A sufficient standard concerns the result's purpose, recipient, and consequences. Demandingness remains; examine stopping conditions, new information, and the cost of additional improvements.
Questions explored
Should quality be lowered?
No. Name the purpose and mandatory properties; this article grants no authority to change another person's substantial standard.
Does every delay mean perfectionism?
No. Missing information and actual errors may reasonably require time.
Do researchers agree?
No: the article preserves model disagreement and reads research only to the recorded extent.
Can something finish while doubt remains?
Consider whether a new subject needs checking. Complete protection is not declared a completion condition.
Key distinctions
A high standard alone does not explain a delay. (United Wisdom)
Shafran and colleagues consider dependence of self-evaluation on demanding standards. (Shafran et al.2002, abstract)
Dunkley and colleagues distinguish personal standards and self-critical evaluative tendencies. (Dunkley et al.2006, abstract)
Appropriate measure relates to circumstances and differs from arithmetic compromise. (Aristotle, Ethics II.2/6)
Early work is compared with a Daoist image of considering difficulty before expansion. (United Wisdom; Tao Teh King§63)
A substantial mandatory check remains; reopening concerns a new subject. (United Wisdom)
Limits of interpretation
- Do not diagnose ordinary delay.
- An abstract is not full-paper reading.
- Measure does not justify violation of mandatory standards.
- Philosophical comparisons do not establish clinical efficacy.
- Every ordinary scene is illustrative, not research data.
Sources
- Clinical perfectionism: a cognitive-behavioural analysis — Roz Shafran; Zafra Cooper; Christopher G. Fairburn
Complete abstract and metadata returned in primary PubMed search result turn26search0; full article unavailable; ScienceDirect403
Source use: UNKNOWN
Clinical model, no reader diagnosis. · Abstract read, not full paper; exercise efficacy not established.
- Personal standards and evaluative concerns dimensions of clinical perfectionism: a reply to Shafran et al. (2002,2003) and Hewitt et al. (2003) — David M. Dunkley; Kirk R. Blankstein; Robin M. Masheb; Carlos M. Grilo
Metadata and complete abstract, turn26search3 and web.open turn27view1; no full paper
Source use: UNKNOWN
Two samples527/236; no individual forecast. · Abstract-level data; associations not called causes.
- Nicomachean Ethics, Book II — Aristotle
II.2, II.6, II.9 and neighboring context directly read, turn23view0
Source use: UNKNOWN
Philosophical measure is no efficacy formula and no half of a mandatory check. · Not every action permits a mean; no universal compromise proposed.
- The Tao Teh King, or the Tao and its Characteristics — Laozi, traditional attribution
Sections63 and64, source metadata and limited surrounding context, web.open turn27view2; not full book read
Source use: PUBLIC_DOMAIN_US_HOST_LICENSE_SEPARATE
Daoist normative image, not project research. · Comparison limited to early action; whole non-action doctrine not transferred.