SYSE.4:4.2 - Reuse current evidence or choose a challenge that can change reliance
Before selecting or planning new challenge Work, check whether current engineering result epistemes already contain or cite evidence and relations the practitioner can use:
- a compatible
SYSE.10engineering claim assessment may contain evidence-use relations for the same claim, decision, subject, configuration, use, conditions, interval, and evidence window; - a compatible
SYSE.11bounded usable-increment result may contain integration and observed-use evidence for the same actual System, configuration, use, conditions, interval, and evidence window; and - a compatible
SYSE.14change-and-release decision may cite evidence, configuration and effectivity basis, and unresolved conditions for the same release question, configuration, effectivity, interval, and evidence window.
Use only the compatible claims and cited evidence, not a neighbouring decision or authority. If the needed
evidence already exists, recover the direct result and its descriptive A.10 evidence/provenance path, then reuse
or update the engineering-assurance account without creating another WorkPlan. Without a compatible current
result, use a qualified direct source. If that still leaves a gap, state how it limits the present answer.
Availability or a familiar result name establishes no evidence use.
For a remaining evidence gap, ask: what attainable result could change reliance or make a needed use
admissible? Use C.11.DUA to compare obtaining it with proceeding on the present basis, narrowing the claim,
deferring, or stopping. Include cost, delay, displaced work, access and applicable evidence requirements. If the
current basis already supports the bounded answer, give that answer. If no worthwhile attainable challenge is
available, keep the unsupported claim unresolved and identify any continuation whose premises are supplied.
Neither outcome requires a new WorkPlan.
When further inquiry is selected, choose a challenge sufficient for its stated purpose. Examples include:
- a
C.16measurement of one declared Characteristic; - a
C.32.ACEevaluation over existing architecture-characteristic criteria; - a model, simulation, or analysis whose applicability and uncertainty are explicit;
- a component, integration, or system test against one stated expectation;
- an inspection or review with an identified subject and criterion;
- an operating observation under the configuration and conditions named by the claim; or
- a specialist safety, security, legal, ethical, financial, certification, or acceptance result required by the decision question.
State the challenge’s intended Method, subject, configuration, conditions, scale or criterion, uncertainty
treatment, time window, intended result form, and intended evidence use. When Work is still intended, put performer,
local system-role-kind condition, Method, window, capability needs, resources, dependencies, and result target
in a separate A.15.2 WorkPlan. The engineering-assurance plan cites that WorkPlan; it is not the WorkPlan.
Apply any independence or authorization requirement governing the decision. Even without such a requirement, independent criticism can be useful when it exposes a consequential blind spot or conflict of interest; choose it by its attainable contribution and burden. Establish the performer’s needed competence, authority and any required approval separately. A job title or organizational boundary alone establishes none of these.