RMP.Preface:13 - Architectural Rationale
The question/design Part follows two decisions that practitioners can complete separately: whether a new inquiry is needed, and which strategy could answer its qualified question. Combining the Methods preserves continuity between them without forcing every request through a study. Separating their results also makes revision precise: a new source can close the question; an invalid sensor can reopen design while the question remains useful.
| Serious alternative | Why someone would choose it | Trade-off and when it is preferable |
|---|---|---|
| Use FPF source/evidence practice and direct methodological sources without an RMP account. | It avoids another language and gives an experienced practitioner the original source detail. | Prefer it when an existing source result or qualified domain Method already supplies the required answer. When the boundary and design are both unresolved, the practitioner must reconstruct their connection, stop logic, and owner returns; RMP.1/RMP.2 make that recurring work explicit. |
| Organize the entry by institution, occupation, or familiar activity. | It is quick for administration and fits established service boundaries. | Keep it for staffing, grant, or institutional classification questions. It cannot distinguish routine laboratory qualification from a mechanism inquiry, or admit the equivalent citizen question, so it does not govern RMP membership. |
| Use one standard design hierarchy or fixed research sequence. | A mature domain can make recurring choices efficiently when the question, criteria, and evidence relation are already qualified. | Use that domain rule for its justified scope. Across the questions served here it can suppress source criticism, situated interpretation, transfer limits, and legitimate stops. RMP.2 compares the actual criticism and losses before adopting the domain’s preferred route. |
| Use one combined question-and-design template. | It reduces handoffs and can work for a short, stable inquiry with all inputs supplied. | It can conceal a changed question inside a familiar protocol. RMP.1/RMP.2 keep the two results distinguishable even when one person creates them in one sitting; direct entry avoids making two documents compulsory. |
| Stop the published repertoire after question qualification alone. | RMP.1 already avoids unnecessary studies and returns adjacent work correctly. | It leaves a passing brief without the justified design-or-stop result needed by the seal and stream users. The second Method closes that pre-study question, including an explicit hold when selection cannot be completed. |
| Stop the repertoire at question and design. | It gives a complete pre-study disposition without a larger research account. | Use RMP.1/RMP.2 directly when that is the result needed. A selected design does not itself connect the detailed operational choices or preserve actual conduct; RMP.3/RMP.4 address those additional difficulties. |
| Combine protocol and trace into one undifferentiated result. | A small inquiry may use one notebook, reducing paperwork. | Keep that single carrier when useful, but distinguish intended choices from actual and reconstructed conduct. The distinction permits direct legacy entry and criticism of changes. |
| Use a comprehensive disciplinary handbook. | It can supply detailed professional techniques, instruments and qualified procedures for a known field. | Use that source for its actual contribution. RMP’s nine Methods connect the research question, evidence and Method decision; they do not replace every discipline’s professional practice. |
The source architecture follows the same choice. Generic source recovery, evidence use, and reusable Method qualification retain their existing owners; RMP connects their supplied results to the research question, design, operational choices, actual trace, bounded claim and credibility question. This costs an explicit external-result dependency, but preserves source maturity, domain competence, and the ability to stop when a supplied premise is absent. A retelling can reduce navigation, but it also creates a second account whose source qualifications need maintenance. RMP instead explains the receiving research use and returns to the supplying Method for its content.