RMP.9:4.2 - Compare alternatives for the same research use

When the decision remains open, identify attainable alternatives. These can include retaining adequate practice, repairing its description or support, changing the Method, keeping different variants for distinguishable situations, or stopping a use that lacks a defensible basis. Include an alternative because it can answer the actual difficulty, not to fill a quota.

Preserve the intended quantity, interpretation or other research purpose across the comparison. Make explicit any change of question that makes alternatives appear to disagree. Assess their capacity to withstand the criticism relevant to that purpose, their fit to the actual material and receiving conditions, and their consequences for users of the research.

Compare material burdens and who bears them. Depending on the situation these include access, participant time or exposure, equipment, software, competence, design, computation, reading, interpretation, documentation, transition, maintenance, recovery and displaced research. Include the effort of proposing and explaining the comparison itself. Record consequential differences at the detail needed for this decision.

A hard validity, ethical or access limit cannot be offset by an attractive average score. Scientific value can justify substantial or long-horizon work; immediate operational return is not the sole measure of worth. Keep real trade-offs and incomparable positions visible when no warranted single ranking exists.