Coaching Ends When the Coach Is No Longer Needed: Intervention Design, Declaring the Objective Function and Search Strategy (The Kuriyama Protocol, Chapter 10)

Part 15 of a series; the tenth of fifteen chapter-by-chapter articles. Part 1: 10.5281/zenodo.23587879 · Part 2: 10.5281/zenodo.23587670 · Part 3 (v2): 10.5281/zenodo.23723510 · Part 4: 10.5281/zenodo.23609857 · Part 5: 10.5281/zenodo.23610607 · Part 6: 10.5281/zenodo.23682055 · Part 7: 10.5281/zenodo.23684537 · Part 8: 10.5281/zenodo.23684996 · Part 9: 10.5281/zenodo.23685960 · Part 10: 10.5281/zenodo.23686289 · Part 11: 10.5281/zenodo.23720048 · Part 12: 10.5281/zenodo.23723725 · Part 13: 10.5281/zenodo.23834848 · Part 14: 10.5281/zenodo.23854475 Chapter 10 of The Kuriyama Protocol turns description into intervention for people who receive no external reward. The first task is to declare the objective function with the client; without it no stopping point exists, and the coach must not substitute their own. Four procedures run as one loop: a compensation trigger starts the search, forward search tries one option at a time, a contralateral comparison (treat one side, have the client compare sides) tests whether it worked, and a stopping rule ends the session. Interventions act on four layers (external environment, internal state, sensory sensitivity, processing), evaluated by speed versus persistence and by robustness to a closed attentional gate. Movement can be changed without instruction through task design, environment and relationship, and not giving the answer first. A scope boundary is declared. Coaching ends when the client can detect an abnormality and handle it with known rules. Five gaps and one leftover found while writing: - In three of four quoted contralateral comparisons, the instructor stated the expected direction before the client answered; reports then mix treatment effect and expectation (Orne, 1962). Undirected questioning is added. - "I can't tell the difference" was attributed to ineffective treatment or a high threshold; a conservative response criterion was missing. Signal detection theory separates sensitivity d′ from criterion c using mixed trials with and without a 1–2 mm plate under one foot. - The same report meant "insensitive" in the comparison procedure and "symmetric, stop" in the stopping rule; a prior sensitivity check resolves this, with objective measures for insensitive clients. - "Without numbers people cannot achieve" fails early in learning: on new complex tasks, learning goals outperform outcome goals (Winters & Latham, 1996). - Retrieval strengthens memory only if it succeeds or is followed by feedback (Pashler et al., 2005); "withhold the answer" becomes "do not give the answer first; give it after a failed attempt". - Leftover: the chapter summary still placed the cause "outside the body", contradicting the October revision of the scope section; corrected. Five falsifiable predictions are registered (numbered 67–71, continuing the series): - P67. Stating the expected direction before asking increases reported differences even after sham touch. - P68. Clients reporting "no difference" split into low-sensitivity and conservative-criterion subgroups, each responding to a different intervention. - P69. In clients who cannot detect a 1–2 mm plate, a post-treatment "no side difference" report does not correspond to small bilateral weight-bearing asymmetry. - P70. Novices learning a new gait pattern retain it better with process goals than outcome goals; the advantage vanishes or reverses with experience. - P71. Asking, then giving the answer after failed recall, yields better next-session recall than asking without feedback; telling first is worst. Refutations are welcome. The author has no formal research training. Corrections will be issued as new versions, with earlier versions kept retrievable. The article body is in Japanese. An English summary, the registered predictions and the reference list are included in the document. Contact: contact@medi-gym-revital.com