SYSE.25:4.3 - Construct competing improvement hypotheses

For each serious candidate, state the difficulty it should change, the proposed mechanism, the expected user result and the observation that would disconfirm it. Include retaining or simplifying the current provision. Do not compare an unrepaired incumbent with a fully repaired favorite.

Compare the same task, acceptance meaning, supported variation and evidence horizon. Include user and provider effort to use, maintain and support the changed provision, migrate to it, and restore operation after failure. Preserve constraints such as unavailable expertise, confidential data and an existing service commitment without treating a constraint label as proof of feasibility.

A disagreement about the whole obtaining arrangement—local provision, a shared service, an external provider or a mixture—uses SYSE.24’s complete comparison. The present choice may identify a result worth improving while leaving that obtaining comparison tied.