English · Русский · Українська
In 90 seconds
This hypothetical case shows how to move from observations to careful questions without turning a type into a cause or a score. Anna and Mark are considering relocation. Anna says the move is necessary this year; Mark has postponed two planning meetings and asks to compare more scenarios.
Workflow
- Name the undertaking and outcome.
- Record raw observations with provenance.
- Separate fact from interpretation.
- Route questions across four levels.
- state rival hypotheses and distinguishing evidence.
- Check context, power, consent, and safety.
- Mark what remains unknown.
- Convert uncertainty into conversation or research questions.
The relocation case across four levels
| Level | Question | Current evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Foundation | Which duties and boundaries govern the move? | Mark supports a dependent parent; Anna says the duty must continue. No care plan exists. |
| Strategic | What life trajectory does the move represent? | Anna calls it a permanent vocation step; Mark calls it a reversible experiment. |
| Operational | How will the move be decided and carried out? | No owner, deadline, budget, or workload agreement has been recorded. |
| Tactical | What information model is shared? | Anna uses a job offer and deadline; Mark requests housing, medical, and care scenarios. |
Fact versus interpretation
Facts in the case are the quoted statements, two postponed meetings, the job-offer deadline, the dependant, and the missing plan. “Mark fears commitment,” “Anna is controlling,” or either person's type are interpretations. They require evidence and must not be smuggled into the observation column.
Rival hypotheses
- H1: the central conflict is strategic—the move has incompatible meanings.
- H2: it is operational—the missing ownership makes a shared intention look like disagreement.
- H3: it is foundational—the care obligation cannot be honoured by the current proposal.
Evidence distinguishing them includes whether meaning converges after a care plan, whether action starts after roles are assigned, and whether either person rejects the obligation itself.
Context, power, and safety
Also check finances, immigration rules, health, employment asymmetry, housing access, and the dependant's voice. If one person's livelihood or legal status is controlled by the other, apparent agreement may not be free consent. A safety concern pauses ordinary compatibility interpretation.
What remains unknown—and why there is no score
We do not know the reliability of either account, the available resources, the actual type patterns, or the outcome. Adding four uncertain judgements cannot produce a meaningful percentage. The case supports a question map, not a verdict to move, stay, marry, or separate.
Questions for the pair
- Which commitments must any option preserve?
- Is the move permanent, experimental, or staged?
- Who owns each research and execution task, by when?
- Which missing fact could change the decision?
- Can each person reject an option without retaliation?
For a researcher
Turn each hypothesis into preregistered indicators and outcomes. Have independent coders distinguish observation, interpretation, level, and claim status. Record contradictory as well as supporting evidence.
Next reading
Use Epistemic Status and Inference Limits for claim labels and Compatibility Measurement Roadmap for measurement prerequisites.