FPF Reference

    Developing Capability for a Named Work Family

    E.23.CDI · Candidate · Method-description pattern for a separate capability-development Method; coordinated with E.23 · Normative unless marked informative · Part E - The FPF Constitution and Authoring Guides

    About this pattern

    This is a generated FPF pattern page projected from the published FPF source. It is canonical FPF content for this ID; it is not a FPF Reference product feature page.

    How to use this pattern

    Read the ID, status, type, and normativity first. Use the content for exact wording, the relations for adjacent concepts, and citations to keep active work grounded without pasting the whole specification.

    Tech-name: WorkFamilyCapabilityDevelopmentMethod Plain-name: develop a System's capability for named work and check it in representative work Type: Method-description pattern for a separate capability-development Method; coordinated with E.23 Status: Candidate Normativity: Normative unless marked informative

    Use this pattern when one named System must become more capable of performing a named Work family and transfer must later be checked in representative Work. The holder can be, for example, a person, team, organization, pair, ensemble, engineering arrangement, operating arrangement, or another collective. In every case, that whole must be independently admitted as the System whose capability is at stake.

    Relations

    E.23.CDIbuilds onQuality Improvement Loop Method
    E.23.CDIbuilds onSystem Capability: Conditions, Measures and Fit
    E.23.CDIbuilds onU.Method: Reusable Way of Doing with Explicit Applicability
    E.23.CDIbuilds onU.Work: Dated Performed Work Occurrence
    E.23.CDIbuilds onImprovement-Oriented Quality Evaluation Question Framing
    E.23.CDIcoordinates withCapability Access and Expression Differential Probe
    E.23.CDIcoordinates withSynthesize an Architecture Account of Methods and Their Use
    E.23.CDIcoordinates withCultural Evolution and Cultural-Evolution Engineering
    E.23.CDIoutline parentQuality Improvement Loop Method
    E.23.CDIoutline next siblingCapability Access and Expression Differential Probe
    E.23.CDIexplicit referenceThe Agential Role & Agency Spectrum
    E.23.CDIexplicit referenceU.Work: Dated Performed Work Occurrence
    E.23.CDIexplicit referenceSystemRoleAssignment and Performed-Work Attribution Check
    E.23.CDIexplicit referenceU.Transformation: Actual Bounded Change Under Conditions
    E.23.CDIexplicit referenceNeeded Relation Claim Derivation and Relation-Kind Admission
    E.23.CDIexplicit referenceRecognize a Whole with Parts (U.Holon and Admitted Holon Kinds)
    E.23.CDIexplicit referenceSystem Capability: Conditions, Measures and Fit
    E.23.CDIexplicit referenceU.Method: Reusable Way of Doing with Explicit Applicability
    E.23.CDIexplicit referenceU.MethodDescription: Description Episteme for a Way of Doing
    E.23.CDIexplicit referenceU.SystemRoleAssignment - Contextual System-Role Assignment
    E.23.CDIexplicit referenceCharacteristicSpace: Coordinates, State Predicates and Dynamics Hook (A.CHR‑SPACE)
    E.23.CDIexplicit referenceU.Episteme: Constitution, Empirical Grounding, and Edition Relations
    E.23.CDIexplicit referenceEvidence Graph Referring: Claim-Bound Evidence and Provenance Graph
    E.23.CDIexplicit referenceIs This Claim Supported for This Use? — Trust and Assurance Calculus
    E.23.CDIexplicit referenceCultural Evolution and Cultural-Evolution Engineering

    Content

    Problem frame

    Use this pattern when one named System must become more capable of performing a named Work family and transfer must later be checked in representative Work. The holder can be, for example, a person, team, organization, pair, ensemble, engineering arrangement, operating arrangement, or another collective. In every case, that whole must be independently admitted as the System whose capability is at stake.

    First useful move. Keep the opening ordinary. Distinguish the current capability account from the target. Current: name the holder, named Work family, operating envelope, current measures and evidence, the contribution that currently limits performance, and how long that account remains current. Target: name the desired measures or success predicate, representative Work that will test them, intervention and any provider, and trade-offs that must remain protected. Use only values that can change the development decision. If the holder or Work family cannot be named, stop before choosing training, tooling, or another intervention.

    What goes wrong if missed. Attendance, an exercise score, a certificate, a published description, or successful provider Work can be mistaken for changed capability. A development programme can then optimize visible activity while the holder still cannot perform the target Work under its real conditions.

    What this buys in practice. The project develops the capability that matters for named Work, directs effort at a real limitation, protects important conditions, and tests transfer where the capability will be used. It can stay small: use the compact entry.

    Not this pattern when.

    • Use A.2.2 when only a holder's identity, qualified ability, measures, support or current reliance is current. If the present result can be obtained from an already capable provider and no change to the named holder is needed, arrange that provision using its qualified ability and the applicable work or commitment method.
    • Use E.23.CAE first when previous performance or failed transfer leaves it unclear whether the live issue is envelope, configuration, applicability selection, access or activation, context-dependent expression, adaptation, enactment, or actual capability change. Its disposition is a premise, not selection of development Work.
    • Use E.22 when one evaluation question is current and no development Method is needed.
    • Use base E.23 for repeated improvement of an arbitrary object version.
    • Use C.32.MWA first only when the target-practice architecture must itself be recovered or compared.
    • Use a population assessment for a distribution or statistic over member capabilities, and C.36 for cultural generation, transmission, recognition, selection, retention, or loss.

    Problem

    Capability development is often organized around available courses, tools, exercises, providers, or credentials. Those can contribute to an intervention, but none tells the project which System must become capable, which Work family matters, which contribution is limiting, or whether the change transfers.

    The opposite mistake is to demand one universal decomposition or balanced scorecard. Human, technical, organizational, artistic, and hybrid holders can require different capability characteristics and different development Methods. The reusable part is the problem-solving move, not one curriculum, provider architecture, or scale.

    Forces

    ForceTension
    Target-Work relevanceExercises can be cheap and controlled, while the capability must hold in representative Work.
    Holder precisionA group label is convenient, while capability belongs to the exact admitted System whose ability is claimed.
    Shared Method versus domain fillingThe development move recurs across domains, while Methods, measures, evidence, and constraints remain domain-specific.
    Provider leverageCoaching, tooling, infrastructure, or another provider contribution may matter, while provider success is not holder capability.
    Focus versus protected conditionsOne limiting contribution needs attention, while safety, autonomy, continuity, service, cost, or another protected condition must not be sacrificed.
    Evidence versus proxyExercises and descriptions support learning, while transfer requires evidence from representative Work.

    Solution

    Name the holder and target Work

    Keep the holder System, its capability, the target Work family, development intervention, provider Systems, development Work, transfer Work, and evidence separate. A familiar group name does not by itself identify the capability holder.

    Candidate holder wordingBoundary for this use
    a person or equipped personUse the person or equipped whole only when that System is the bearer of the bounded capability claim.
    a team or organizationUse the team or organization only when the whole is admitted as one System for the target Work; member capabilities do not aggregate automatically.
    a pair or ensembleUse the pair or ensemble when joint performance is the capability at stake; do not distribute that claim to every member.
    an engineering or operating arrangementUse the whole arrangement only when its boundary and relevant conditions are recoverable; tools, people, and providers remain separately identifiable participants.
    a populationTreat the population as holder only when that whole independently satisfies the System boundary for this claim. Otherwise keep member capabilities separate, assess their distribution separately, and use C.36 for cultural propagation.

    Apply the Method

    1. Start from an evidence-backed account of the domain Methods needed for the named Work and how their contributions relate.
    2. Name the operating envelope and the qualification window or currentness condition that can change whether the Work succeeds.
    3. State the current capability baseline and desired result before choosing an intervention: the decision-bearing current measures and evidence, the desired measures or success predicate, and the trade-offs that must remain protected. The desired result is a target for later evaluation, not an established current ability or an actual change.
    4. Find the contribution that is missing, limiting, or poorly coordinated. When the issue is which organization of a particular Method the holder can use, apply A.2.2:2.1 at the grain that exposes the missing relation; use :4.2.1 below to choose how it will become usable.
    5. Choose an intervention directed at that limitation, and name any provider System on which the intervention relies. The intervention may use, for example, practice, coaching, adaptation, tooling, changed support, or a changed Method; the receiving domain supplies the actual choice.
    6. Carry the protected conditions into the chosen intervention. Keep the selected intervention or plan separate from any development Work that is later performed.
    7. Declare a transfer check that tests the stated target in representative Work under the relevant operating conditions. When that check is performed, keep the transfer Work, its evidence and result, and the resulting capability statement or currentness assessment separate. An exercise, description, publication, attendance record, or provider delivery is not that transfer check.
    8. Reopen the Method account, holder boundary, baseline, target, intervention, protected conditions, or currentness claim when the transfer evidence shows that the earlier account was wrong, incomplete, or no longer current.

    Choose how Method structure will become usable

    Use this branch when deciding how a holder will acquire or obtain a contribution of a Method, and a correct explanation or supported performance leaves that choice unresolved. Begin with the A.2.2 Method-relative profile and the actual receiving demand. For a sufficient ordinary intervention and transfer check, the preceding eight moves are enough.

    Locate the missing connection. Work backward from the required result and through an attempt. Establish what selects the right action, what the holder performs, and what a teacher, tool, provider or reference supplies. Separate a missing description from an unsettled way of doing. Obtain the missing explanation from the source or author; if the Method itself needs development, assign that problem before treating it as a learner deficit.

    Compare attainable arrangements. Name the desired holder contribution before choosing among these alternatives; use the receiving domain's actual learning or provision Methods.

    ArrangementWhen it can address the limitationCost and receiving condition
    Fixed learning sequenceThe missing distinction or coordination and a useful sequence of examples or practice are already sufficiently understood.Include preparation, practice, feedback and displaced work. Check the target in representative use with the support that will actually remain.
    Adaptive learning arrangementThe useful next example, practice task or intervention depends on what the learner does along the way.Name what chooses the next action, the feedback it uses, what it can change, its resource limits and stopping conditions. Include observation and decision costs as well as learning work. A fixed sequence may obtain the same result with less effort.
    Provision or reconfigurationA tool, implemented rule, specialist contribution, changed coordination or other supplied resource can give the required result.Name the continuing dependency and its support or maintenance cost. Installing an operation can change the capability of an equipped holder; another person's successful work does not establish personal learning. Check the holder and conditions actually promised.

    Connect help to later work. State what the next attempt receives and must produce, which help remains, and how its output reaches the receiving work. Keep legitimate tools or a useful division of work when independence is not part of the target. If removing help would disrupt a live service, use a protected rehearsal or retain qualified provision while developing the missing contribution. If a teacher's exercise conflicts with a manager's production demand, settle time, workload and acceptance with the person who can change that arrangement; more instruction alone will not obtain those conditions.

    Use feedback for the claim it can support. An adaptive arrangement can use a progress signal to choose another exercise or data batch. The resulting capability claim still needs evidence of the selected Method relation in receiving work. When the signal improves but that work fails, retain the narrower claim, inspect whether the examples and feedback distinguish the missing relation, and revise that basis or the intervention. When learning one contribution damages another required contribution, compare the whole receiving result and revise the arrangement against the protected conditions. A control Method may already supply its own approximation; develop a separate numerical estimator only when its answer changes the decision.

    Return a bounded next action. Preserve the supported contribution and state the selected learning, provision or arrangement change, its expected effect on the gap, and the receiving check. Immediate success with help, later independent use, retention and transfer require the observations appropriate to those claims. Compare before and after under :4.3 before claiming acquisition or attributing change. The domain supplies the mechanism: a human learning model, a computational training algorithm and organizational coordination do not become interchangeable because they share this construction.

    Return the first useful result

    The first useful result names the admitted holder System, target Work family, current capability baseline, operating envelope, decision-bearing measures and evidence, qualification window or currentness condition, desired measures or success predicate, current limiting contribution, selected intervention and any provider dependency, protected conditions, representative transfer check, and reopen condition. If member distributions or cultural propagation are also current, return their separate assessment or C.36 result. A population can be the capability holder only when that whole is independently admitted as the System.

    The exact holder, its qualified A.2.2 ability claim and the basis for relying on the current baseline must be recoverable. The practitioner-facing result can still remain the short account above plus the evidence used for the baseline and transfer result. Expose record identifiers, a separate E.22 evaluation frame, or detailed provider and service relations only when a receiving use needs them.

    Keep the selected intervention or plan, performed development Work, performed transfer Work, transfer evidence and result, pre- and post-intervention capability statements, a comparison claiming capability change, and any actual Transformation claim separate. A plan remains prospective. For performed Work, recover each exact actual performer through A.13 and let A.15.1 independently admit the occurrence; add F.6 only when the record or receiving use expressly consumes precise assignment-bound attribution. A capability-change comparison needs commensurable measures, envelopes, windows, and current support; it does not by itself say that the development Work caused a world-side change. A causal Transformation claim additionally needs an independently identified A.3.4 Transformation and a named obtaining Work-to-change predicate or a supported local claim under A.6.RCD. Completion of development or transfer Work alone establishes none of these later claims. If the direct relation is missing, retain the Work, evidence, capability statements, and comparison and return that exact blocker.

    Archetypal Grounding

    Tell. Begin with a current, bounded capability account and a desired result; choose an intervention only after the limiting contribution is known; then test that same target in representative Work. A completed intervention or exercise is activity evidence, not a transfer result.

    The compact range table below is a recognition aid: it shows where the Method can be filled differently.

    CaseHolder and interventionProtected conditions and transfer
    Human capability developmentOne person or equipped person is the holder. Practice, coaching, tools, provider Work, or self-development may address the limiting contribution.Protect the conditions relevant to the use, such as safety or autonomy, and check transfer in representative domain Work rather than only in an exercise.
    Team or organization capabilityOne admitted team or organization is the holder. Coordination, operating Methods, tooling, redesign, or provider Work may change its capability.Protect current operations and affected-System burdens; check transfer in current organization Work.
    Artistic capabilityA performer, pair, or ensemble is the admitted holder. The intervention may change technique, rehearsal, partnering, tool use, or support.Protect the performance conditions that matter to the use; check transfer in the intended social, staged, recorded, or other representative performance Work.
    Engineering capabilityA practitioner, team, builder, or engineering arrangement is the admitted holder. Training, tools, platforms, support, or an organization change may address the limitation.Protect applicable assurance, configuration, feedback, and delivery conditions; check transfer in representative project or continuing-engineering Work.
    Operating capabilityAn operator, operating team, or operating System is the admitted holder. A changed operating Method, tool, coaching, or provider contribution may address the limitation.Protect service, resilience, financial, human, and downstream conditions that are current; check transfer in representative cases or operating intervals.

    Show — incident-response team. An incident-response team performs drills successfully but loses coordination during real handovers. The team is independently admitted as the holder System for cross-shift handover Work. Its current baseline covers the present roster, dispatch platform, and staffed incidents: in six representative incidents, three handovers omitted the current owner or next action and median coordination recovery took eleven minutes; that evidence remains current only for the present roster and platform through the next quarterly qualification point. The target is five consecutive comparable incidents with owner, current state, and next action handed over within three minutes, without worsening response time or safety. The project changes rehearsal and handover support.

    In the next five comparable staffed incidents, every handover carried owner, current state, and next action within three minutes; median response time and recorded safety outcomes did not worsen. That transfer result supports a post-intervention capability statement only for the stated roster, platform, and qualification window. It does not by itself prove that the development Work caused a world-side Transformation.

    Show again — robotic inspection cell. One calibrated robotic vision cell is the holder System for inspecting machined impellers under the declared lighting, temperature, part-finish, and software-configuration envelope. On 200 representative parts, the current configuration detects 89 percent of the seeded reportable cracks, raises 9 percent false alerts, and takes 40 seconds per part; the account remains current through the named calibration window. The target is at least 97 percent detection, at most 5 percent false alerts, and at most 45 seconds per part while traceability and safety interlocks remain unchanged. The intervention changes optical calibration and the inspection Method with support from the sensor provider.

    Across 300 production-like parts over three shifts, the cell reaches 98 percent detection, 4.3 percent false alerts, and 43 seconds per part with no traceability or interlock failure. That transfer result supports a post-intervention capability statement for the tested configuration and window. The provider's work remains separate from the cell's capability. The transfer result does not establish a causal Transformation without an obtaining Work-to-change claim.

    Show the acquisition choice — a rhythmic controller. This constructed design case extends the A.2.2:6.5 contrast. The controller receives every pulse, including silent pulses, plus an onset indication, and must emit the hand assigned by pulse-wise alternation at each onset. With onsets 0,3,6, one correct first cycle leaves attack-wise and pulse-wise rules indistinguishable. A second cycle or a phase change supplies the missing distinction.

    If the requirement is a controller for this fully specified rule and installing an implementation is allowed, choose direct implementation and check its outputs at the required phase and cycle transitions. This obtains a capable configuration without a learning experiment. Its evidence supports the configured controller, not a human performer's coordination.

    Now change the requirement: the System must learn changing rule families from examples. Installing the one known rule no longer supplies that capability. A fixed sequence of examples that distinguish the relevant rules is a candidate when the distinction set is known. Adaptive selection becomes a candidate when successive observations can change which examples are useful. Its choice Method must define those observations and changes, and justify its additional effort against the fixed sequence under the same resource boundary. Obtain these premises before selecting it merely for being adaptive.

    Suppose a trial learner's training signal improves while it still produces the attack-wise answer at the second cycle. The next action is to check whether the supplied examples and feedback ever distinguish the silent-pulse transition, then add or change that contrast as needed. Keep separate receiving cases for the phase/cycle behavior the claim promises. A successful training update does not settle those cases; a passing case supports only its stated scope. If the holder must retain another rule as well, check that contribution rather than trading it away unnoticed. This comparison specifies a proposed learning use and a response to a stipulated failure; it reports no completed training result.

    Bias-Annotation

    Scope: limited. This pattern offers one cross-domain development spine for a named holder and Work family. It does not supply a universal curriculum, capability scale, intervention catalogue, provider architecture, population model, or cultural-evolution account. The receiving domain or DPF supplies the actual Methods, measures, evidence, intervention, and representative Work.

    LensDeclared bias and counter-check
    GovFavors a declared baseline, target, protected conditions, and reopen rule before money or authority is committed to an intervention. Counter-risk: the result becomes an approval form. Keep only values that can change the development decision; use the separate decision or authorization pattern when that claim is current.
    ArchFavors one exact holder boundary and keeps provider Systems, development Work, transfer Work, population assessment, and cultural propagation separate. Counter-risk: one domain architecture is projected onto every holder. Rebuild the domain filling while retaining only the common action spine.
    Onto-EpistFavors separation of the holder's actual ability, desired result, plan, performed Work, evidence, capability statements, comparison, and any actual Transformation. Counter-risk: technical names replace ordinary explanation. Keep the compact entry and expose identifiers only when a receiving claim uses them.
    PragFavors objective, representative transfer evidence and protected trade-offs over attendance, provider delivery, or self-report alone. Counter-risk: a small development need inherits an expensive programme. Use the smallest representative check that can decide the stated target.
    DidFavors a human-team case and an unlike technical-system case so that training language is not mistaken for the universal Method. Counter-risk: readers copy the examples as an intervention menu. Return to the limiting contribution and domain Method account before choosing an intervention.

    Conformance Checklist

    CheckPassing condition
    CC-E23CDI-1One admitted holder System and one named Work family are explicit.
    CC-E23CDI-2Before intervention selection, the current capability baseline names its operating envelope, decision-bearing measures and evidence, qualification window or currentness condition, and limiting contribution.
    CC-E23CDI-3Before intervention selection, the desired measures or success predicate and protected conditions are explicit; the desired result is not presented as an established current ability or actual change.
    CC-E23CDI-4The intervention addresses the limitation; any provider System and provider contribution remain distinct from the holder's capability, and a selected plan remains distinct from performed development Work.
    CC-E23CDI-5Transfer tests the declared target in representative Work under the relevant envelope and window; attendance, exercise completion, description, publication, or provider delivery is not substituted.
    CC-E23CDI-6The plan, performed development Work, performed transfer Work, evidence and result, pre- and post-intervention capability statements, capability-change comparison, and any actual Transformation claim remain separate. The comparison uses commensurable measures, envelopes, windows, and current support. A causal Transformation claim cites an independently identified Transformation and an obtaining direct Work-to-change predicate or supported local claim; otherwise the exact missing-governor blocker remains.
    CC-E23CDI-7A population is not treated as capable by aggregation. Member distributions and cultural propagation have separate results unless the population whole is independently admitted as the holder System.
    CC-E23CDI-8The result states what evidence, expired qualification window, changed operating condition, or failed transfer result reopens the baseline, target, Method account, holder boundary, intervention, protected conditions, or currentness claim.
    CC-E23CDI-9When acquisition adapts to feedback, its action choice and costs are stated; the receiving check can distinguish improved control feedback from usable Method structure and can change the intervention when they disagree.

    Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

    Anti-patternRepair
    Training completed, capability changedKeep the training or exercise result, then check the admitted holder's capability and transfer in representative Work.
    Group label as holderIdentify the exact System whose capability is claimed; keep member capabilities separate unless the whole is admitted for that claim.
    Provider success as holder successRecord the provider contribution separately and test whether the holder can perform the named Work.
    Exercise as transferPreserve the exercise evidence but run a representative-Work check under the relevant conditions.
    Balanced means equal scoresName the limiting contribution and protected conditions; do not invent a universal scale or equal target.
    Cultural spread as capabilityUse C.36 for distributed cultural change and keep capability with the admitted holder System.
    Human training as the universal intervention. Practice, coaching, or credential language is copied into a technical, organizational, AI, collective, equipped, or hybrid case without identifying the actual limiting contribution.Recover the holder-specific limitation and domain Methods, choose the intervention that addresses it, and test the declared target in representative Work.

    Consequences

    The same Method can guide human, organizational, artistic, engineering, operating, technical, or hybrid capability development without copying one domain's curriculum or measures into FPF. Receiving DPFs still supply the actual domain Methods, characteristics, interventions, providers, evidence, protected conditions, representative Work, and transfer limits.

    The added cost is that a project must identify the holder and target Work before buying or designing an intervention, and it must test transfer rather than closing on activity. That cost prevents training, tooling, publication, or provider delivery from becoming a proxy for capability.

    Rationale

    The reusable cross-domain contribution is a problem-solving Method: start from named Work, find the capability limitation, change it through an appropriate intervention and provider arrangement, protect what must not be sacrificed, and test transfer. The domain content varies; the action and stop boundary remain recognizable. Keeping the holder, provider, development Work, target Work, and cultural continuation separate prevents a useful common Method from becoming a universal curriculum or a second capability ontology.

    SoTA-Echoing

    The comparison below asks which current practice changes the capability-development action at comparable effort. Standards and competency catalogues are treated as current practice references, not as ontology authority or proof that a holder is capable. Domain-bounded reviews remain qualified to their studied populations and interventions.

    Practice line and current sourceContribution, effort, and failure boundaryDecision and receiving loci
    Results-led performance improvementISPI, Performance Standards (current official page checked 2026-08-22), requires focus on results, a systemic view, need and cause analysis, solution design and implementation, and evaluation of impact: https://www.ispi.international/performance-standards. This helps prevent training or tooling from being selected before the performance gap and cause are known. Its consulting and organizational framing adds stakeholder-analysis effort and is not a capability ontology for every human, robotic, AI, collective, equipped, or hybrid holder.Adapt. Steps 1–6 and CC-E23CDI-2 through CC-E23CDI-4 adopt result-before-intervention, limiting-contribution, systemic-effect, and protected-condition moves. Reject a universal consulting workflow or certification form.
    Maintained competence management and people developmentISO 10015:2019, confirmed current in 2025, connects organizational competence management and people development to product/service conformity and stakeholder needs: https://www.iso.org/standard/69459.html. It gives a useful maintained organizational branch, but its people-development scope neither covers technical holders nor proves transfer in named Work. Maintaining its full management system can dominate a bounded one-holder use.Adapt for human and organizational cases. Steps 2–3 and 8 keep current measures, qualification/currentness, desired result, and refresh. Reject as the universal CDI Method and do not require a management system for the compact entry.
    Workplace training transferTransfer of workplace e-learning: A systematic literature review (2025), DOI 10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101407, finds no common mature transfer framework in its 31-study corpus, frequent reliance on self-report, and few objective measures; it also distinguishes transfer across task and context dimensions. The evidence is specific to workplace e-learning and does not establish a technical-system or organization-wide capability Method.Adapt the measurement warning. Step 7, both worked cases, and CC-E23CDI-5 require the declared target in representative Work and do not accept attendance, course completion, or self-report alone. Reject the assumption that one training setting transfers automatically to another envelope or window.
    Deliberate practiceNurse et al., The influence of deliberate practice on skill performance in therapeutic practice: A systematic review of early studies (2024), DOI 10.1080/10503307.2024.2308159, reports preliminary support for focused objectives, guidance, feedback, and repeated refinement but limited evidence and little basis for a settled best delivery form. The studies concern discrete therapeutic skills, not every capability holder or Work family.Adapt only when the limiting contribution is a refinable skill and representative feedback is available; this is one possible intervention in step 5. Reject deliberate practice, repetition, coaching, or expert guidance as the default CDI architecture.
    Organizational dynamic-capability researchMaking sense of dynamic capabilities in international firms: Review, analysis, integration, and extension (2024), DOI 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2024.102260, exposes both useful reconfiguration questions and continuing terminology ambiguity across a 98-article international-business corpus. Its strategic constructs can guide an organization-level inquiry, but they do not identify one holder's qualified A.2.2 ability, measure set, transfer result, or causal relation. The abstraction cost is high for a local development decision.Adapt only the changing-environment and reconfiguration cue. Step 8 reopens the baseline, target, or intervention when the operating environment changes. Reject a dynamic-capability label as the holder capability, transfer evidence, or substitute for the direct relations in CC-E23CDI-6.
    Systems-engineering competency developmentINCOSE, Systems Engineering Competency Framework, 2nd ed. (2025), supplies 37 tailorable competencies for individual or organizational assessment and development and explicitly expects domain tailoring: https://www.incose.org/resources-publications/publish-with-incose/competency-framework/. A competency catalogue can help a systems-engineering domain name candidate contributions and desired levels, but a catalogue level, role label, or assessment row is not the exact holder's bounded capability or representative Work result. Tailoring and assessment also carry real effort.Adapt as domain filling. Step 1 may use the tailored framework to identify relevant SE Methods and contributions; steps 2–3 must still establish the holder-specific envelope, measures, evidence, and target. Reject catalogue membership or proficiency labels as transfer proof.
    Engineered-system lifecycle practiceISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2023 supplies a current common framework for life-cycle process descriptions, iterative and concurrent use, stakeholder involvement, and organizational process improvement, while expressly not prescribing one life-cycle model, development methodology, Method, modeling approach, or technique: https://www.iso.org/standard/81702.html. This is a current-standard reference, not evidence that process completion changes one holder's capability. Applying its full process set would be disproportionate for a narrow CDI case.Adapt the non-prescription and system-boundary discipline for technical and hybrid holders and the reopen rule in step 8. Reject lifecycle-process conformance, document completion, or a passed stage as capability or transfer evidence; the robotic-cell case still uses its target measures in representative Work.
    Computational acquisition controlSu et al. (2026), §§3–5 and Appendices E/G implement EpiSelect and EpiGen: data selection and generator training use epiplexity proxies. Results depend on initialization, resources and receiving task; proxy maximization has no guarantee for true epiplexity.Adapt the separation of adaptive action choice, its signal and receiving evidence in :4.2.1. These algorithms remain computational alternatives, with a fixed sequence or direct provision as applicable comparators. Their results establish neither a human learning mechanism nor an acquired Method-relative profile.

    Currentness and reopen. Recheck only the affected row when an official edition changes, a newer systematic review overturns a used transfer or intervention conclusion, the receiving domain supplies a better method at comparable effort, or this pattern changes the baseline, target, transfer, or direct-relation rule carried by that row.

    Relations

    PatternRelation
    A.1, A.2.2Admit the holder System and govern qualified ability claims, their work conditions and attained bounds, support, qualification and fit. A.2.2:2.1 supplies the Method-relative profile when a missing operation or join changes development.
    C.2.8Supplies recovery of selected structure from an expressed account. That result can help locate a missing explanation while capability, acquisition and transfer keep their own evidence.
    A.3.1, A.3.2Govern the domain Methods and their descriptions used by the development account.
    A.13, A.15.1, A.2.1, F.6Govern exact actual-performer recovery and independent admission of performed development and transfer Work. Assignment and F.6 enter only for an expressly consumed precise assignment-bound attribution. Completion of either Work occurrence does not establish a post-intervention capability or actual capability change.
    A.3.4, A.6.RCDGovern an independently identified actual Transformation and the obtaining direct Work-to-change predicate or supported local claim needed when development Work is said to have caused that change. When neither route is available, keep Work and Transformation separate and return the exact missing-governor blocker.
    A.19, C.2.1, A.10, B.3Govern comparison of declared measures, capability statements, and the evidence, ordinary reliance, or assurance relations that support their use. These epistemes and relations are not the holder's actual ability, an actual Transformation, or a causal Work-to-change claim.
    E.22Frames the capability or transfer evaluation when that question needs an explicit evaluation use.
    E.23Supplies the general improvement boundary and routes here when capability development for named Work is the live question.
    E.23.CAESupplies an observation-qualified differential and candidate routes when apparent loss or failed transfer remains ambiguous. Capability development enters this pattern only after a separate applicable steering or choice result selects it.
    C.32.MWASupplies a practice-architecture result only when the target-practice Method architecture must first be recovered or compared.
    C.36Governs distributed cultural generation, transmission, recognition, selection, retention, and loss; use A.2.2 for a capability claim about an independently admitted population holder System.
    E.13Tests proxy-to-value alignment when attendance, scores, credentials, or another visible measure begins to replace the intended capability and transfer result.

    E.23.CDI:End

    Last Updated: 2026-08-23 — this section last modified in upstream FPF commit 5801dc61 (github.com/ailev/FPF)