{
  "schemaVersion": "learn-from-materials/methods-v1",
  "libraryId": "method-lab",
  "title": "Method Lab — reusable method cards",
  "language": "en",
  "status": "extracted",
  "note": "Synthetic teaching example. Conditions/checks paraphrase the supplied text; unspecified thresholds remain unspecified. This is not a validated guarantee of success.",
  "methods": [
    {
      "id": "f-map",
      "version": "1.0.0",
      "kind": "framework",
      "name": "Problem map",
      "summary": "Make boundaries, stakeholders, constraints and success criteria explicit.",
      "problem": "An unclear problem scope makes relevant information difficult to identify.",
      "when": "Entering an unfamiliar or poorly defined problem",
      "prerequisites": [
        "A problem and an observable desired result can be described."
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "The source gives no universal success guarantee or quantitative threshold.",
        "Order and suitability depend on the problem and available evidence."
      ],
      "rationale": "An explicit boundary helps decide which information is relevant.",
      "steps": [
        {
          "action": "Record the problem boundary and stakeholders.",
          "input": "The problem to be addressed.",
          "output": "An explicit scope and stakeholder list.",
          "check": "Check whether each listed item belongs to the scope."
        },
        {
          "action": "Record constraints and an observable success criterion.",
          "input": "Known constraints and desired result.",
          "output": "Constraints and a success criterion.",
          "check": "Check that the criterion can be observed."
        }
      ],
      "successChecks": [
        "Boundary, stakeholders, constraints and observable success criterion are explicit."
      ],
      "tags": [
        "problem",
        "boundary",
        "scope"
      ],
      "evidence": "material",
      "source": "methods-demo.txt · Lines 3-4",
      "sources": [
        {
          "locator": "methods-demo.txt · Lines 3-4",
          "sourceIds": [
            "src-e3be302578cd-document-00001"
          ],
          "quote": "Before choosing an action, record the problem boundary, stakeholders, constraints and an observable success criterion."
        },
        {
          "locator": "methods-demo.txt · Lines 12",
          "sourceIds": [
            "src-e3be302578cd-document-00001"
          ],
          "quote": "These methods are complementary tools, not a guarantee of success."
        }
      ],
      "parents": []
    },
    {
      "id": "f-evidence",
      "version": "1.0.0",
      "kind": "framework",
      "name": "Evidence chain",
      "summary": "Connect conclusions to observations and competing explanations.",
      "problem": "A claim has weak support or several possible explanations.",
      "when": "Judging whether a claim is well supported",
      "prerequisites": [
        "A claim and relevant observations are available for examination."
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "The source gives no universal success guarantee or quantitative threshold.",
        "Order and suitability depend on the problem and available evidence."
      ],
      "rationale": "A single observation should not be treated as proof.",
      "steps": [
        {
          "action": "Separate observations from explanations.",
          "input": "The claim and available observations.",
          "output": "A distinction between observed facts and interpretations.",
          "check": "Check that interpretations are not presented as direct observations."
        },
        {
          "action": "Seek competing explanations and counterevidence.",
          "input": "The current explanation.",
          "output": "Alternative explanations and relevant evidence.",
          "check": "Do not treat one observation as proof; the source gives no numeric evidence threshold."
        }
      ],
      "successChecks": [
        "Observations and interpretations are separate; competing explanations were considered."
      ],
      "tags": [
        "evidence",
        "claim",
        "counterevidence"
      ],
      "evidence": "material",
      "source": "methods-demo.txt · Lines 6-7",
      "sources": [
        {
          "locator": "methods-demo.txt · Lines 6-7",
          "sourceIds": [
            "src-e3be302578cd-document-00001"
          ],
          "quote": "Separate observations from explanations. Link conclusions to observations and look for competing explanations."
        },
        {
          "locator": "methods-demo.txt · Lines 12",
          "sourceIds": [
            "src-e3be302578cd-document-00001"
          ],
          "quote": "These methods are complementary tools, not a guarantee of success."
        }
      ],
      "parents": []
    },
    {
      "id": "f-action",
      "version": "1.0.0",
      "kind": "framework",
      "name": "Action loop",
      "summary": "Test an assumption, compare prediction and outcome, then revise.",
      "problem": "Discussion stalls without information to guide a decision.",
      "when": "Turning understanding into a small informative action",
      "prerequisites": [
        "An important assumption can be tested at small scale."
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "The source gives no universal success guarantee or quantitative threshold.",
        "Order and suitability depend on the problem and available evidence."
      ],
      "rationale": "A test can produce new information and change the next decision.",
      "steps": [
        {
          "action": "Choose a small, low-cost test of an important assumption.",
          "input": "An assumption and prediction.",
          "output": "An informative test and its result.",
          "check": "Check whether the test produces new information."
        },
        {
          "action": "Compare the result with the prediction and revise before scaling.",
          "input": "Predicted and actual results.",
          "output": "A revised assumption or next decision.",
          "check": "Use changed constraints to revisit the problem map where needed."
        }
      ],
      "successChecks": [
        "A test result was compared with a prediction before scaling."
      ],
      "tags": [
        "action",
        "test",
        "feedback"
      ],
      "evidence": "material",
      "source": "methods-demo.txt · Lines 9-10",
      "sources": [
        {
          "locator": "methods-demo.txt · Lines 9-10",
          "sourceIds": [
            "src-e3be302578cd-document-00001"
          ],
          "quote": "Choose a small, low-cost test of an important assumption, compare its result with your prediction, and revise the assumption before scaling the action."
        },
        {
          "locator": "methods-demo.txt · Lines 12",
          "sourceIds": [
            "src-e3be302578cd-document-00001"
          ],
          "quote": "These methods are complementary tools, not a guarantee of success."
        }
      ],
      "parents": []
    },
    {
      "id": "r-map",
      "version": "1.0.0",
      "kind": "rule",
      "name": "Draw a problem map first",
      "summary": "The boundary helps identify relevant information",
      "problem": "An unclear problem scope makes relevant information difficult to identify.",
      "when": "The problem scope is unclear",
      "prerequisites": [
        "A problem and an observable desired result can be described."
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "The source gives no universal success guarantee or quantitative threshold.",
        "Order and suitability depend on the problem and available evidence."
      ],
      "rationale": "The boundary helps identify relevant information",
      "steps": [
        {
          "action": "Record the problem boundary and stakeholders.",
          "input": "The problem to be addressed.",
          "output": "An explicit scope and stakeholder list.",
          "check": "Check whether each listed item belongs to the scope."
        },
        {
          "action": "Record constraints and an observable success criterion.",
          "input": "Known constraints and desired result.",
          "output": "Constraints and a success criterion.",
          "check": "Check that the criterion can be observed."
        }
      ],
      "successChecks": [
        "Boundary, stakeholders, constraints and observable success criterion are explicit."
      ],
      "tags": [
        "problem",
        "boundary",
        "scope"
      ],
      "evidence": "material",
      "source": "methods-demo.txt · Lines 3-4",
      "sources": [
        {
          "locator": "methods-demo.txt · Lines 3-4",
          "sourceIds": [
            "src-e3be302578cd-document-00001"
          ],
          "quote": "Before choosing an action, record the problem boundary, stakeholders, constraints and an observable success criterion."
        },
        {
          "locator": "methods-demo.txt · Lines 12",
          "sourceIds": [
            "src-e3be302578cd-document-00001"
          ],
          "quote": "These methods are complementary tools, not a guarantee of success."
        }
      ],
      "parents": []
    },
    {
      "id": "r-evidence",
      "version": "1.0.0",
      "kind": "rule",
      "name": "Gather evidence and seek counterevidence",
      "summary": "A single observation should not be treated as proof",
      "problem": "A claim has weak support or several possible explanations.",
      "when": "Confidence in a claim is low",
      "prerequisites": [
        "A claim and relevant observations are available for examination."
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "The source gives no universal success guarantee or quantitative threshold.",
        "Order and suitability depend on the problem and available evidence."
      ],
      "rationale": "A single observation should not be treated as proof",
      "steps": [
        {
          "action": "Separate observations from explanations.",
          "input": "The claim and available observations.",
          "output": "A distinction between observed facts and interpretations.",
          "check": "Check that interpretations are not presented as direct observations."
        },
        {
          "action": "Seek competing explanations and counterevidence.",
          "input": "The current explanation.",
          "output": "Alternative explanations and relevant evidence.",
          "check": "Do not treat one observation as proof; the source gives no numeric evidence threshold."
        }
      ],
      "successChecks": [
        "Observations and interpretations are separate; competing explanations were considered."
      ],
      "tags": [
        "evidence",
        "claim",
        "counterevidence"
      ],
      "evidence": "material",
      "source": "methods-demo.txt · Lines 6-7",
      "sources": [
        {
          "locator": "methods-demo.txt · Lines 6-7",
          "sourceIds": [
            "src-e3be302578cd-document-00001"
          ],
          "quote": "Separate observations from explanations. Link conclusions to observations and look for competing explanations."
        },
        {
          "locator": "methods-demo.txt · Lines 12",
          "sourceIds": [
            "src-e3be302578cd-document-00001"
          ],
          "quote": "These methods are complementary tools, not a guarantee of success."
        }
      ],
      "parents": []
    },
    {
      "id": "r-test",
      "version": "1.0.0",
      "kind": "rule",
      "name": "Design a small informative test",
      "summary": "Its result can update assumptions and guide the next action",
      "problem": "Discussion stalls without information to guide a decision.",
      "when": "Discussion stalls",
      "prerequisites": [
        "An important assumption can be tested at small scale."
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "The source gives no universal success guarantee or quantitative threshold.",
        "Order and suitability depend on the problem and available evidence."
      ],
      "rationale": "Its result can update assumptions and guide the next action",
      "steps": [
        {
          "action": "Choose a small, low-cost test of an important assumption.",
          "input": "An assumption and prediction.",
          "output": "An informative test and its result.",
          "check": "Check whether the test produces new information."
        },
        {
          "action": "Compare the result with the prediction and revise before scaling.",
          "input": "Predicted and actual results.",
          "output": "A revised assumption or next decision.",
          "check": "Use changed constraints to revisit the problem map where needed."
        }
      ],
      "successChecks": [
        "A test result was compared with a prediction before scaling."
      ],
      "tags": [
        "action",
        "test",
        "feedback"
      ],
      "evidence": "material",
      "source": "methods-demo.txt · Lines 9-10",
      "sources": [
        {
          "locator": "methods-demo.txt · Lines 9-10",
          "sourceIds": [
            "src-e3be302578cd-document-00001"
          ],
          "quote": "Choose a small, low-cost test of an important assumption, compare its result with your prediction, and revise the assumption before scaling the action."
        },
        {
          "locator": "methods-demo.txt · Lines 12",
          "sourceIds": [
            "src-e3be302578cd-document-00001"
          ],
          "quote": "These methods are complementary tools, not a guarantee of success."
        }
      ],
      "parents": []
    }
  ]
}