# Six-Dimension Observation and Exercise Plan

Andrew David W.Y. · T02 material 00

This foundation supports T02 without replacing the full M01 model. It supplies neither fixed weights nor a validated valuation algorithm.

## Agree four matters

- Object: cooperation on this batch of 40 boxes and reusable capability created during it.
- Window: requirements clarification to final acceptance; future revenue and long-term efficiency remain under observation.
- Output authority: assessment and review recommendations only, not real remuneration, contracts, equity or voting rights.
- Information: all roles share event cards, and supplementary evidence opens simultaneously. No secret role facts.

The four viewpoints do not represent every stakeholder. Missing information means further evidence, not zero contribution or risk.

## Six dimensions

| Dimension | Question | Evidence | Common confusion |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Role | Which task and step? | Duties, assignments and handovers | Title or rank does not determine contribution |
| Contribution | What action, output and supported result? | Activity, output, use and result records | Input is not effect; a shared result is not several independent new results |
| Time | Effort, duration and observation window? | Comparable hours, dates and subsequent use | Hours differ from duration of effect and do not rank contribution directly |
| Responsibility | Agreement, performance and remedy? | Tasks, acceptance, cause checks and remedies | Coordinating acceptance is not causing a defect; remedy and earlier performance are separate |
| Risk | Exposure, bearer and prior compensation? | Agreements, exposure, bearing and settlement records | No later loss does not mean no risk; settled costs are not uncompensated |
| Strategic value | Stage constraint and problem resolved? | Objectives, alternatives, bottlenecks and effects | Importance slogans and future wishes are not realized value |

One activity may be examined through several dimensions. Explain its different aspects without adding it repeatedly as separate contributions.

## Suggested 80-minute plan

Adjust for group size and discussion depth. This is a facilitation proposal, not an empirically validated duration.

| Stage | Time | Action | Record |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 Shared reading | 10 min | Read this page and F01–F07; draw roles | Agreed scope and fact IDs |
| 2 Independent judgment | 12 min | Select two contributions with reasons and uncertainty | First worksheet |
| 3 Role exchange | 12 min | Explain from another viewpoint; identify an overlooked contribution | Perspective-change record |
| 4 Compare disagreements | 16 min | Classify four types before voting | Disagreement register |
| 5 Shared further evidence | 15 min | Open B01–B03 together; revise or retain judgments | Before-and-after records |
| 6 Conclusions | 15 min | Shared facts, conditional assessments, review tasks and self-check | One-page conclusion and actions |

## Participants and facilitation

Four people take one card each; larger groups can form four teams. Two people alternate two viewpoints each. Alone, complete one written view before changing cards.

The facilitator explains the process and evidence limits, not a correct allocation percentage. Keep supplements closed until round one ends and reference review closed until the evidence round ends.

Cite only opened cards. Label reasonable inferences as unvalidated; do not invent customer testimony, losses or secret commitments.

## Completion conditions

- Each assessment traces to fact IDs and states its limits.
- At least one overlooked contribution by another role is identified.
- Four disagreement types and appropriate responses are distinguished.
- Revisions and reasoned remaining differences are recorded.
- Suggestions identify further evidence, its provider, timing and reviewer.

[Next: shared event and role cards](/journal/contribution-evaluation-workshop/materials/en/asset-01.md)