3.3. Choose with incomplete information

Recover the available information → formulate the allowed choice → compare consequences → act, revise the requirement or obtain a useful missing indication.

MMP.8 formulates what may depend on information available at the time of choice. When a probabilistic recording question is needed, MMP.7 derives the record’s law. FPF C.16.IR addresses what an observation relation distinguishes, including bounded indications. C.11.DUA compares the value and cost of further inquiry. The MMP Readme’s observation-to-action entry connects these contributions with a usable instruction.

Small use. One resource must go to one of two requests. A report identifies the request that needs it with probability 0.8 in the first circumstance and 0.7 in the second. Following the report meets a requirement of at least 0.65 success in either circumstance, provided the report arrives before allocation. A zero-failure requirement remains unmet. If the first circumstance instead has probability 0.95 and the criterion is average success, always choosing it gives 0.95, while following the report gives 0.795.

The criterion, information and timing determine the next move. The mathematical comparison does not require further evidence when those inputs are already sufficient for the intended decision. A statistical fit is only one way to resolve an unknown. If unresolved alternatives all permit the same action, a bound may suffice. Observational agreement also leaves an intervention question open when it depends on an unestablished mechanism.

MMP.12 formulates recovery from records and makes any added restriction or penalty explicit. MMP.13 constructs an inferential conclusion and propagates its uncertainty to the requested quantity. MMP.14 constructs a comparison for a consequential discrepancy, revises the implicated component and recalculates the receiving prediction. Use these contributions where the existing law or bound leaves that work unresolved.

MMP.15 determines which intervention consequence follows from the available data and causal assumptions. MMP.16 constructs an obtainable observation that separates a consequential ambiguity and compares its benefit with its burden. MMP.8.SD retains the information and change law needed for continuing choices.

For a question about the same observed case under another action, MMP.19 connects factual inference with changed mechanisms through common underlying conditions. It constructs a joint or nested comparison, or bounds what remains ambiguous. An expected-outcome choice can still be settled by the intervention distributions alone.

The intervention-and-information example connects these methods: use the supported intervention losses, derive the possible reports, choose whether to observe, and make the later action depend on the received report. If the report no longer distinguishes the possibilities, the observation ceases to justify its cost.