Compare causal hypotheses to their supporting evidence
See this course’s project requirements
A fictional low-severity office incident review with an event timeline, fact/unknown table, contributing-condition map, corrective-action owner list and evidence-based follow-up check.
Keep your working files in your own notebook or software. Save a private description, checklist, and work link in My Proof.
What to include
- Save an evidence inventory with privacy boundary; include the original-case decision evidence and a separate changed-case result.
- Save source-linked timeline and two follow-up questions; include the original-case decision evidence and a separate changed-case result.
- Save causal comparison with supported/unsupported claims; include the original-case decision evidence and a separate changed-case result.
- Save condition-linked action register with physical authority boundary; include the original-case decision evidence and a separate changed-case result.
- Save follow-up review with two exceptions and next owner; include the original-case decision evidence and a separate changed-case result.
- Save incident-learning packet with two specific follow-ups; include the original-case decision evidence and a separate changed-case result.
Review and revise
Use these criteria to check your work and choose what to improve.
- The final packet uses the supplied task-specific constraints and all six records agree.
- Every result can be traced to an identifier, input, calculation or stated decision rule.
- Changed-case practice updates dependent records and keeps holds or uncertainty visible.
- The packet states the learner role, authority boundary and specific next verification needed before real work.
Want more background?
The idea in everyday life
Original fictional workplace practice; paper or a local document is sufficient. The rules and records below are supplied for this exercise, not asserted universal workplace policy. Poplar hypotheses H1 delivery overflow lack of storage; H2 cart operator carelessness; H3 route check covers wrong corridor. Evidence E6 approved layout no specified temporary storage; E7 check form names corridor B, event corridor A. No evidence of operator inattention.
A cause claim needs a plausible mechanism and evidence; considering multiple contributing conditions is more useful than asserting personal fault from one observation.
Compare causal hypotheses to their supporting evidence — worked practice
A cause claim needs a plausible mechanism and evidence; considering multiple contributing conditions is more useful than asserting personal fault from one observation.
Poplar hypotheses H1 delivery overflow lack of storage; H2 cart operator carelessness; H3 route check covers wrong corridor. Evidence E6 approved layout no specified temporary storage; E7 check form names corridor B, event corridor A. No evidence of operator inattention. Use paper or a local document. Preserve the original case and make a separate changed-case record.
1. Step 1
Map evidence to each hypothesis rather than scoring opinions.
You should see: H1 supported by E6; H3 by E7; H2 unsupported.
Keep the stated identifier, unit and policy alongside this result so another reader can check it.
2. Step 2
Identify mechanisms and remaining questions.
You should see: Storage/inspection-scope gaps could permit blocked route; actual placement still unknown.
Keep the stated identifier, unit and policy alongside this result so another reader can check it.
3. Step 3
Avoid calling hypotheses a qualified final cause.
You should see: Provisional contributing conditions for authorized team review.
Keep the stated identifier, unit and policy alongside this result so another reader can check it.
4. Step 4
Save causal comparison with supported/unsupported claims.
You should see: Two evidence-supported avenues, one unsupported blame claim.
Keep the stated identifier, unit and policy alongside this result so another reader can check it.
What to finish
Save causal comparison with supported/unsupported claims; include the original-case decision evidence and a separate changed-case result.
Watch for this
Stopping at“be careful”or blaming a worker instead of testing the documented storage/check-system gaps.
How can I tell I understand it?
Using the supplied identifiers, I can save causal comparison with supported/unsupported claims. My changed-case record names the revised condition and explains which dependent decision it changes.
Quick knowledge check
Answer all 3 questions. Get at least 2 right and the lesson completes automatically.
You’ll get an explanation for each answer. Signed in? Your results save to your account.
Pass the check. We’ll save the progress.
Answer all 3 questions above and get at least 2 right. You can review the explanations and try again.
Go to the knowledge checkTools, templates, and lesson sources
Tools and templates
Tools open in a new tab so you can keep your place here.
Sources and further reading
Explore the references behind this lesson.
Source & access notes · checked 2026-10-01
Occupational task and responsibility context; the exercise policies and quantities are original fictional inputs. Page title and relevant content inspected; no interactive controls or credential process tested.
Access: Readable official page retrieved with the web reader on 2026-10-01.
Reuse: All teaching cases, data, worked steps and questions are original. Link and limited paraphrase for context; no copied source exercises.
Source & access notes · checked 2026-10-01
Public agency or educational context; no source exercises are copied and no simulated threshold is presented as an official rule. Page title and relevant content inspected; no interactive controls or credential process tested.
Access: Readable official page retrieved with the web reader on 2026-10-01.
Reuse: All teaching cases, data, worked steps and questions are original. Link and limited paraphrase for context; no copied source exercises.
Source & access notes · checked 2026-10-01
Public agency or educational context; no source exercises are copied and no simulated threshold is presented as an official rule. Page title and relevant content inspected; no interactive controls or credential process tested.
Access: Readable official page retrieved with the web reader on 2026-10-01.
Reuse: All teaching cases, data, worked steps and questions are original. Link and limited paraphrase for context; no copied source exercises.
Report a problem with this lesson
Tell us what went wrong. Please leave out personal information and private project contents.