{
  "schema": "vedokrok.public-item.v1",
  "release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20260920-75ad787a",
  "url": "/knowledge/name-what-improves-and-what-gets-worse",
  "id": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0429",
  "version": "0.1.0",
  "title": "Name what improves and what gets worse",
  "summary": "A trade-off becomes easier to invent around once both sides are written as variables instead of complaints.",
  "kind": "protocol",
  "body": "Write the technical contradiction explicitly: if we improve X, Y deteriorates; if we protect Y, X remains insufficient. Keep X and Y observable enough that proposed concepts can be tested. Do not solve yet. The purpose is to remove vague compromise language and expose the paired tension.",
  "limits": [
    "This operationalizes the existing corpus contradiction concept; not every multi-objective choice contains a useful technical contradiction."
  ],
  "topics": [
    "union-triz-structured-invention"
  ],
  "intents": [],
  "source_ids": [
    "RS-759A6DDEF8407409",
    "RS-DF32BFA687B67ACD"
  ],
  "evidence": [
    {
      "claim": "Classical TRIZ defines a technical contradiction as an attempted improvement in one system characteristic that causes another characteristic to deteriorate.",
      "source_id": "RS-759A6DDEF8407409",
      "role": "supports",
      "note": "Not every business tradeoff benefits from technical-parameter language; use it when the paired improvement and harm can be stated concretely.",
      "locator": "Technical contradiction definition"
    },
    {
      "claim": "The 2025 TRIZ process-improvement review concludes that technical contradiction with inventive principles is comparatively accessible, while more complex problems may benefit from algorithms or frameworks using advanced TRIZ tools.",
      "source_id": "RS-DF32BFA687B67ACD",
      "role": "supports",
      "note": "This is the review authors' synthesis of heterogeneous literature, not a controlled head-to-head trial of tools.",
      "locator": "Abstract conclusion"
    }
  ],
  "use_when": [
    "A design discussion keeps circling around a compromise such as 'more speed means less safety' or 'more control means less flexibility.'"
  ],
  "avoid_when": [
    "This operationalizes the existing corpus contradiction concept; not every multi-objective choice contains a useful technical contradiction."
  ],
  "example": "Increasing automatic batch size improves throughput but increases the number of records exposed before an error is detected.",
  "check": "The team can state both sides of the trade-off and the mechanism connecting them without using 'just balance it.'",
  "steps": [
    "The team can state both sides of the trade-off and the mechanism connecting them without using 'just balance it.'"
  ],
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "RS-759A6DDEF8407409",
      "title": "Contradictions",
      "url": "https://triz.org/contradictions/"
    },
    {
      "id": "RS-DF32BFA687B67ACD",
      "title": "Tools of Theory of Inventive Problem Solving Used for Process Improvement—A Systematic Literature Review",
      "url": "https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/13/1/226"
    }
  ],
  "relations": [
    {
      "from": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0429",
      "to": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0430",
      "type": "use_before",
      "url": "/knowledge/turn-the-conflict-into-one-thing-that-must-be-opposite-ways"
    }
  ],
  "collections": [
    {
      "id": "RC-0176FEADE3BB023B",
      "title": "Resolve the contradiction instead of polishing the compromise",
      "url": "/collections/resolve-the-contradiction-instead-of-polishing-the-compromise"
    }
  ]
}