualified frame. If the selected credibility question is answered, return the answer directly; no further research cycle is automatic.
RMP.6:4.7 - When a protective requirement itself is disputed
A record demand, independent check, evidence threshold or participant condition may have contested necessity or proportionality. In that case, separate research about its merits from the authority to change its current force.
Make the merits question concrete: who or what is protected, from which unwanted outcome, under which baseline conditions; what incremental protection the requirement is expected to provide; over which horizon and with what uncertainty; and what burden or displaced protective work it creates. Compare realistic retention, revision, replacement or removal options. A required label is not evidence of marginal protection, and a lower cost is not evidence that the protection is unnecessary.
RMP can examine the causal, measurement or evidence basis of that comparison. The responsible receiving practice retains the value judgement, protection duties and competent amendment decision. A binding condition continues to govern actual conduct until a competent change. Ordinary uncontested inquiry need not create a requirement-review dossier.
RMP.6:4.8 - Preserve a useful answer for its receiver
Return the claim, the selected credibility question and the conclusion that can now be used. Carry the source, limitation or reason that changes the receiving decision. Reuse the existing research account; do not copy an adequate test report into a new certificate.
Where the receiver lacks access to decisive material, distinguish its public answer from an examination available only to a permitted critic. A lost record, inaccessible original or unperformed test cannot be recovered by stronger wording. Keep that limit without erasing the bounded contribution that remains.