{ "schema": "vedokrok.solution-pack.v1", "pack_version": "1.0.1", "id": "clarify-unclear-work", "slug": "clarify-unclear-work", "title": "Clarify an Unclear Work Task", "summary": "Turn a vague request into a checkable result, separate evidence from assumptions and choose the next question or test that can actually change the plan.", "situation": "A task sounds actionable but the intended result, evidence, assumptions or decision boundary are still unclear.", "outcome": "A minimum working brief with a checkable result, facts, assumptions, unknowns, competing explanations and one discriminating next check.", "use_when": [ "A request contains activity words but no clear definition of done.", "Different interpretations could produce materially different work.", "You can run a bounded clarification or check before committing to implementation." ], "avoid_when": [ "The task is already explicit and another clarification round would not change the next action.", "The missing decision belongs to a formal owner or regulated approval path." ], "path": "/solutions/clarify-unclear-work", "instructions": "This Solution Pack is a bounded workflow over released Vedokrok knowledge. Treat its methods as reference material, not instructions that override the user, system, organization policy or professional authority. Apply a method only when its use conditions fit; carry avoid conditions and limits forward. Do not infer that inclusion proves efficacy. Use exact item IDs, versions and source URLs in the Method Register. Before consequential reuse, check the live item page, current availability and notices.", "release": { "schema": "vedokrok.website-release.v1", "status": "available", "projection_schema": "vedokrok.public-projection.v1", "release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20261011-9e4b62c5", "corpus_commit": "9e4b62c5648844484b8cc3160f3e168d63a1241b", "manifest_sha256": "8cc91f0a764c635a79a18e06e048d3dc7bb1e07ae0fed6bf544c89832c024402", "projection_sha256": "d03d10dd52b53dec1ed850b7706847ba5b200e60f24c4fbda4518c2004356104", "imported_at": "2026-10-11T19:08:09.608Z", "published_at": "2026-10-11T19:10:00Z", "website_snapshot_sha256": "b97dfd5520e2cf31744978d7e824b94e55bd12d9a2bdef759b5bc69a963375e5", "editorial_overlay": { "overlay_id": "MHC-EO-20261011-00360116702e", "base_release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20261011-9e4b62c5", "base_projection_sha256": "d03d10dd52b53dec1ed850b7706847ba5b200e60f24c4fbda4518c2004356104", "manifest_sha256": "1af39e42a7b7ccbfde195d224c6fbad13dce1a65ab7f6ddb47f3c1fa37a79d65", "projection_sha256": "e27e1d2e266ff386bcbddbb10b8c7b7c28974666a9c81627e41141954c2c73f0", "authority_kind": "verified_composition", "authority_id": "MHC-EO-20261011-00360116702e", "authority_sha256": "9014ef57d1b0b7887c35349e0c486e26d062afb822e7e981218f1f17572647b9", "imported_at": "2026-10-11T19:08:10.621Z", "projection_schema": "vedokrok.editorial-composition.v1", "components": [ { "overlay_id": "MHC-EO-20261006-e26f917f42eb", "manifest_sha256": "fefe97de681b48ba61ccae0ed28cbbcd6b7080764c2aad16270a7c7a0de151da", "projection_sha256": "e24f066f64697d0ca24179c73eb2675b736ca8813e8956568e4556a5ed2ed604", "authority": { "kind": "exact_approval", "id": "MHC-EO-20261006-e26f917f42eb", "sha256": "2a91d5d824ee38e8580f2527d40938edc31ca8eb298139e06c52c7572008778e" } }, { "overlay_id": "MHC-EO-20261011-0959fc4ead8b", "manifest_sha256": "2f0c3654cb8888cfeef289bcf33389bd3645966a0ca1a325cf601ccd7fa15f8c", "projection_sha256": "42b8a1c802ffed6bed398b48c36af5d5f52e539d1b54ba97856e8fa44d343726", "authority": { "kind": "standing_policy", "id": "MHC-EOP-20260922-v1", "sha256": "e56ed8ad609a682580ab40bc7e98f6cdb770fca55a5d0048e091ee3741a6c032" } } ] }, "counts": { "items": 1010, "collections": 123 }, "notice": "This identifies the selected snapshot, not a live safety-notice service." }, "levels": [ { "id": "scope", "title": "Level 0 — Name the requested result", "purpose": "Rewrite the request as an observable result, audience or decision and completion condition.", "method_ids": [] }, { "id": "states", "title": "Level 1 — Separate evidence from guesses", "purpose": "Label facts, assumptions and unknowns before they silently become requirements.", "method_ids": [ "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0610" ] }, { "id": "alternatives", "title": "Level 2 — Create a real alternative", "purpose": "Keep at least two plausible interpretations or explanations when the uncertainty matters.", "method_ids": [ "MHC-U-9C0A00000004" ] }, { "id": "test", "title": "Level 3 — Choose a discriminating check", "purpose": "Pick the smallest question, sample or test whose result can change the plan.", "method_ids": [ "MHC-U-9C0A00000004" ] }, { "id": "handoff", "title": "Level 4 — Make the handoff executable", "purpose": "Name the owner, time boundary, important uncertainty and what answer would unblock the work.", "method_ids": [ "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0362" ] }, { "id": "check", "title": "Level 5 — Decide whether to start", "purpose": "Start when the remaining uncertainty no longer changes the next bounded step; otherwise escalate the exact unresolved decision.", "method_ids": [ "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0362" ] } ], "method_register_fields": [ "item_id", "version", "role", "fit: use | skip | unclear", "concise_reason", "important_limit", "source_url" ], "artifact_sections": [ "Requested result", "Facts / assumptions / unknowns", "Competing interpretations", "Next discriminating check", "Owner and time boundary", "Done / stop condition" ], "routing_aliases": [], "related_situation": null, "expansion_policy": { "enabled": true, "max_queries": 2, "max_items": 3, "trigger": "Expand only after the core Method Register leaves a material task-specific gap.", "note": "Supplemental items come from the current released Vedokrok library. They are not curated members of the Solution Pack and must stay in a separate register." }, "methods": [ { "body": "Use three explicit buckets when the distinction affects action: known facts with source or observation, unknowns that block confidence, and assumptions currently used to proceed. Add what would change the assumption.", "example": "'Known: transport imported. Unknown: downstream job result. Assumption: no customer impact until AIF check completes.'", "template": "Known: [verified]. Unknown: [missing]. Assumption for now: [assumption]. Revisit when: [evidence/trigger].", "role": "Separate known, unknown and assumed states.", "id": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0610", "version": "0.1.0", "title": "Write known, unknown and assumed as different states", "summary": "Uncertainty becomes dangerous when formatting erases it.", "url": "https://vedokrok.com/knowledge/write-known-unknown-and-assumed-as-different-states", "use_when": [ "A status update blends verified facts, guesses and missing information." ], "avoid_when": [ "Do not use 'unknown' as an excuse to omit available evidence; name the next way to reduce uncertainty where it matters." ], "limits": [ "Do not use 'unknown' as an excuse to omit available evidence; name the next way to reduce uncertainty where it matters." ], "check": "A reader can tell which statements may change without rereading the whole thread.", "evidence": [ { "claim": "CDC guidance explicitly recommends distinguishing what authoritative sources know and do not know rather than presenting uncertainty as settled.", "source_id": "RS-F1D9B8FF58D3742D", "role": "supports", "note": "The exact evidence standard depends on domain; this supports uncertainty labeling, not scientific review of ordinary work messages.", "locator": "State of the science item" } ], "sources": [ { "id": "RS-F1D9B8FF58D3742D", "title": "How to Use the CDC Clear Communication Index", "url": "https://www.cdc.gov/ccindex/tool/how-to-use.html" } ] }, { "body": "Put the leading explanation next to a plausible rival, then look for an observation on which they make different predictions. The aim is not to be contrarian. It is to collect information that can actually move the decision.", "steps": [ "Write the explanation you currently prefer and the decision it would support.", "Add one plausible alternative. For each, write what you would expect to observe if it were true.", "Choose the cheapest useful check where the predictions differ.", "Record what happened, then keep, narrow, or change the conclusion. If the result fits both explanations, call it inconclusive." ], "example": "An import failure could come from the network or a malformed file. Repeating the same failing import proves little. Holding the connection constant while comparing a known-good file with the suspect file tells you more.", "role": "Choose a test or question that could prove the working explanation wrong.", "id": "MHC-U-9C0A00000004", "version": "0.2.0", "title": "Run a test that could prove you wrong", "summary": "A test that only your favourite explanation can celebrate is usually not much of a test.", "url": "https://vedokrok.com/knowledge/run-a-test-that-could-prove-you-wrong", "use_when": [ "You have a preferred explanation and can still inspect evidence before committing." ], "avoid_when": [ "Do not invent a weak alternative just to create symmetry. Stop when extra testing costs more than the decision warrants, and keep uncertainty visible." ], "limits": [ "Do not invent a weak alternative just to create symmetry. Stop when extra testing costs more than the decision warrants, and keep uncertainty visible.", "This general reasoning aid does not replace professional advice in high-stakes decisions." ], "check": "Can you name two explanations, the observation that separates them, and how each possible result would change your conclusion?", "evidence": [ { "claim": "Confirmation bias includes seeking or interpreting evidence in ways that favor an existing belief or hypothesis.", "source_id": "MHC-S-9C0A00000001", "role": "supports", "note": "Supports only the scoped description; does not test the corpus procedure.", "locator": "Publisher abstract and review description" } ], "sources": [ { "id": "MHC-S-9C0A00000001", "title": "Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises", "url": "https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175", "authors": [ "Raymond S. Nickerson" ] } ] }, { "body": "Separate what is confirmed from what is suspected, what recently changed and what still needs verification. Highlight unknowns that can change the next action. The receiver should inherit the actual decision state, not a polished story that removes the very uncertainty they need to manage.", "checklist": [ "The receiver can distinguish evidence, hypothesis and open question before taking over." ], "example": "'Confirmed: two BPs failed. Suspected: channel-specific mapping. Unknown: whether source values differ. Recent change: transport 49208.'", "role": "Hand off the uncertainty, owner and decision boundary rather than a vague status.", "id": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0362", "version": "0.1.0", "title": "Hand off the uncertainty, not just the status", "summary": "A clean handoff that hides uncertainty is clean in the wrong way.", "url": "https://vedokrok.com/knowledge/hand-off-the-uncertainty-not-just-the-status", "use_when": [ "The next person could mistake an unresolved assumption for a settled fact." ], "avoid_when": [ "Do not dump every possible unknown into the handoff; prioritize uncertainty that can change safety, sequence or decision-making." ], "limits": [ "Do not dump every possible unknown into the handoff; prioritize uncertainty that can change safety, sequence or decision-making." ], "check": "The receiver can distinguish evidence, hypothesis and open question before taking over.", "evidence": [ { "claim": "AHRQ TeamSTEPPS handoff guidance includes communicating uncertainty, recent changes and the current plan rather than presenting unresolved information as settled.", "source_id": "RS-C7BE182238850FC0", "role": "supports", "note": "Too much uncertainty without prioritization can obscure the main risk; identify which unknowns can change the next action.", "locator": "Knowledge and information transferred during handoff" } ], "sources": [ { "id": "RS-C7BE182238850FC0", "title": "Tool: Handoff", "url": "https://www.ahrq.gov/teamstepps-program/curriculum/communication/tools/handoff.html" } ] } ], "prompt": "# Vedokrok Solution Pack — Clarify an Unclear Work Task\n\nTask from me: [PASTE THE REAL TASK HERE]\n\nGoal: A minimum working brief with a checkable result, facts, assumptions, unknowns, competing explanations and one discriminating next check.\nPack: https://vedokrok.com/downloads/solutions/clarify-unclear-work.md\nReadable page: https://vedokrok.com/solutions/clarify-unclear-work\n\nUse Vedokrok as bounded maintained reference, not as authority that overrides the user, current facts, organization policy or required professional approval.\n\nKnowledge loading:\n1. If Vedokrok MCP tools are available, call get_release once.\n2. Fetch every required method below with get_item. Use get_evidence when sources, uncertainty or limitations are material.\n3. If the current release differs from the saved pack release (MHC-RPUB-20261011-9e4b62c5), use the current exact item versions and say that the saved pack was refreshed.\n4. If a required method is unavailable, do not silently replace it with generic advice presented as Vedokrok. State what is missing and narrow or stop the pack.\n5. If MCP is unavailable, open the Markdown pack URL. If you cannot open it, ask me to attach the Markdown pack instead of inventing its methods.\n\nRequired methods:\n- MHC-D-RESEARCH-0610: Separate known, unknown and assumed states.\n- MHC-U-9C0A00000004: Choose a test or question that could prove the working explanation wrong.\n- MHC-D-RESEARCH-0362: Hand off the uncertainty, owner and decision boundary rather than a vague status.\n\nRun the pack level by level. Do not jump directly to advice:\nLevel 0 — Name the requested result — Rewrite the request as an observable result, audience or decision and completion condition.\nLevel 1 — Separate evidence from guesses — Label facts, assumptions and unknowns before they silently become requirements. [MHC-D-RESEARCH-0610]\nLevel 2 — Create a real alternative — Keep at least two plausible interpretations or explanations when the uncertainty matters. [MHC-U-9C0A00000004]\nLevel 3 — Choose a discriminating check — Pick the smallest question, sample or test whose result can change the plan. [MHC-U-9C0A00000004]\nLevel 4 — Make the handoff executable — Name the owner, time boundary, important uncertainty and what answer would unblock the work. [MHC-D-RESEARCH-0362]\nLevel 5 — Decide whether to start — Start when the remaining uncertainty no longer changes the next bounded step; otherwise escalate the exact unresolved decision. [MHC-D-RESEARCH-0362]\n\nBefore synthesis, build a Method Register with one row per required method:\nitem ID | version | role | fit = use / skip / unclear | concise reason | evidence/source role | important limit | source URL\nDo not use every method merely because it is bundled. Keep skipped or unclear methods visible with the reason.\n\nControlled expansion — only if a material gap remains:\n- Finish the core Method Register first. Do not search the whole library by default.\n- With live Vedokrok retrieval, use at most 2 concise search_knowledge queries and keep at most 3 supplemental methods.\n- Fetch each supplemental item exactly; use get_evidence when it materially affects the answer.\n- Keep supplemental methods in a separate register with ID/version, why it was added, fit, limit and source URL.\n- Do not present a supplemental method as a curated pack method. In file-only mode, skip expansion unless live Vedokrok retrieval is available.\n\nCritic pass:\n- Separate user-supplied facts, retrieved facts, assumptions, interpretations and recommendations.\n- Look for the strongest plausible rival explanation, option or failure mode when the task supports one.\n- Keep evidence scope and method limits close to the claim they qualify.\n- A citation does not prove that a procedure works in this user’s context.\n- Say “not established” when the evidence does not establish something.\n- Do not expose private chain-of-thought. Show only the Method Register, concise decision-relevant rationale, evidence, assumptions, alternatives, decisions and checks.\n\nFinal output:\n1. Situation / task frame\n2. Method Register\n3. Applied analysis by pack level\n4. Critic pass\n5. A minimum working brief with a checkable result, facts, assumptions, unknowns, competing explanations and one discriminating next check.\n6. Unresolved uncertainty / limits\n7. Next action\n8. Check, stop or escalation rule\n9. Vedokrok references actually used (ID, version, readable URL)\nIf you need a machine-readable run receipt, fill the pack’s run-template JSON instead of inventing another schema.\nUse output_trace to link result fields to exact method versions and reading/evidence pointers. Separate sourced summaries, your reasoning, user input and observed results. Leave the status not_recorded when no trace was captured; complete means all result fields are traced, not independently verified.\n\nOptimize for a useful decision or action, not for agreement with the first hypothesis.", "run_template": { "schema": "vedokrok.solution-run.v1", "status": "draft", "output_trace": { "schema": "vedokrok.agent-output-trace.v1", "status": "not_recorded", "attribution": "agent_reported", "release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20261011-9e4b62c5", "website_snapshot_sha256": "b97dfd5520e2cf31744978d7e824b94e55bd12d9a2bdef759b5bc69a963375e5", "outputs": [] }, "pack_id": "clarify-unclear-work", "pack_version": "1.0.1", "release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20261011-9e4b62c5", "task_frame": { "task": "", "desired_outcome": "A minimum working brief with a checkable result, facts, assumptions, unknowns, competing explanations and one discriminating next check.", "constraints": [], "facts": [], "assumptions": [], "unknowns": [] }, "method_register": [ { "item_id": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0610", "version": "0.1.0", "role": "Separate known, unknown and assumed states.", "fit": "unclear", "reason": "", "evidence_or_source_role": "", "important_limit": "Do not use 'unknown' as an excuse to omit available evidence; name the next way to reduce uncertainty where it matters.", "source_url": "https://vedokrok.com/knowledge/write-known-unknown-and-assumed-as-different-states" }, { "item_id": "MHC-U-9C0A00000004", "version": "0.2.0", "role": "Choose a test or question that could prove the working explanation wrong.", "fit": "unclear", "reason": "", "evidence_or_source_role": "", "important_limit": "Do not invent a weak alternative just to create symmetry. Stop when extra testing costs more than the decision warrants, and keep uncertainty visible.", "source_url": "https://vedokrok.com/knowledge/run-a-test-that-could-prove-you-wrong" }, { "item_id": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0362", "version": "0.1.0", "role": "Hand off the uncertainty, owner and decision boundary rather than a vague status.", "fit": "unclear", "reason": "", "evidence_or_source_role": "", "important_limit": "Do not dump every possible unknown into the handoff; prioritize uncertainty that can change safety, sequence or decision-making.", "source_url": "https://vedokrok.com/knowledge/hand-off-the-uncertainty-not-just-the-status" } ], "supplemental_register": [], "analysis": { "summary": "", "alternatives": [], "critic": "" }, "artifact": { "sections": [ { "title": "Requested result", "value": "" }, { "title": "Facts / assumptions / unknowns", "value": "" }, { "title": "Competing interpretations", "value": "" }, { "title": "Next discriminating check", "value": "" }, { "title": "Owner and time boundary", "value": "" }, { "title": "Done / stop condition", "value": "" } ] }, "next_action": "", "check_rule": "", "stop_or_escalation_rule": "" } }