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.