R0021/2026-03-25/Q001 — ACH Matrix¶
Matrix¶
| H1: Definitions exist and converge | H2: No consensus definitions | H3: Definitions vague/circular | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01-E01: ABET engineering design definition and 7 student outcomes | ++ | -- | + |
| SRC02-E01: ECPD canonical definition with 5 distinguishing elements | ++ | -- | + |
| SRC03-E01: IEEE adopts ECPD/ABET definition; adds "design as art" | ++ | -- | + |
Legend:
- ++ Strongly supports
- + Supports
- -- Strongly contradicts
- - Contradicts
- N/A Not applicable to this hypothesis
Diagnosticity Analysis¶
Most Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC03-E01 | IEEE's adoption of the ECPD/ABET definition is highly diagnostic because it demonstrates cross-organizational convergence (supporting H1) while simultaneously eliminating H2 (no consensus). An independent major professional society citing the same definition is the strongest evidence for consensus. |
Least Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Non-Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC01-E01 | ABET's definition, while authoritative, is expected from the accreditation body — it does not discriminate between H1 and H3 because the accreditation body would define engineering regardless of whether the definition is precise or vague. |
Outcome¶
Hypothesis supported: H1 — Formal definitions exist and converge on common distinguishing elements. Three major bodies share a definition with five identifiable, consistent elements.
Hypotheses eliminated: H2 — The existence of published, cross-cited definitions from multiple bodies eliminates the hypothesis that no consensus exists.
Hypotheses inconclusive: H3 — Partially supported. The definitions do contain qualitative terms ("judgment," "creative," "benefit of mankind"), but the core distinguishing criterion (mathematical/scientific foundation) is clear and testable.