Colabmo development course A-P02

Learning objective: Distinguish observations, assumptions, obligations and choices and test the claims that matter.

Write significant claims as separate statements. “Every request needs a director’s signature because errors are costly” contains several claims: the signature is required, it applies to every request, and it reduces costly errors. Each needs a different type of support.

For every material claim, record its scope, source and date, confidence, a counterexample, and what decision changes if it is false. A confident colleague is a source of experience; confidence is not a substitute for inspecting the relevant records. Nor does a small sample prove that an event never occurs.

Prioritize investigation by consequence and uncertainty. An unsupported statement that would eliminate a necessary control deserves earlier attention than a low-impact preference about screen layout. Give open questions an owner and a next review point so inquiry produces decisions instead of an endless research list.

Seek disconfirming evidence deliberately. Ask for a successful exception to “we always need this,” or an unsuccessful exception to “we can safely remove it.” Explain why the example is comparable. A special executive intervention may not generalize to routine work.

Separate the evidence from the explanation. Records might show that requests with more reviewers take longer. They do not alone show reviewers caused the delay; more complex requests might require both more review and more time. Use that observation to design a better investigation.

Practice

Classify these claims in W2: “The system cannot route by category”; “Customers prefer email”; “Policy requires independent authorization”; “Last month 18 of 60 cases lacked a start date”; “We should use a single queue.” For each, specify a source or test and a consequence if wrong.

Check your reasoning

Does unanimous agreement turn an assumption into a fact?