Worked comparisons and answer keys

Draw an OU-style systems map for the booking manager's system of interest.

Produce: A titled containment map with one stated purpose and boundary.

One defensible title is 'Allocating computer slots'. Within its boundary place the booking process, slot records and allocation staff; put visitors, the community group and application websites in the environment. Containment means inclusion, not causation or seniority. This boundary can be useful for allocation work, but it excludes whether a visitor completes an application. Explain that exclusion rather than pretending the map covers the whole situation.

Construct a second map from a visitor's purpose.

Produce: A second boundary and a short explanation of what changed.

A visitor may define the activity as 'Getting an application completed'. Include access to equipment, assistance, credentials, information and the application process. The library is now one contributor, not the centre of the universe. Include the community group's work. Different maps need not be merged into one allegedly objective map: their purposes differ.

Write a testable feedback hypothesis about reduced assistance.

Produce: One closed causal sentence and one observation that could challenge it.

Less assistance may increase incomplete applications, which may increase repeat visits, which may consume assistance time and further reduce available assistance. This is a proposed reinforcing loop, not a fact established by the numbers. Compare repeat visits and assistance time before and during a small reversible change. A fall in repeats despite reduced assistance would challenge the proposed mechanism.

Locate yourself in the inquiry.

Produce: A two-sentence observer note.

For example: 'I selected completed applications as important because I am taking the visitor's purpose seriously. My questions and reporting may make staff prioritise that measure, so I will ask who loses access or becomes invisible under this new boundary.' Naming the observer does not make every account equally adequate; each still needs evidence and a stated use.

Does 80 allocated slots establish 80 successful visitor outcomes?

• Yes: an output is an outcome
• No: allocation and completion are different observations
• No: all 80 bookings failed

Answer: No: allocation and completion are different observations. Allocation is an output. The case does not establish 80 completed applications, nor does it establish that all bookings failed. The figures may overlap; do not subtract them as though they were disjoint categories.

What does a boundary in an OU systems map primarily show?

• A causal influence
• An editorial inclusion in a stated system of interest
• A manager's authority

Answer: An editorial inclusion in a stated system of interest. Containment identifies inclusion at the chosen level. Causal influence and authority require other representations or explicit additional notation.

Which observation supports emergence without claiming magic?

• Repeated local booking decisions can generate an access pattern nobody intended
• Every large organisation is unpredictable in every respect
• A whole has no relationship to its parts

Answer: Repeated local booking decisions can generate an access pattern nobody intended. An aggregate pattern can arise through interactions rather than anyone designing it. That does not imply universal unpredictability or the irrelevance of components.

Construct the disturbance-response table.

Produce: Four rows showing the necessary distinction, safe response and current gap.

A requires R1 and is handled. B requires R2, C requires R3 and D requires R4; the portal's email route does not itself supply those responses. Four labels alone do not solve the problem: recognition, authority, capability and timeliness must support the matching action. In this toy case the safe-response sets are disjoint, so a regulator restricted to two effective responses cannot meet all four requirements.

Design one legitimate attenuation and one amplification.

Produce: Two changes, each explaining what variety is changed.

An authorised upstream identity correction could prevent some B discrepancies arising: it changes the disturbance reaching the desk. Training and authorising an adviser to distinguish B, C and D and route them immediately increases effective response variety. Hiding fraud or accessibility requests from the report merely suppresses information; it does not attenuate the underlying need safely.

Test the five-day feedback delay.

Produce: A failure mechanism and an observable warning signal.

People may resubmit while waiting, increasing workload before the original exception is resolved. Track unique people, repeated submissions, waiting age and unresolved risk, not just portal closures. A lagged weekly total can look reassuring while urgent exceptions accumulate. More frequent reporting helps only if someone can act on the signal.

Replace the local success claim with a test of the whole service.

Produce: One outcome measure and one counter-measure.

Measure safe resolution of the person's request end to end, with unresolved age and access exclusions as counter-measures. Portal closures may be retained as an operational count, but cannot substitute for resolution. The chosen definition of 'safe' and who can contest it must remain explicit.

Under this case's disjoint-response assumption, how many distinguishable effective responses are required?

• Two, because there are two portal labels
• Four
• An unlimited number

Answer: Four. Four states require four different safe responses in this constructed model. This is not a universal rule that four categories always require four employees or channels.

Which proposal changes the disturbance rather than merely hiding it?

• Exclude inaccessible requests from the dashboard
• Correct a recurring upstream identity-record defect
• Rename all exceptions 'ordinary'

Answer: Correct a recurring upstream identity-record defect. Correcting the defect can reduce actual discrepancies. Exclusion and relabelling alter the representation while leaving the need or risk.

Can a daily dashboard compensate for an adviser with no authority to act?

• Yes, information alone supplies control
• No, sensing and effective action are both needed
• Yes, provided it contains more indicators

Answer: No, sensing and effective action are both needed. Observation without an available, timely response does not regulate the disturbance. More indicators may instead overload the recipient.

Write the common structural pattern without using warehouse or council nouns.

Produce: A four-part abstract model.

A demand signal is delayed; a replenishment decision is made from it; the replenishment takes time; independent decision-makers may duplicate orders while the pipeline is invisible. The resulting overshoot is a hypothesis generated by that structure. 'Both organisations need better leadership' is too unspecific to transpose or test.

Map the abstract elements into case B.

Produce: A correspondence table with at least one non-correspondence.

Stock corresponds only partially to available trained capacity; orders correspond to training commissions; delivery lead time to training delay; hidden pipeline to trainees already commissioned. People are not interchangeable inventory. Capabilities, supervision, retention, consent and case mix alter the comparison. State where the analogy stops.

Derive a modest intervention and a falsification test.

Produce: One intervention hypothesis with a measurable challenge.

Make current training commitments and expected completion dates visible across services before commissioning more. Predict fewer duplicated commissions without reducing necessary capability. Compare unique requirements, commissions and later staffing gaps. If duplication persists because services require incompatible skills, the shared-inventory model needs revision rather than stronger enforcement.

Which is the transferable part of the example?

• A warehouse's staffing ratio
• The delayed signal, replenishment pipeline and duplicated decisions
• The claim that people are stock

Answer: The delayed signal, replenishment pipeline and duplicated decisions. The proposed correspondence concerns relationships and delays. Neither an arbitrary parameter nor a literal identity between people and inventory follows.

What should happen when case mix invalidates interchangeability?

• Discard the evidence to protect the analogy
• Revise the abstraction or stop using it
• Assume the model applies because it is systemic

Answer: Revise the abstraction or stop using it. A theory is useful through an explicit fit with the situation. A failed correspondence is information about its limit.

Make a rich picture of the situation.

Produce: One picture or accessible narrative showing the competing concerns.

Include residents, technicians, scheduler, funder and board; show funding for visits, information and parts, uncertain shifts, missed appointments and conflicting meanings of success. Show tensions and absences, not only a flowchart. A resident's absence is an event to understand, not proof of irresponsibility.

Write two relevant root definitions using PQR.

Produce: Two distinct purposeful perspectives, each one sentence.

Resident perspective: 'Enable agreed safe repairs to be completed, by coordinating access, diagnosis, parts and work with residents, in order to restore a usable home with manageable disruption.' Scheduling perspective: 'Allocate available technician time, by matching eligible jobs to slots and skills, in order to use the cooperative's funded capacity.' Neither is declared the true purpose. The difference is useful for inquiry.

Check the resident definition with CATWOE.

Produce: Six explicit entries, including the transformation.

Customers: residents benefiting or suffering, including those excluded by booking rules. Actors: residents, booking staff, technicians and suppliers carrying out the activities. Transformation: an agreed repair need becomes a completed, checked repair, not simply a person becoming 'a customer'. Weltanschauung: restoring a usable home justifies organising around completion and disruption. Owner: the board can stop or change the cooperative's arrangement; residents also control access. Environment: safety obligations, available skills, supply times and constraints outside this model's control. Do not put the proposed new booking rule in Environment merely because it exists today.

Build the minimum activity model for the resident definition.

Produce: Five to nine verb-led activities with dependencies and monitoring.

A defensible model is: agree the repair need; establish access constraints; diagnose work and materials; arrange a feasible visit; perform the repair; check completion with the resident; monitor performance and revise arrangements. 'Arrange a feasible visit' depends on access and diagnosis; performance review receives evidence from completion checking. Assess efficacy (did the repair occur?), efficiency (what resources and effort did it use?) and effectiveness (does it contribute to the longer-term purpose?). These are logical requirements of this definition, not a copy of departments.

Compare the model with the case and propose one accommodation.

Produce: A three-row comparison and a feasible next inquiry.

For 'check completion', the case reports paid visits but not resident-verified completion: investigate the gap. For 'establish access', uncertain shifts are known but the booking response is not: ask residents. For 'monitor', the funder's measure may conflict with completion: discuss a paired completion measure. A possible accommodation is to retain visit reporting while jointly trialling resident-confirmed completion and flexible scheduling. It needs consent and negotiation; a neat model does not establish agreement.

Which transformation matches the resident root definition?

• Unallocated slots become allocated slots
• Agreed repair needs become completed, checked repairs
• Residents become compliant

Answer: Agreed repair needs become completed, checked repairs. The transformation must follow the selected purpose. Slot allocation belongs to the other root definition; compliance changes the purpose without acknowledging it.

What is wrong with activity boxes labelled Board, Finance and Technician?

• They are roles or units, not logically required activities
• They are always outside the system
• Nothing: any organisation chart is an activity model

Answer: They are roles or units, not logically required activities. Use verbs describing necessary activities. Roles may perform them, but a departmental chart does not establish the activity logic.

A model differs from current practice. What follows?

• Current practice must immediately copy the model
• The difference supplies a question for structured comparison
• The model is necessarily false

Answer: The difference supplies a question for structured comparison. SSM uses the comparison for learning and debate. The model is purposeful and selective; the difference does not by itself command a redesign or invalidate the inquiry.

Draw the stock-flow structure and state its units.

Produce: One stock, two flows and an explicit time step.

Stock: backlog in cases. Inflow: arrivals in cases/week. Outflow: completions in cases/week. Capacity is a limit on the outflow, not another stock of cases. For a one-week step: end backlog = start backlog + arrivals - completions; completions = min(capacity, start backlog + arrivals). The minimum prevents negative backlog. Changing the time step would require rates and event timing to be handled consistently.

Calculate the first four end-of-week backlogs.

Produce: A four-row calculation table.

Week 1: 40 + 12 - 10 = 42. Week 2: 42 + 12 - 10 = 44. Week 3: 44 + 12 - 16 = 40. Week 4: 40 + 12 - 16 = 36. Backlog rises before the extra capacity arrives, then falls by four cases per week while enough cases remain. A drop in arrivals is not needed to explain this change.

Describe a balancing feedback that could generate the capacity decision.

Produce: A signed loop and its delay.

Backlog (+) increases perceived capacity gap; gap (+) increases training commissions; commissions (+), after a training delay, increase effective completion capacity; capacity (+) increases completions; completions (-) reduce backlog. The single negative causal link makes this proposed loop balancing. The fixed capacity schedule in the numerical exercise is externally specified: the loop is not yet implemented in its equations. Do not claim a two-flow stock model already simulates the decision feedback.

Run two extreme-condition checks.

Produce: Results for zero arrivals and for an almost empty queue.

With zero arrivals and backlog 40, capacity 10 yields backlog 30 after one week. With starting backlog 2, arrivals 0 and capacity 16, completions are 2 and ending backlog 0, not -14. These are necessary accounting checks, not evidence that the real service behaves like the model.

Identify a missing mechanism that could reverse the policy conclusion.

Produce: One boundary extension and data needed to assess it.

Rushed work might reopen cases, making nominal completions overstate resolved need. Add a reopen inflow with an explicit timing rule and measure its rate. Alternatively, training may temporarily reduce experienced staff availability. A model boundary that omits these effects may overstate the improvement from additional capacity.

What is the backlog at the end of week 2?

• 20 cases
• 44 cases
• 64 cases

Answer: 44 cases. The backlog gains 12-10=2 cases in each of two weeks: 40+2+2=44. Capacity is a rate of completion, not the number left waiting.

Which unit belongs to the backlog?

• Cases/week
• Cases
• Weeks/case

Answer: Cases. Backlog accumulates cases. A flow has cases/week, and a processing time may have weeks/case under a specified interpretation.

Does a positive link mean a beneficial effect?

• Yes
• No: it means change in the same direction, other influences held constant
• Only for reinforcing loops

Answer: No: it means change in the same direction, other influences held constant. Polarity describes a causal direction, not desirability. A reinforcing loop can amplify either improvement or deterioration.

Starting backlog 2, zero arrivals, capacity 16: how many cases complete?

• 16
• 2
• -14

Answer: 2. The outflow is limited by available cases. A negative backlog is an accounting defect, not an innovative service model.

State the focal system and one level above and below it.

Produce: A recursion statement and three candidate operational units.

Focal system: the advice cooperative as a whole. Candidate System 1 units: the three centres, each with an operation, local management and a relevant environment. Within a centre, case teams may form the next level if they genuinely carry primary activity with appropriate management. A wider partnership is only a candidate level above: do not assert that it governs the cooperative without evidence and legitimacy.

Map the case evidence to Systems 1-5 and 3*.

Produce: A function-evidence table, leaving unknowns visible.

System 1: centres delivering advice in their local environments. System 2: arrangements damping interference between centres, such as interpreter booking protocols; the double-booking suggests a gap. System 3: the operations group's resource bargains, synergy and internal regulation. System 3*: the agreed direct sampling of operational reality, distinct from routine reports. System 4: the planning group's outside-and-future intelligence. System 5: identity, policy and balancing present and future through the elected board. These are functions evidenced by activities, not job titles.

Diagnose two channel failures.

Produce: Two hypotheses, each with a verification question.

The System 3/4 dialogue may be weak: ask how a recent external change altered an operational decision, and how operational experience revised a future proposal. Urgent safeguarding signals are too slow for their purpose: trace a concern's actual escalation and response time. A System 2 booking weakness is another defensible hypothesis. A missing line in your diagram alone is not proof that the function is absent.

Design a correction that preserves local autonomy.

Produce: One bounded change and a check for over-centralisation.

Give centres a shared interpreter availability view and agreed conflict-resolution protocol, while leaving normal case decisions local. Establish a direct urgent escalation route with named response responsibility. For future adaptation, create a recurring 3/4 conversation using both demand evidence and operational constraints. Check whether the new arrangement removes local discretion that does not need to be centralised.

Test the diagnosis with operational evidence.

Produce: A short sampling plan.

Trace an ordinary case, a cross-centre resource conflict, a future-driven change and an urgent exception. Ask the people doing the work how information and authority actually move. Distinguish formal policy from observed practice. Use direct observation with a legitimate remit, not covert inspection presented as neutral learning.

Which is the strongest System 2 example in this case?

• A shared interpreter scheduling protocol
• The elected board's identity statement
• A future-demand study

Answer: A shared interpreter scheduling protocol. The protocol reduces interference among operational units. Identity is a System 5 concern; outside-and-future intelligence is System 4.

What distinguishes System 3* from routine System 3 reports?

• It is a more senior manager
• It provides a direct, agreed check on operational reality
• It is every financial audit, regardless of purpose

Answer: It provides a direct, agreed check on operational reality. The distinction is the information channel and function, not rank or the word 'audit'. Its remit and effect on trust still matter.

Must the three centres have identical local arrangements to be System 1 units?

• Yes
• No, they need viable local responses within the cooperative's identity and constraints
• Only if the chart is symmetrical

Answer: No, they need viable local responses within the cooperative's identity and constraints. Different environments may require different response variety. Coherence does not require identical local operations.

Complete the four groups of boundary categories in the descriptive 'is' mode.

Produce: Twelve labelled entries, separating case evidence from unknowns.

Motivation: beneficiary, purpose, measure. The sponsor prioritises administrative savings; whether all applicants benefit is unestablished. Control: decision-maker, controlled resources, decision environment. Council staffing decisions and vendor software control differ; applicants' internet access is not simply a project-controlled resource. Knowledge: expert, relevant expertise, guarantor of success. Analyst/vendor knowledge dominates; current online completion is treated as assurance, but excludes non-starters. Legitimacy: witness for affected people, emancipation or opportunity to challenge, and worldview. The tenants' group is not yet represented; an appeal route is absent; 'modern and fair' is a contested framing. Use 'unknown' where the case does not specify a fact.

Write an 'ought' counterpart for each category.

Produce: Twelve proposals with the person or group whose judgement they express.

One defensible account includes all eligible applicants as intended beneficiaries; successful access to entitlement as purpose; cost, completion, exclusion and effort as measures; explicit council accountability and vendor constraints; assisted access resources; knowledge from applicants and frontline staff; assurance through disaggregated evidence and challenge; an independent voice for affected non-participants; accessible contest and redress; and a worldview in which access is not conditional on digital confidence. These are proposals to discuss, not automatically legitimate claims made on others' behalf.

Trace one boundary change into the evaluation.

Produce: A before-and-after judgement with a changed evidence requirement.

If the beneficiary boundary expands from current online users to all eligible applicants, the online completion rate is no longer sufficient. Count failed starts and people using or needing assistance, and ask about effort and exclusion. An apparently cheaper process may transfer cost or prevent access. The new judgement requires evidence; it is not proof that digital service is necessarily bad.

Design a challenge that an affected person can actually use.

Produce: One route to contest the proposal without accepting its framing.

Invite independently supported evidence from people unable to use the digital route, permit oral or assisted submissions, explain how challenges affect the decision, and provide a route to disagree after a meeting. Do not require a person to complete an online consultation to prove that online access is a barrier. Representation and practical ability to challenge are different questions.

Does the analyst's involvement resolve the legitimacy questions?

• Yes: expertise represents everyone
• No: expertise and the voice of affected people are different categories
• Yes: the data are numerical

Answer: No: expertise and the voice of affected people are different categories. Expertise can inform an inquiry without supplying a witness for affected people or the practical freedom to challenge its assumptions.

What does 'ought' mean in this exercise?

• A hidden fact waiting to be discovered
• An explicit normative boundary proposal open to challenge
• The tutor's mandatory policy preference

Answer: An explicit normative boundary proposal open to challenge. The task is to make values and boundary choices discussable. A model answer illustrates reasoning, not an authorised settlement of people's interests.

Who is missing from the stated online completion measure?

• Only the vendor
• People unable to start the online process
• No one, because all applications are digital

Answer: People unable to start the online process. A rate among people already inside the process can exclude those who cannot enter it. The denominator is a boundary decision.

List actors, controlled options and the four possible combinations.

Produce: An options table with controllers clearly marked.

F is controlled by the council and T by the charity. Combinations are (yes,yes), (yes,no), (no,yes), and (no,no). Each actor's stated position is (yes,yes). Stated fallbacks under the other's refusal lead to (no,no). Do not enter the unpaid pilot as a commitment: it is only a potential new option.

Separate preference, intention and belief.

Produce: Three statements drawn from the case, each correctly typed.

Preference: both prefer the staffed funded service to none. Announced intention: each makes its contribution conditional on the other. Belief: the charity doubts future council funding. These are not interchangeable. Agreement on a preferred outcome does not resolve distrust about whether the other party will perform.

Propose a change that addresses credibility without coercion.

Produce: One revised option and evidence that it is genuinely available.

The council could seek formal budget authorisation and offer an agreement with a staged payment before staff mobilisation. The charity could then make a bounded staffing commitment conditional on that authorisation. Verify decision rights, dates and resources. A louder promise does not change the relevant evidence; neither does pressuring volunteers into an unauthorised pilot.

Rebuild the table after the change.

Produce: A revised commitment record and one remaining uncertainty.

Replace the vague F option with 'funding formally authorised and first payment made by date X', if the council can actually do it. Make the charity's staffing obligation conditional on that observable event. Remaining uncertainty may include recruitment, payment timing or future continuation. State who can withdraw, how notice works and what happens to users if the service stops.

Who controls the charity's staffing commitment?

• The council, because it funds the service
• The charity
• The analyst drawing the table

Answer: The charity. Influence is not unilateral control. The charity's authorised decision-makers control its commitment in this case.

Does a shared preferred outcome prove cooperation will occur?

• Yes
• No, beliefs about performance and credible commitments still matter
• Only if an analyst assigns utility scores

Answer: No, beliefs about performance and credible commitments still matter. Preference, announced intention and credibility differ. Inventing numbers does not resolve missing commitment evidence.

How should the possible unpaid pilot appear?

• As an agreed charity commitment
• As an uncommitted potential new option
• As proof that funding is unnecessary

Answer: As an uncommitted potential new option. The scenario says it has not been offered. Treating possibility as agreement would distort the confrontation and the charity's position.

Investigate narratives before interpreting motives.

Produce: One neutral follow-up question for each manager.

Ask Aisha for an example of harmful repetition, Ben for an example where continuity changed a result, and Cara for an example of exclusion. Ask what would count as an improvement in each story. Do not ask 'Why are you resistant?' because that imports the meeting note's untested explanation.

Frame the orientations as provisional contrasting constructs.

Produce: Three distinctions, with a note that the speaker must validate them.

Possible contrasts are 'tell the story once / repeatedly start again', 'continuity / fragmented hand-offs', and 'accessible assistance / exclusion at entry'. These are analyst proposals based on the supplied statements, not constructs actually elicited from the people. Avoid replacing them with generic categories such as 'pro-change / anti-change'.

Make a small reflective option map.

Produce: A matrix of P, N and H against the three contrasts, retaining unknowns.

A plausible first map marks P as potentially reducing repetition but uncertain on continuity and poor on assisted access; N as potentially supporting continuity and telephone access, with repetition across other services unknown; H as potentially supporting all three, subject to design and resources. These are hypotheses. No supplied evidence justifies precise scores or the conclusion that H is automatically best.

Explore distinctions and revise your first story.

Produce: A revised account and a question that could expose a real disagreement.

The managers may all seek better access but distinguish its conditions differently. Ask what each would preserve or refuse in H, including costs, privacy and staffing. Genuine conflict may remain. The exercise succeeds when it improves inquiry, not when it manufactures consensus or claims to read minds.

What is the status of 'Ben is resistant'?

• An observed fact
• An interpretation not validated by Ben
• A required INFORMED category

Answer: An interpretation not validated by Ben. The observation is his stated preference for continuity. 'Resistant' adds a motive or judgement the case does not establish.

Who should validate a proposed personal construct?

• Only the analyst
• The person whose meaning is being represented
• The highest-ranking manager

Answer: The person whose meaning is being represented. An analyst can suggest a contrast, but should not replace the person's account with an imposed category.

Can the unscored map establish that H is optimal?

• Yes, because it sounds inclusive
• No: feasibility, evidence and people's judgements remain to be examined
• Yes, if it is drawn neatly

Answer: No: feasibility, evidence and people's judgements remain to be examined. A representation surfaces questions. It is not a substitute for evidence or agreement on criteria.

Create the immediate-link matrix in order A, B, C, D, E.

Produce: Five rows of five binary values, with a legend.

With rows as prerequisites and columns as dependent conditions, and zero diagonal for immediate links: A=00100; B=00100; C=00010; D=00001; E=00000. An entry 1 means the row condition must precede the column condition. Reversing the convention is acceptable only if the whole matrix and interpretation are reversed consistently.

Add implied reachability and the identity diagonal.

Produce: A reachability matrix and one explained inferred link.

Reachability including each condition itself is: A=10111; B=01111; C=00111; D=00011; E=00001. A reaches E through C and D, even without an immediate A-to-E link. A does not reach B and B does not reach A. Transitivity is appropriate to the stipulated prerequisite relation; it is not a licence to infer causation from arbitrary associations.

Draw a layered model and identify the foundations.

Produce: A dependency diagram with a stated direction.

A and B form the initial foundation; both lead to C, then D, then E. With arrows drawn upward from prerequisites, E is the top-level dependent condition. Some diagrams reverse the visual layout: assess the meaning and arrows, not whether the page looks identical. Retain direct versus inferred links in the audit record.

Return the model to the people who supplied the relation.

Produce: Two questions that could change it.

Ask whether the triage protocol can be designed before access permission but cannot be operated before it; that distinction could split C. Ask whether decision authority is needed for the whole allocation process or only disputed cases. A correct matrix can faithfully represent an oversimplified or disputed judgement. Record dissent and revise the elements or relation when necessary.

Under the agreed prerequisite relation, does A reach E?

• Yes, through C and D
• No, because no direct A-to-E link was supplied
• Only if A and B are merged

Answer: Yes, through C and D. The reachability relation includes transitive paths. The immediate-link matrix and reachability matrix answer different questions.

Does the matrix establish that A causes a successful referral outcome?

• Yes
• No: it represents agreed prerequisites among these conditions
• Yes, because a binary model is objective

Answer: No: it represents agreed prerequisites among these conditions. The relation and its source judgements bound the claim. Structural agreement is not empirical proof of outcome causation.

Which pair has no reachability in either direction in this model?

• A and B
• C and E
• D and E

Answer: A and B. A and B are separate foundations. C reaches E through D, and D directly precedes E.

Formulate the mess rather than selecting one isolated symptom.

Produce: Three mutually reinforcing problems and a consequence of continuing unchanged.

Fragmented information creates repeated requests; repeated requests increase frustration and avoidance; avoidance creates incomplete information and more chasing. Local referral targets can move work without resolving need. A faster form may accelerate the same pattern. State this as a working account to investigate, not a proven history of a real organisation.

Design an arrangement you would choose now if the old one no longer existed.

Produce: A purposeful design with three capabilities and explicit constraints.

One defensible design gives residents a supported entry route, a consent-based shared account of relevant needs, and a responsible person who coordinates agreed actions to completion. Use available technology and preserve lawful limits, refusal of sharing and alternatives to digital access. The design must remain capable of learning and changing; 'a perfect database that predicts every need' fails the exercise.

Specify ends, means and resource implications.

Produce: One desired result, two means and the resources or authority they require.

End: residents obtain appropriate help without unnecessary repetition. Means could include a shared consent protocol and a case-coordination role. Resources include staff time, skills, a maintainable record, lawful access and decision authority. A new role title without time and rights is not a resource plan.

Work back to a feasible first move and its control process.

Produce: A small implementation step, prediction and review rule.

With permission, trial coordinated handling of a defined set of cases using existing tools. Predict fewer repeated requests without inappropriate disclosure or delayed specialist support. Record resident effort, unresolved need and staff coordination time. Review weekly with participants, and revise or stop if harms emerge. Participation continues through design and adaptation rather than ending at consultation.

Which proposal fits an idealised design under the stated constraints?

• A service using currently available means that can learn and adapt
• A perfect future AI requiring no consent
• A forecast that present trends will continue

Answer: A service using currently available means that can learn and adapt. The exercise designs a preferred feasible arrangement for the present environment. It is neither a technological fantasy nor an extrapolation of current trends.

Why might a faster referral form leave the mess intact?

• All forms are harmful
• It may speed a process that still transfers rather than resolves need
• Technology cannot improve services

Answer: It may speed a process that still transfers rather than resolves need. The issue is the relationship among local targets, repeated information and unresolved needs. A form can help, but its effect depends on that arrangement.

Build the smallest feasible sequence.

Produce: A week-by-week capacity and dependency table.

Week 1: available two days, spend two on A. Week 2: available four days if A's release is real, spend three on B. Week 3: available four days, spend four on C. No banking of unused days is assumed. Starting B or C in week 1 exceeds capacity, even if their expected benefits are larger.

Check the assumption that makes the sequence possible.

Produce: A release condition and an observable test.

The old duplicate report must actually stop, and the freed time must be usable by the people needed for subsequent work. Check calendars, work records and staff experience after A. A nominal saving in one team's spreadsheet may not create available change capacity in another team.

Define the C bubble without cutting it off from reality.

Produce: Boundary, permissions, interfaces and stop/exit conditions.

Specify eligible cases, resident consent, staff discretion, safety constraints and which usual rules may change. Agree hand-offs to specialists and ordinary delivery. Track whether work is displaced outside the bubble. Set conditions for stopping, adapting or incorporating what is learned. A permanent exception that depends on unpaid heroics is not a sustainable redesign.

Compare a benefit-first ranking with a feasible change sequence.

Produce: A short explanation of why the rankings differ.

C may contribute most visibly to the end purpose, but cannot be done with present capacity or before B. A may be valuable partly because it creates the conditions for later work. Doability, contribution, capacity release and removed constraints all matter. The arithmetic does not settle political acceptability or prove any benefit will occur.

When can B first start under the supplied assumptions?

• Week 1
• Week 2
• Only after C

Answer: Week 2. A must be complete and its released capacity available. That gives four change-days in week 2, enough for B's three.

If managers continue the duplicate report, what is the week-2 capacity?

• Four days regardless
• Two days
• Six days

Answer: Two days. The assumed release has not occurred. The planned sequence is no longer feasible without another change or genuine extra capacity.

What must a protected experiment retain?

• No connection to ordinary delivery
• Explicit interfaces and a route to learn, stop or integrate
• A guarantee that its results will be scaled

Answer: Explicit interfaces and a route to learn, stop or integrate. Protection creates room to test differences, not permission to conceal displaced costs or pre-commit to rollout.

Separate the questions that require different kinds of inquiry.

Produce: Four questions, each with a needed output.

Whose purpose and experience count? A boundary and perspective account. What purposeful activity is relevant? Alternative activity models and comparison questions. How do queues behave under stated rules? A bounded stock-flow model with tested data. Who can coordinate, allocate resources and adapt? A governance-function diagnosis. A single diagram need not answer all four.

Choose a justified three-method sequence.

Produce: Method, question, output and limitation for each stage.

One defensible sequence is CSH to expose beneficiary and evidence boundaries; SSM to explore competing purposeful activities; then SD to test a particular queue mechanism where data support it. Another defensible design might use CSH, VSM and SD if governance failure is central. The order depends on what is learned. State what your choice omits and why that is tolerable for this inquiry.

Specify the transition into the numerical model.

Produce: One translation rule and one thing that must not be translated automatically.

Use an agreed operational definition of a case, entry, completion and time period before constructing flows. An SSM activity named 'support a resident to obtain help' is not automatically a measured outflow. Normative CSH claims are not parameter estimates. Keep excluded people and disputed purposes visible beside the quantitative boundary.

Set a trigger to change your method design.

Produce: A revision trigger and a stopping rule.

If case tracing shows that apparent completions are referrals that return elsewhere, revise the SD boundary and data plan. If no legitimate decision-maker can act on a proposed change, investigate governance and authority rather than producing more forecasts. Stop adding methods when they no longer change the decision or inquiry; document residual uncertainty.

Which is a sound reason to add a method?

• It makes the report look comprehensive
• It answers an important question the current approach cannot adequately address
• It is the facilitator's favourite

Answer: It answers an important question the current approach cannot adequately address. Method selection needs a purpose and a limit. More methods do not by themselves create a better inquiry.

Can a purposeful activity from SSM be treated immediately as a calibrated SD variable?

• Yes, both are systems methods
• No, its meaning, measurement and modelling role must be established
• Yes, provided the label is unchanged

Answer: No, its meaning, measurement and modelling role must be established. The representations perform different jobs. Translation requires operational definitions and evidence, not shared vocabulary alone.

Two learners choose different method sequences. Must one be wrong?

• Yes
• No, compare their purposes, assumptions, omissions and revision rules
• No, every sequence is equally useful

Answer: No, compare their purposes, assumptions, omissions and revision rules. Multiple designs can be defensible, but they are not beyond criticism. Inspect what each makes possible and what it misses.

Map the strategic relationship from both sides.

Produce: A two-direction dependence account with the purpose of each actor.

The repair network depends heavily on this supplier for its present offering. The supplier has relatively little sales dependence on this one network. The percentages are indicators of asymmetry, not a complete power measure: margins, scarce expertise, switching costs and reputation could change the assessment. The network's organisational size alone does not establish bargaining strength.

Test temporal fit.

Produce: A comparison of notice, response time and the resident promise.

Two months' notice is shorter than the six months needed to qualify an alternative, leaving a four-month response gap under the stated assumptions. The one-month completion promise may be incompatible with supply disruption. A strategy that requires switching instantly has failed a timing test before any negotiation begins.

Generate two moves that change the relationship rather than merely state an ambition.

Produce: Two moves, their preconditions and likely counterpart responses.

Begin qualifying an alternative before disruption, accepting the cost of maintaining options. Or explore joint purchasing and shared qualification with neighbouring networks, but only if they agree and the arrangement is lawful and practical. The supplier may respond through service guarantees, pricing or prioritisation. Do not treat neighbours' resources as already controlled by the network.

Specify the evidence that would change your strategic choice.

Produce: A signal and a conditional decision.

If a second supplier can meet quality requirements within three months rather than six, the response gap changes. If neighbours cannot cooperate, discard the assumed collective bargaining position. Track supplier concentration, qualification progress and actual resident waiting rather than reporting the number of negotiation meetings.

What is the stated gap between notice and alternative qualification?

• Four months
• One month
• Eight months

Answer: Four months. Six months to qualify minus two months' notice leaves four months without a ready alternative, assuming qualification starts at notice.

Do neighbouring networks' purchases automatically increase this network's power?

• Yes
• No: cooperation and decision rights are not established
• Only if added to a spreadsheet

Answer: No: cooperation and decision rights are not established. Potential collective action is not an existing resource or commitment.

Which is a strategic move rather than an aspiration?

• Become the best repair network
• Qualify a second supplier before the current contract becomes vulnerable
• Demand excellence

Answer: Qualify a second supplier before the current contract becomes vulnerable. The move changes a dependency and has a timing, cost and feasibility test. The other statements do not specify a change in the relationship.

Define the primary task and the social and technical arrangements.

Produce: A short work-system account rather than a technology inventory.

Primary task: complete agreed safe repairs in residents' homes. Technical arrangements include fault coding, devices, records and parts ordering. Social arrangements include skills, authority, division of work, supervision and resident communication. These interact: a software field can constrain discretion, and an authority rule can turn a technically possible update into a day's delay.

Locate a significant variance and where it is currently controlled.

Produce: A variance-control trace.

The observed condition differs from the single coded fault. The worker encounters the variation at the home, but control sits with a next-day supervisor and a rigid data structure. Trace the resulting hand-off, delay and repeat visit. Do not assume all variation should be eliminated; some reflects the actual repair need.

Design a joint change with minimum necessary constraints.

Produce: A paired social/technical proposal with a safety boundary.

Allow linked faults to be recorded and parts requested within defined competence and spending limits. Give suitably trained workers the authority to use that capability. Preserve qualified electrical work and a rapid escalation route for unsafe or unfamiliar conditions. A new app without authority, or autonomy without information and competence, is incomplete.

Test the whole work system.

Produce: Three measures and a participative review question.

Inspect safe completed repairs, resident disruption and worker ability to resolve variation, alongside resource use. Review cases jointly with workers and residents. Faster data entry alone may coexist with more repeat visits. Ask whose work or risk has been moved elsewhere by the redesign.

Which proposal addresses both social and technical design?

• Add fault fields but prohibit workers from using them
• Enable linked-fault recording and give qualified workers bounded authority to act
• Tell workers to be more positive

Answer: Enable linked-fault recording and give qualified workers bounded authority to act. Usable capability depends on the record, skills, rights and work arrangements together.

Where is the variance first encountered?

• At the home by the worker
• Only at the board meeting
• In the annual budget

Answer: At the home by the worker. The mismatch between the coded job and actual faults is encountered in the primary work. The question is how safely and effectively it can be handled there.

Does local discretion require removing electrical qualification rules?

• Yes
• No: discretion can operate within necessary competence and safety constraints
• Only if productivity rises

Answer: No: discretion can operate within necessary competence and safety constraints. Joint optimisation is not unlimited autonomy. Necessary constraints and accessible support are part of the design.

Check the classic membership arithmetic.

Produce: Two independent counts of membership places.

Twelve groups times five members gives 60 places. Thirty participants times two memberships also gives 60. The counts agree, but arithmetic alone does not prove a valid icosahedral allocation, workable timetable or fair process. Nor does it count the separate critic and observer roles.

Trace how the three-topic rehearsal can change the next discussion.

Produce: A round-2 note for each topic.

Lia can bring workforce constraints into access; Mo can bring staffing implications into funding; Ren can connect funding limits back to access. A might revise opening hours or propose a bounded trial. B might distinguish staff capacity from scheduling. C might examine whether a different allocation is possible. This is an original reduced network exercise, not a miniature claimed to preserve the full Syntegrity protocol.

Identify what is lost in three isolated breakout groups followed by one report-back.

Produce: One structural difference and one possible consequence.

The overlapping membership and recurrent reconsideration are absent. A report-back can transmit a summary, but need not let each topic's reasoning be altered through repeated encounters with the others. A good facilitator could still enable learning; the point is to inspect the communication design rather than assume any workshop is Syntegration.

Test a proposed event design for exclusion and premature closure.

Produce: Two design questions and a record of unresolved disagreement.

Ask who helped form the opening question and who cannot participate under the proposed format. Ask how critics can challenge an emerging account and how disagreements survive synthesis. A symmetric allocation does not guarantee equal influence, legitimacy or consensus. Record a remaining disagreement, such as access versus staffing priorities, rather than describing it as resolved by geometry.

How many membership places are in the stated classic model?

• 30
• 60
• 120

Answer: 60. Both 12 x 5 and 30 x 2 give 60. This is a membership count, not the total of all roles or meetings.

Does matching the place count prove a full Syntegrity design?

• Yes
• No: topology, roles, timing, participation and protocol still matter
• Yes, if everyone attends

Answer: No: topology, roles, timing, participation and protocol still matter. A necessary arithmetic condition is not a sufficient process design.

Is the original three-topic rehearsal a certified smaller Syntegration?

• Yes
• No, it isolates one communication idea for practice
• Only when the answers are correct

Answer: No, it isolates one communication idea for practice. The page deliberately limits its claim. It does not reproduce the full geometry or protocol.

Construct four short concepts with meaningful contrasts.

Produce: Four bipolar or contrast-explicit concepts, retaining the speaker's meaning.

Examples: greater bounded adviser discretion / repeated approval; help resolved / further referral; budget kept within agreed limits / uncontrolled spending; clear answer / uncertain next step. The contrasts should clarify this case, not mechanically negate a word. Mark these as provisional formulations to check with speakers.

Connect means to ends and retain the tension.

Produce: A directed map plus a statement explaining every arrow.

One proposed chain is bounded discretion -> fewer approval waits -> fewer repeat calls -> more time for resolution. Another is appropriate spending control -> budget viability. A tension appears if the same control creates unnecessary waits. Keep the finance concern visible rather than deleting it as anti-change. These links represent supplied or inferred reasoning, with inference labelled.

Find a candidate option that connects the concerns.

Produce: One option and a question for negotiation.

Delegated spending within agreed limits, with rapid exception handling and review, could support resolution and budget control. Ask the parties what limits, information and review would make it workable. The analyst has generated an option, not obtained agreement.

Which statement is supported by the case?

• Everyone wants all approvals abolished
• Some approvals may contribute to repeat demand while others protect a valued constraint
• Finance is opposed to residents receiving help

Answer: Some approvals may contribute to repeat demand while others protect a valued constraint. The case supports a tension to investigate, not universal agreement or an attribution of bad intent.

What is the status of an arrow derived from an interview statement?

• A causal belief to explore and test
• A proven physical law
• A vote

Answer: A causal belief to explore and test. The map preserves reasoning so it can be compared, challenged and revised. It does not make an assertion true merely by drawing it.

Separate processes from assets.

Produce: Two lists and a notation legend.

Processes include delivering appointments, training advisers, recruitment, supplier management and facilities maintenance. Assets include the available adviser capability, appointment system and rooms. In the introductory FEM notation use ovals for processes and rectangles for assets, or labelled text equivalents. 'Recruitment' is not interchangeable with 'trained advisers': one changes an asset the other process needs.

Construct one complete alternating chain.

Produce: A process-asset-process-asset chain with typed relations.

Deliver appointments uses adviser capability; training maintains that capability; training itself uses trainers, time and learning material. Recruitment acquires new adviser capacity. Supplier management maintains access to the appointment system. Specify the relation in words rather than drawing an unlabelled arrow whose direction could mean several things.

Use the model to challenge the productivity decision.

Produce: A dependency-based prediction and an observation plan.

Suspending recruitment can weaken future adviser capacity even while today's appointment utilisation rises. Track departures, recruitment lead time, capability and available appointments. The model identifies a dependency; it does not calculate the rate of decline without further data or a dynamic model.

Which is an asset in this case?

• Recruit advisers
• Available trained adviser capability
• Conduct supervision

Answer: Available trained adviser capability. The capability is something processes use and maintain. Recruitment and supervision are activities that affect it.

Does drawing the dependency predict the exact staffing shortage next year?

• Yes
• No, the dependency model needs further quantitative assumptions for that prediction
• Yes, if every box is connected

Answer: No, the dependency model needs further quantitative assumptions for that prediction. A structural relation is not a calibrated time-dependent model.

Map the appreciative differences.

Produce: Three judgements about what counts as a good result, without forcing one metric.

Prompt closure, sustained relationship and a usable answer are different appreciations of the situation. Ask what experiences and standards sustain each judgement. This is an appreciative-systems inquiry in Vickers' sense; it is not simply a request to think positively.

Investigate the successful case without ignoring failure.

Produce: Evidence of enabling conditions and a question about transfer.

Ask what the named decision-maker could actually do, what trust and access made possible, and whether the arrangement depended on unusual unpaid effort. A 4D Appreciative Inquiry route could explore successful experience, imagine a better arrangement, design it and sustain learning; keep that distinct from the earlier appreciative-systems analysis. Do not assume a single success can be copied unchanged.

Design an action-research cycle.

Produce: A jointly owned question, small action, observation and reflection.

Question: can a named decision route improve usable answers without creating an unmanageable dependency? Agree a small trial with participants, gather resident accounts and response traces, and review together. Change the meeting time and language so residents can participate. Record who can stop or revise the trial.

Create a double-loop learning test.

Produce: One change to action and one change to a governing assumption.

Changing how quickly cases are closed is an action adjustment. Questioning whether closure is an adequate definition of success changes a governing assumption. The group should show what it learned and altered, not merely that it held another meeting.

Does a positive case remove the need to investigate exclusions?

• Yes
• No, enabling conditions and excluded experiences both matter
• Only during Appreciative Inquiry

Answer: No, enabling conditions and excluded experiences both matter. Appreciation is not a licence to omit harms or transfer conditions.

Which is the clearest double-loop move?

• Produce the same closure report faster
• Question whether closure represents the purpose people value
• Increase meeting frequency without changing anything else

Answer: Question whether closure represents the purpose people value. It examines the rule or assumption shaping action, rather than only improving performance within it.

Classify the demand using the reason for contact.

Produce: A ten-row classification with a stated definition.

Four calls request new repairs. Five arise from something the service failed to do or do right: three missed visits and two ineffective repairs. One is a separate information request whose relevance depends on the service purpose. The five repeated-failure contacts are 50% of this tiny sample, not a proven organisation-wide rate. Never infer demand type from the caller's attitude.

Trace value, waiting and rework end to end.

Produce: A resident-centred work trace.

Follow need to completed repair, including approval delay, wrong parts, failed visit and repeat contact. Three minutes of call handling does not represent eight days of elapsed experience. Reducing the first call to two minutes could worsen diagnosis and increase total work.

Design a PDSA test rather than a rollout.

Produce: Prediction, bounded action, evidence and decision.

Predict that confirming the fault and required part before dispatch reduces failed visits in a small agreed set of jobs without creating excessive delay. Test, compare actual results with the prediction, and revise the explanation or practice. Include resident resolution and staff effort. A before-after improvement alone does not isolate the cause.

How many calls in the sample arose from missed visits or ineffective repairs?

• Four
• Five
• Nine

Answer: Five. Calls 3, 5, 9, 6 and 10 are the five specified failure-related contacts.

Does the sample prove 50% of all future demand is failure-related?

• Yes
• No, sample size, timing and representativeness matter
• Yes, because ten is a round number

Answer: No, sample size, timing and representativeness matter. The sample supports a local observation and further inquiry, not an exact population estimate.

What belongs in the Study step of PDSA?

• Compare observations with the prediction and revise the theory
• Declare the change a success because it was implemented
• Check only that staff complied

Answer: Compare observations with the prediction and revise the theory. Prediction-led learning is different from checking implementation alone.

Map interest, influence, control and affectedness separately.

Produce: A four-column actor table.

The operator controls timetable decisions; the council controls subsidy; drivers hold operational knowledge; passengers experience the service; the disability group can supply perspectives absent from the meetings. Low formal power does not mean low relevance. Distinguish resource control from expertise and affectedness.

Audit the 92% statement.

Produce: Three missing facts and one excluded group.

Ask how many were invited, how many responded, what question was asked, when, and whether repeat responses were possible. People without the app are outside the sampling frame. The percentage may describe respondents accurately while saying little about all passengers or people unable to travel.

Design a proportionate mixed inquiry.

Produce: Two evidence routes and an accessible participation option.

Observe a small range of journeys and interview cash and app users with consent. Hold supported conversations at accessible times or through an independent group. Retain anonymous reporting where useful. Ask an open question such as 'Tell me about the last journey you tried to make', then check interpretation with the speaker.

Plan a group comparison without forced consensus.

Produce: An opening question, a participation safeguard and a record format.

Ask 'What makes a journey usable, and for whom does the current arrangement fail?' Give participants different ways to contribute and separate operator authority from facilitation. Record agreements, differences, missing evidence and commitments. A World Cafe or other format is a means, not proof that all relevant voices are present.

Can 92% app-user satisfaction establish satisfaction among all potential passengers?

• Yes
• No: the sampling boundary excludes some relevant people
• Only if the chart is clear

Answer: No: the sampling boundary excludes some relevant people. The frame, response process and question matter. An accurate percentage within one group does not automatically generalise.

Which interview opening best avoids importing a diagnosis?

• Why do you resist digital ticketing?
• Tell me about the last journey you tried to make
• Do you agree the app is convenient?

Answer: Tell me about the last journey you tried to make. It invites an account before assigning a motive or preferred judgement.

Calculate the initial capacity gap under each demand scenario.

Produce: A two-by-three table, treating C's delay explicitly.

At demand 80, all options cover demand initially: spare capacity A=20, B=40, C=10. At demand 140, initial shortfalls are A=40, B=20 and C=50 cases/week. After its extra capacity becomes effective, C reaches 150 and has spare capacity 10. This is a capacity comparison, not a queue forecast or cost-effectiveness ranking.

State what is needed before choosing an option.

Produce: Three missing assumptions and a robustness judgement.

Ask about duration of demand, mobilisation reliability, costs, case mix, backlog, staff welfare and acceptable waiting. C may cope with sustained high demand but expose people during the delay. B has a smaller initial gap but cannot fully meet the high case. No option is 'best' without purpose, constraints and evaluation criteria.

Design two parallel probes for different explanations of avoidance.

Produce: Two small interventions with distinct hypotheses.

Probe 1 offers a choice of appointment times to a consenting small group, testing timing constraints. Probe 2 offers an optional introduction from a trusted community contact, testing a relationship hypothesis. Preserve normal support for everyone. A clearer letter could be a third probe; avoid bundling every change so that nothing can be learned about the alternatives.

Define sensing, dampening and amplification before acting.

Produce: A named observer, review point and stop/adapt rules.

Review take-up, missed contact, participant experience and staff burden at an agreed short interval. Stop or alter a probe if people feel pressured, essential support is delayed or workload becomes unsafe. Expand only when evidence and context justify it, while continuing to look for harms and differences between groups.

At high demand, what is C's initial weekly shortfall?

• 50 cases
• 10 cases
• No shortfall

Answer: 50 cases. Only baseline capacity 90 is initially available: 140-90=50. The later 150 cannot be used before its stated delay.

Which is a safe-to-fail design feature?

• A large mandatory rollout called a pilot
• A bounded, monitored action with an available stop or adaptation route
• A promise that nothing unexpected will happen

Answer: A bounded, monitored action with an available stop or adaptation route. Safety is designed through limits, sensing and response, not asserted through a label or guarantee.

Map authority and affectedness.

Produce: A distinction between budget authority, data rights and effects on people.

The sponsor's budget authority does not automatically authorise access to school data or a new use of it. Families are affected even if they do not control the project. Identify the actual accountable organisations and required data, professional and safeguarding checks rather than inventing legal permission.

Separate observations, labels and causal claims.

Produce: Three typed statements and alternative explanations.

Recorded attendance is an observation with possible data-quality limits. 'Disengaged family' is an interpretation. 'Low attendance means low motivation' is a causal claim not established here. Transport, caring and illness are competing hypotheses, not facts about any family.

Design an ethically defensible next inquiry.

Produce: A narrower action with permission, safeguards and a stop condition.

First clarify lawful authority and purpose with the relevant professionals. Seek a proportionate, transparent inquiry that includes affected families and does not determine support from an untested proxy alone. Use minimised or synthetic data for the modelling rehearsal. Establish how people can correct information or challenge an interpretation. A hidden pilot is not made acceptable by being small.

Prepare a constructive challenge to the sponsor.

Produce: A short statement that names the risk and a workable alternative.

For example: 'We can test the model with synthetic cases now. Using identifiable attendance to rank families needs authority and a way to test the proxy with affected people. Otherwise the model may direct support away from the people facing the largest barriers.' Keep the challenge specific; do not accuse the sponsor of a motive the evidence does not establish.

Does budget ownership automatically authorise the proposed data use?

• Yes
• No
• Only during a pilot

Answer: No. Different authorities and obligations may apply. This exercise provides no sector-specific legal determination.

What is the status of 'absence means low motivation'?

• An established fact
• An untested causal interpretation
• A harmless administrative label

Answer: An untested causal interpretation. The same observation can arise from different conditions. A consequential proxy requires evidence and challenge.

Calculate the reported change, then bound the claim.

Produce: An absolute change, a percentage change and a qualification.

The reported average fell by eight days, or 40% relative to 20. That describes the recorded series. It does not establish an eight-day improvement for all people or prove that triage caused it, because case inclusion changed and other influences are unknown.

Build a small evaluation matrix.

Produce: Outcome, process, distribution and unintended-effect evidence.

Outcome: time to usable resolution across both teams. Process: duplicate work and triage experience. Distribution: results by relevant case types and access needs. Unintended effects: dismissal, displaced queues and staff burden elsewhere. Combine trace data with participant accounts and report disagreements rather than averaging them away.

Name your own influence on the evaluation.

Produce: A reflexive note and one practical safeguard.

The analyst selected both intervention and measure and may favour evidence of improvement. Use an independent challenge or joint review, retain negative cases, document changed definitions and publish the measurement boundary. Reflexivity is not a confession that makes evidence unnecessary.

Decide what can responsibly be reported now.

Produce: A short finding and a next learning action.

'Recorded waiting fell, and some staff and residents report benefits. Changed case boundaries and mixed resident experience prevent a whole-service causal claim. We will trace the transferred cases and review dismissal accounts before expanding.' This supports action without manufacturing certainty.

What is the reported percentage reduction from 20 to 12?

• 8%
• 40%
• 60%

Answer: 40%. The reduction is (20-12)/20 = 0.4. The new value is 60% of the old value; that is not the reduction.

Which finding is currently defensible?

• Triage caused a 40% improvement for everyone
• The recorded average fell, but the causal and population claim remains uncertain
• Nothing can be learned

Answer: The recorded average fell, but the causal and population claim remains uncertain. There is useful evidence, but its boundary and competing explanations limit the conclusion.

What should happen to the two negative resident accounts?

• Remove them as outliers
• Investigate and retain them as possible evidence of unintended effects
• Treat them as proof all results are false

Answer: Investigate and retain them as possible evidence of unintended effects. Neither erasure nor automatic generalisation is warranted. The accounts can change the evaluation questions and the intervention.

Arrange the objects to represent one interpretation of attention and contact.

Produce: A diagram or text account with a stated meaning for distance and direction.

One possible arrangement puts the sponsor close to the coordinator, teams farther away and residents outside the main line of attention. Label this as your construction from the case, not a discovered invisible order. Another arrangement can be defensible if its meaning is explicit.

Describe before interpreting.

Produce: Two observations about the arrangement and two hypotheses about work.

Observation: the resident object is outside the line between sponsor and coordinator. Hypothesis: resident experience may receive less attention. Observation: the sponsor is placed closest. Hypothesis: frequent sponsor requests may dominate the coordinator's time. Neither placement establishes what the real people feel or intend.

Try a different arrangement and identify a real-world test.

Produce: One changed relationship and one observable inquiry.

Move purpose and residents into view and ask what would make that meaningful in work. A test could be to bring a consented resident account into a project review and observe whether it changes decisions. Moving an object is not itself an organisational change or proof of a better relationship.

What can the tabletop arrangement directly establish?

• The sponsor's hidden motives
• The modeller's current representation and questions it raises
• The feelings of residents who are absent

Answer: The modeller's current representation and questions it raises. It externalises an interpretation. Claims about people or events require appropriate evidence and consent.

May a learner decline embodied or personal participation?

• Yes, use drawing or text and respect the boundary
• No, refusal proves resistance
• Only if the facilitator approves the reason

Answer: Yes, use drawing or text and respect the boundary. This rehearsal does not require personal exposure or physical participation. Refusal must not be turned into a diagnosis.

Separate what was said from what was inferred.

Produce: A two-column observation/inference record.

The quoted statements are supplied observations. Avoidance and an expectation of complete redesign are inferences. 'Never' and 'keep changing' are generalisations not established by this short transcript. Ask for examples without denying the speakers' experience.

Map the commitment sequence.

Produce: Request, clarification, promise, completion and satisfaction, marking absent stages.

There is an ambiguous request and a non-committal response. Clarification and a firm promise are absent. No agreed completion test exists, so later dissatisfaction cannot fairly be treated as breach of a clearly specified promise. This does not establish that either person has no responsibility; it locates the missing conversation.

Draft a repair that combines advocacy and inquiry.

Produce: A short replacement exchange.

Sam: 'I expected a one-page map by Friday, but I did not specify that. What did you understand, and what can you commit to?' Lee: 'I understood a redesign. I can map the current referral routes by Friday if the three leads provide examples; I cannot approve changes. Shall we agree that scope?' The repair exposes reasoning and negotiates a feasible commitment.

Name an undiscussable safely.

Produce: One observation and an invitation, without a forced confession.

For example: 'We seem to agree quickly and discover different expectations later. Could we examine one instance and how our authority and workload affect what we promise?' Do not announce that you have diagnosed everyone's hidden motives.

Is 'I'll see what I can do' an unambiguous promise of a complete redesign by Friday?

• Yes
• No
• Yes, because Sam is senior

Answer: No. The transcript contains no such scope or date. Seniority does not fill in unspoken terms.

Which is an inference rather than a supplied observation?

• Lee said 'I'll see what I can do'
• Lee is avoiding responsibility
• Sam asked for the referral picture to be sorted

Answer: Lee is avoiding responsibility. Avoidance is a proposed explanation. It may be investigated, but is not established by the words alone.