# PWR-130 — Convergent synthesis: learner worksheet Release: Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition Estimated time: Estimated 29 min reading and worksheet pass Difficulty: Intermediate Equipment: Common household or practice equipment — Exact 12-idea cable set with generic-source labels: A desk-edge binder clip, B removable hook, C shallow tray, D fabric pocket, E weighted bead, F tabletop counterweight, G passive spool, H wide guide channel, I under-desk channel, J bright flag, K tactile tag and L front-of-desk routing loop. Keep A–L on every cluster and combination.; Rubric for usefulness, originality, feasibility, safety, access/fairness, rights and reversibility.; Cluster sheet, independent score cards and shortlist rationale. Space: Room-scale practice space Automated structural checklist: 10 of 10 structural checks present Evidence quality/context: G1; Detailed research depth Automated method-quality band: Comprehensive Method-rating basis: Structure coverage, instruction/check specificity, alternative distinctness, source troubleshooting, comparison depth and whether purpose/check fields are authored rather than derived. Editorial review: Pending manual editorial sign off ## Before you begin - [ ] I read the tutorial authority and stop conditions. - [ ] I have the required equipment/space or a declared accessible alternative. ## Canonical source context Convergent synthesis groups, compares and combines ideas under declared constraints. It is not choosing the first feasible or familiar option. The learner clusters a supplied idea set, scores usefulness, originality and feasibility separately, applies non-negotiable safety and rights stops, preserves a plausible minority option, combines compatible features and selects three concepts for cheap parallel tests. Target outcome: The learner produces a traceable three-option shortlist whose criteria, hard stops, lineage and trade-offs can be reconstructed by another reviewer. ### Authority and setup conditions - Confirm all ideas use owned, licensed, public-domain or generic inputs. - Define safety and rights as pass/fail gates before scoring. - Choose the audience and function the rubric serves. ### Required or supplied materials - Exact 12-idea cable set with generic-source labels: A desk-edge binder clip, B removable hook, C shallow tray, D fabric pocket, E weighted bead, F tabletop counterweight, G passive spool, H wide guide channel, I under-desk channel, J bright flag, K tactile tag and L front-of-desk routing loop. Keep A–L on every cluster and combination. - Rubric for usefulness, originality, feasibility, safety, access/fairness, rights and reversibility. - Cluster sheet, independent score cards and shortlist rationale. ## 1. Restate the decision frame Write the cable function, audience, hard constraints and what the shortlist will permit: prototype, not implementation. Why: Convergence requires a stable question and authority boundary. Success check: The frame names function, user, gates and decision level. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Write the cable function, audience, hard constraints and what the shortlist will permit: prototype, not implementation.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “The frame names function, user, gates and decision level.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 2. Cluster by mechanism Group related ideas while keeping source labels on every component. Name each cluster by function. Why: Clustering reveals redundancy without losing provenance. Success check: Every idea belongs to a labelled cluster and retains lineage. Accessible alternative: Complete “Group related ideas while keeping source labels on every component. Name each cluster by function.” in shorter passes, or use keyboard input, dictation or a support person, while preserving this success check: “Every idea belongs to a labelled cluster and retains lineage.” Offer independent scoring asynchronously before group discussion. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 3. Define rating anchors Use a three-point scale for usefulness, originality and feasibility: 1=low, 2=medium, 3=high. Before viewing individual ideas, write one observable anchor for each number and dimension in this cable brief. Why: Anchors reduce the chance that a favourite silently receives a different standard. Success check: Another reviewer can apply the three anchors without asking what a score means. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Use a three-point scale for usefulness, originality and feasibility: 1=low, 2=medium, 3=high. Before viewing individual ideas, write one observable anchor for each number and dimension in this cable brief.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “Another reviewer can apply the three anchors without asking what a score means.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 4. Score dimensions independently Rate usefulness, originality and feasibility before discussing overall preference. Mark safety and rights only pass, fail or unresolved. Why: Separate dimensions prevent familiar feasibility from silently dominating novelty. Success check: Each score has one-sentence evidence. Accessible alternative: Complete “Rate usefulness, originality and feasibility before discussing overall preference. Mark safety and rights only pass, fail or unresolved.” in shorter passes, or use keyboard input, dictation or a support person, while preserving this success check: “Each score has one-sentence evidence.” Allow oral scoring with a scribe and plain-language anchors. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 5. Audit reviewer disagreement Compare independent scores and circle differences of two or more scale points. Discuss the evidence and retain the disagreement when it reflects different legitimate audiences or uncertain facts. Why: Convergence should expose value conflict instead of manufacturing consensus by averaging. Success check: Every large score gap ends in evidence-based revision, an explicit unresolved mark or separate audience result. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Compare independent scores and circle differences of two or more scale points. Discuss the evidence and retain the disagreement when it reflects different legitimate audiences or uncertain facts.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “Every large score gap ends in evidence-based revision, an explicit unresolved mark or separate audience result.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 6. Preserve meaningful variation Keep at least one plausible option from a smaller mechanism cluster and record why any unusual option is rejected. Why: A majority cluster can crowd out a useful alternative. Success check: The candidate set contains at least three different mechanisms. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Keep at least one plausible option from a smaller mechanism cluster and record why any unusual option is rejected.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “The candidate set contains at least three different mechanisms.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 7. Combine compatible elements Join features only when they address different constraints, then record lineage, new trade-offs and contradictions. Why: Synthesis should add coherence, not make an untraceable pile. Success check: Each combined concept names its parts and emergent advantage. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Join features only when they address different constraints, then record lineage, new trade-offs and contradictions.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “Each combined concept names its parts and emergent advantage.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 8. Shortlist parallel tests Select three reversible concepts, state the next uncertainty each would test and have a delayed reviewer reconstruct the rationale. Why: Cheap parallel tests preserve learning before premature commitment. Success check: Three options have distinct test questions and an auditable decision trail. Accessible alternative: Complete “Select three reversible concepts, state the next uncertainty each would test and have a delayed reviewer reconstruct the rationale.” in shorter passes, or use keyboard input, dictation or a support person, while preserving this success check: “Three options have distinct test questions and an auditable decision trail.” Offer independent scoring asynchronously before group discussion. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 9. Run a delayed counterfactual review After 48 hours, ask what new fact would make each rejected cluster preferable and whether the shortlist still represents the declared audience and constraints. Why: Distance from the first discussion can reveal momentum, familiarity and missing conditions. Success check: The record either retains the shortlist with reasons or versions one change tied to a named new consideration. Accessible alternative: Complete “After 48 hours, ask what new fact would make each rejected cluster preferable and whether the shortlist still represents the declared audience and constraints.” in shorter passes, or use keyboard input, dictation or a support person, while preserving this success check: “The record either retains the shortlist with reasons or versions one change tied to a named new consideration.” Use an accessible matrix with one criterion per column. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## Reflection What changed? ________________________________________________________________________________ What remains difficult? ________________________________________________________________________________ What will I repeat, adapt, ask for help with, or stop? ________________________________________________________________________________ --- Completion of this worksheet demonstrates tutorial participation only. It does not establish capability, qualification, safety clearance, diagnosis, treatment or independent validation.