From the selected design to operational choices and actual trace

Suppose the mechanism marker, measurement qualification, specimen plan, safe conditions and access are supplied. RMP.3 connects the marker and comparison to the question of whether acceleration changes the mechanism. The protocol identifies each seal and material batch, its assigned condition, measurement timing and procedure, and the records needed to criticize selection and missingness. Three readings from one seal remain repeated observations, not three independent seals.

Now suppose the domain owner reports that the marker cannot distinguish thermal degradation from the competing field mechanism under the selected conditions. Return that result and its consequences to RMP.2. Replacing the marker with a convenient wear score is not harmless protocol completion; the new observation needs a justified relation to the original question.

On the valid-marker branch, specimen P4-07 is damaged in handling before a planned observation. RMP.4 retains its identity and allocation, the supported handling history, absent observation, prior exclusion intention and actual decision. It connects the remaining comparison data to their specimen and measurement records. A later critic can examine the selection and missingness; the trace does not decide whether the remaining data support the scientific inference.

The operational result is an executable specification for its supported scope and a trace whose examinations and limits are clear. RMP.5 uses the actual specimen, measurement and exclusion history to analyze the bounded claim under its qualified Method. A missing observation does not by itself establish the direction or importance of any resulting bias; preserve the analysis and criticism that bear on that consequence.