After the Outcome

Crime-prevention evaluation commonly asks whether an intervention changed an outcome. That question is necessary but insufficient. A favourable, null, mixed, or adverse outcome pattern does not by itself identify what was delivered, what was received, whether the proposed mechanism activated, which level of the crime process changed, what persisted, or what claim remains valid. This paper develops the process-sensitive evaluation architecture that completes the Prevention Fit Programme. It defines baseline and later process-state records, a four-domain process-change record covering criminogenic exposure, social mediation, gated realisation, and temporal persistence, and a ten-field claim-relative evaluation record. The ten fields cover outcome pattern; delivery and reception; mechanism activation; process-level change; target and reach; temporal durability; observed residual persistence; displacement, substitution, and adaptation; feasibility retention and cross-level transmission; and claim validity with a revised claim ceiling. The paper also defines observed residual persistence as a post-intervention object distinct from the prospective residual set constructed before outcome observation. It provides bounded interpretations including suppression, interruption, redirection, destabilisation, reconfiguration, and durable transformation. This is Paper 6 of 6 in the Prevention Fit Programme. Its purpose is to determine what changed after intervention without retrospectively rewriting the programme’s pre-outcome profiles, fit judgements, misalignment diagnoses, or portfolio claims.