If you can only say 'they go together' but not HOW one…
For each candidate enabling relationship, articulate the specific mechanism through which one condition creates another; if you can only state correlation ('they go together') rather than mechanism, treat it as association not enabling.
When This Fires
- When mapping prerequisite chains or skill dependencies
- When claiming "X leads to Y" in a mental model or plan
- During any causal reasoning where you want to verify enabling relationships
- When building intervention plans (if A enables B, intervening on A should improve B)
Common Failure Mode
Accepting correlation as mechanism: "People who journal are more productive, so journaling enables productivity." Maybe — but it might also be that productive people are more likely to adopt journaling. Without articulating the mechanism (journaling reduces cognitive load by externalizing open loops, freeing working memory for task execution), you can't distinguish enabling from association.
The Protocol
For each candidate enabling relationship: (1) State it: "A enables B." (2) Articulate the mechanism: "A enables B through the following process: [specific steps by which A creates conditions for B]." (3) If you can articulate a specific mechanism → enabling relationship. You can intervene on A to produce B. (4) If you can only say "they go together" → association. Co-occurrence, not causation. Intervening on A may not produce B. Label it as association and investigate the actual mechanism before building plans around it.