Roy,
Wonder if I'm substituting emergence for interruption in diagnosis. Many diagnostic strategies seem to rely on assumptions of causality that need to be questioned or 'interrupted' or displaced from their comfortable placing.
I like the idea of there being alternate successful paths or proceedures to reach a viable solution and agree that making them explicite and discussed openly is critical. Moving from one decided thing to anouther until a final decision is come to isn't diagnosis as far as I'm concerned. I've seen unsuccessful diagnosis done from a manual without thought because it was considered the right proceedure.
How would we force ourselves to openly observe the evidence without constantly coming to conclusions about it?