STR.16:4.5 - Compare the portfolios without erasing their purposes
Use C.11.CRC to compare each finite candidate with the actual continuation. Preserve meaningful characteristics and their scales. A short reasoned comparison is often enough; an unexplained score is not.
Separate non-negotiable conditions from negotiable trade-offs. Then compare the surviving candidates along the characteristics that could change this decision:
| Concern | Useful characteristic and interpretation |
|---|---|
| Scientific contribution | The question or claim advanced, the criticism it can bear, and the attainable epistemic return. An expert judgement can be qualitative; an unanswered question is not zero merit. |
| Product opportunity | The new recipient contribution that the provider could offer, its boundary, and the supported or uncertain route to demand and sustained provision. |
| Performer development | The previously unavailable work the identified performer could undertake, with the assistance and transfer evidence still needed. Training completion is a different reading. |
| Organization development | The contribution the organization could obtain through a new arrangement, and its dependence on scarce individuals or outside support. |
| Cultural contribution | What other carriers can understand, use, adapt or continue under actual access conditions. Downloads, membership and revenue are not substitutes for that contribution. |
| Resource and burden | Scarce capacity by bearer and time, expenditure by date, support, displaced work and distribution of burden. |
| Further development | The concrete new question, operation or obtainable option preserved, opened or delayed. Distinguish a supported connection from a speculative possibility. |
This is a selection aid, not a mandatory seven-column scorecard. State enough about a characteristic’s bearer, meaning, comparison basis and uncertainty to prevent a misleading comparison. Where unlike scales remain, preserve a partial ordering or an explicit value judgement. A chooser can prefer a scientifically stronger, more costly portfolio or a smaller commercial commitment without claiming one numerical optimum.
First remove only what a qualified hard condition rules out. Then inspect any supported dominance under the complete comparison basis. Compare the remaining serious alternatives through their consequential gains, losses and displaced opportunities. State the trade-off that the actual decision holder accepts. If there is no agreed basis for trading research away for another product release, expose that decision rather than hiding it in financial weighting.
Apply C.11.DUA when an unknown prompts a proposed study. Ask what attainable answer could change this allocation or the claim on which it relies, and compare that gain with inquiry burden and delay. Existing knowledge and reasoned expert synthesis can support a bounded portfolio proposal now. Uncertain long-run effectiveness does not require proving the whole development programme before constructing it. Conversely, a missing permission or a resource conflict cannot be waived as uncertainty.
Preserve a research allocation for its stated epistemic purpose when the owners choose it. Describe product relevance separately. A product can use the current qualified method while new theory remains unsettled. If the next release actually requires the new theory, the honest choice is a conditional release, a different method or a changed promise.