fpf.tools
Library / Research Method Practice Principles Framework
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 1772–1788

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 07:42:37 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 07:43:27 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 07:55:10 UTC

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.