Decide What Kind of Claim the Source Can Support
A household interview, price observation, forecast and published classification answer different questions. Do not turn one into another because a meeting needs a simple label. Your task is to produce a bounded planning statement and identify the technical questions still open, not to assign an official severity phase.
The WFP Analysis Plan guidance, updated October 10, 2025, connects questions, data sources, methods and disaggregation before tool design. IPC's official FAQs, What Is IPC Not and IPC Analysis Cycle, explain that classification uses an analysis process with multiple evidence sources and technical consensus. A single price rise or small interview count does not reproduce that process.
Compare a Fictional Three-Source Packet
The following documents, dates, locations and numbers are invented teaching inputs. They do not describe any current food-security situation.
| Source | Period, Population and Method | Supported Observation | Limit That Must Travel With It |
|---|---|---|---|
| A, rapid interview note | September 20-22; 30 households contacted in two accessible neighborhoods, deliberately selected rather than sampled for prevalence | 18 interviewed households report skipping a meal during the stated seven-day recall period | This is 18 of 30 interviewed households, not a district prevalence estimate; inaccessible households are not covered |
| B, trader check | October 3; three visited outlets; the same specified food item and unit compared with their own September record | The recorded unit price is 20% higher in those outlets | Prices are not household food consumption or an official severity classification; quality and other outlets need checks |
| C, archived classification reference | An earlier July-September analysis for a wider district | An earlier formal product exists | Its exact label, methods, validity and geographic relation must be read in the actual document before reporting the result; the label is not supplied in this packet |
The 18/30 fraction is 60% of this interviewed group. It must not become "60% of district households are food-insecure." Nor can it be added to a price percentage or compared directly with an official classification threshold. Units, selection and constructs differ.
Check Whether Apparent Disagreement Is Real
An earlier broader classification and later reports from a few accessible places can differ without either being false. First align the date, boundary, population, method, indicator definition and assistance assumptions. Ask whether the source is describing current conditions or a projection. A projection is conditional on stated assumptions; it is not an observation of the future.
Find the actual official product before repeating a classification. Preserve its scale, area, period, publication date and qualifications. Do not infer a household's status from an area label or assume an area result applies to every subgroup. If a newer publication or correction exists, record which one is being used and why.
Write a Bounded Planning Conclusion
For the supplied packet, a defensible exercise note is: "The two accessible neighborhoods' interview note reports meal skipping among 18 of 30 contacted households in late September. Three outlets report a later increase in the price of the specified item. These observations warrant timely technical follow-up on access and affordability, but do not establish district prevalence or a new IPC classification. The earlier district product must be retrieved and checked before its result is cited. Inaccessible areas remain an information gap."
This does not require waiting for a full classification before responding to an urgent concern. The response owner must decide proportionate, permitted action from the actual situation and responsible technical advice. Record the basis and remaining uncertainty. Do not turn lack of a classification into proof that no needs exist.
Handoff to the Food-Security Lead
Provide the source matrix, exact documents, collection dates, units, selection limits, apparent contradictions and changed-context questions. Ask the qualified lead what can be concluded now, what additional evidence is necessary and which current official analysis applies. Keep identifiable household material in approved restricted channels rather than the general coordination brief.
Use secondary-data review before commissioning more collection. Use market feasibility for the supply/access question. Neither a situation classification nor these teaching figures select a transfer value, beneficiary list, food package or response modality.
Source Scope
WFP's linked guidance was read in full for question-to-evidence planning. IPC's current FAQ sections on purpose, limits and the analysis cycle were read for the classification boundary; detailed thresholds are deliberately not reproduced. The packet and narrative are original fictional reasoning practice, not IPC analysis, expert certification or field validation.