---
schema_version: "1.2.0"
id: "divine-design-framework:en:chapter-47"
work_id: "urn:systemstheology:book:divine-design-framework:chapter:chapter-47"
book_id: "divine-design-framework"
chapter_id: "working-forms-and-research-protocols"
chapter_slug: "chapter-47"
title: "Working Forms and Research Protocols"
book_title: "DDF: Faith, Science, and the Logic of One Reality"
language: "en"
source_language: "en"
translation_status: "source"
authors: ["Elijah Faviel"]
editorial_owner: "Elijah Faviel"
editors: []
review_scope: "portfolio"
review_status: "not_reviewed"
review_summary: "Formal external review of the wider V1 corpus has not yet been completed. Rethinking Reality received pastoral and theological feedback during its earlier development. Reviewer names are published only with permission."
review_required_domains: ["biblical studies and original languages","patristics and historical theology","philosophy and rival-worldview analysis","human genetics and population history","origin-of-life science","clinical psychology and research methods","safeguarding and abuse response","Spanish language and cultural review","Indonesian language and cultural review"]
review_domains: []
review_snapshot: "c050986f727f329d2607093b3e13fe1ec9d57270+working-tree.909d026a0c08"
review_required_for_stable: true
reviewers: []
content_version: "content-42a118121337"
content_hash_sha256: "42a118121337e4c22f5421eef640e1bd5cf6fdf0d34cf2f8f5f55f0bade0d591"
published_at: "2026-10-01T10:01:21.000Z"
modified_at: "2026-10-01T10:01:21.000Z"
canonical_url: "https://systemstheology.com/library/divine-design-framework/chapter-47/"
markdown_url: "https://systemstheology.com/research/books/divine-design-framework/en/chapter-47.md"
license: "All rights reserved; research use subject to the Use Policy"
license_url: "https://systemstheology.com/use-policy/"
correction_url: "https://systemstheology.com/library/divine-design-framework/chapter-47/#chapter-comments"
kind: "appendix"
appendix_letter: "D"
---
# Working Forms and Research Protocols
These forms make an inquiry recordable. They require reasons and evidence rather than a total score. An unanswered field is a finding about the inquiry's present limit.
## A local claim record
- Claim and scope. Write one proposition that could be denied. Name subject, domain, discipline, scale, population or corpus, place, and time.
- Competent warrant. Give exact sources and loci, date or version, method, source role, uncertainty, and the premises connecting them to the claim.
- Dependencies. Name what must hold for the conclusion to follow. Identify doctrinal, empirical, historical, normative, and analogical steps separately.
- Assessment. Record inferential status, confidence, maturity, and the three separate assessments of confessional adequacy, public fit, and enacted fruit.
- Rival and adverse case. State the strongest alternative and a case that would expose the proposed account's weakness.
- Action and revision. Name the decision, affected subjects, expected benefit, costs, power and consent, protection, review method, and a result requiring change.
A concrete policy or treatment requires a narrower record than a chapter's framing claim. An inherited profile specifies how to inquire; it supplies no missing study, diagnosis, legal duty, or fact about this person.
## Formation over time
The analytic state is
Record given nature and kinds of powers \(N\); durable dispositions \(Theta_t\); active context \(C_t\); source trust \(T_t\); valuation \(V_t\); embodied habit \(H_t\); relational openness \(R_t\); and material, social, liturgical, and institutional environment \(E_t\). Present ability depends on their interaction. The notation specifies questions, not numerical coordinates with a validated metric.
Compare the same person at relevant times. What changed quickly? What persisted? What support or constraint changed? What acquisition history is known? Which powers were available at the earlier act? A present pattern does not establish how freely it was acquired. Distinguish intended change, observed change, attributed cause, and the subject's own account.
## CRM: a record for a correction moment
- Name. What occurred? Separate observation, report, interpretation, and uncertainty. Preserve the original expectation before hindsight changes it.
- Sort. Which prediction failed? Which meaning, obligation, identity, hope, or allegiance was pressured? Neither axis is a calibrated common scale. A true obligation can survive a failed expectation.
- Check. What warrants source trust? What do safety, health, time, attention, and support permit now? What truthful action lies within this person's agency?
- Repair. Identify the actual problem: mistaken description, unmet practical need, injury, chosen wrong, unreliable channel, institutional concealment, or a mixture. Record whose action is required and whose good it serves.
- Review. Set an appropriate occasion for checking facts, access, capacity, decisions, relationships, adverse effects, and unresolved loss. Immediate calm is not an independent measure of truth.
Manageable pressure permits reflection; overwhelming distress calls for support and pacing; danger or acute clinical concern calls for protection and qualified help. These distinctions are practical boundaries, not a validated CRM severity scale. A form must not force disclosure, confrontation, reconciliation, or religious interpretation as the price of care.
Check four false resolutions: facts denied; identity protected against evidence; spiritual closure announced before lament or repair; and institutional reputation protected from correction. Another person's agreement, a completed form, and reduced discomfort can each coexist with these failures.
## Testing CRM as a proposal
Define the constructs and procedure before evaluating outcomes. Test whether prediction error and meaning gap can be distinguished reliably and whether they add information beyond existing measures. Use independently coded cases, assess interrater agreement, and examine translation and measurement comparability across settings.
A prospective study should specify participants, comparator, intervention, outcomes, follow-up, sample rationale, missing-data treatment, and adverse-effect recording. Compare with an established alternative or an equally attentive control. Independent outcomes might concern factual accuracy, decision clarity, access to care, correction of records, or completion of agreed repair; each needs its own measurement. Do not define “truthful resonance” as whatever CRM produces and then count it as success. Null, mixed, and harmful results require publication and revision. No CRM-specific efficacy is established by the component literature cited in the book.
## Transfer between fields
Name the source relation and its evidence; the target question; the correspondence; the respects in which it fails; the extra premises; and a target-domain test. Record whether the transfer supplies a hypothesis, illustration, explanation, prediction, or decision aid. These uses differ in burden.
For an emergence claim, add base, macrovariable, coarse-graining, timescale, intervention, mechanism of constraint, comparison with a lower-level model, and negative cases. For historical reconstruction, add source dependence and competing reconstructions. For a clinical application, add qualified assessment and relevant evidence. For a public intervention, add distribution of costs, implementation, appeal, and effects on neighboring systems.
## From intended repair to observed repair
Record the damaged good, actual bearer, responsible office or agent, remedy, resources, timeline, and evidence of receipt. Restitution, corrected records, restored access, and changed rules are distinct outcomes. A statement of repentance is not evidence that all have occurred. Record residual loss and whether the remedy merely moved the cost to someone with less power. Reopen the decision when the evidence contradicts its stated benefit.