This paper outlines a procedure for assessing the quality of failure explanations in engineering failure analysis. The procedure structures the information contained in explanations such that it enables to find weak points, to compare competing explanations, and to provide redesign recommendations. These features make the procedure a good asset for critical reflection on some areas of the engineering practice of failure analysis and redesign. The procedure structures relevant information contained in an explanation by means of structural equations so as to make the relations between key elements more salient. Once structured, the information is examined on its potential to track counterfactual dependencies by offering answers to relevant what-if-things-had-been-different questions. This criterion for explanatory goodness derives from the philosophy of science literature on scientific explanation. The procedure is illustrated by applying it to two case studies, one on Failure Analysis in Mechanical Engineering (a broken vehicle shaft) and one on Failure Analysis in Civil Engineering (a collapse in a convention center). The procedure offers failure analysts a practical tool for critical reflection on some areas of their practice while offering a deeper understanding of the workings of failure analysis (framing it as an explanatory practice). It, therefore, allows to improve certain aspects of the explanatory practices of failure analysis and redesign, but it also offers a theoretical perspective that can clarify important features of these practices. Given the programmatic nature of the procedure and its object (assessing and refining explanations), it extends work on the domain of computational argumentation.

本文概述了在工程故障分析中评估故障解释质量的程序。该程序构建了解释中包含的信息，以便它能够找到薄弱点，比较相互竞争的解释，并提供重新设计的建议。这些特性使该程序成为对故障分析和重新设计的工程实践的某些领域进行批判性反思的良好资产。该程序通过结构方程将解释中包含的相关信息结构化，从而使关键要素之间的关系更加突出。结构化后，通过提供相关信息的答案来检查信息跟踪反事实依赖关系的潜力如果事情发生了不同的问题。这个解释性的好标准源自关于科学解释的科学文献哲学。通过将其应用于两个案例研究来说明该过程，一个是关于机械工程中的故障分析（损坏的车轴），另一个是关于土木工程中的故障分析（会议中心的倒塌）。该程序为故障分析人员提供了一个实用工具，用于对他们实践的某些领域进行批判性反思，同时提供对故障分析工作原理的更深入理解（将其作为解释性实践）。因此，它允许改进故障分析和重新设计的解释性实践的某些方面，但它也提供了一个理论视角，可以阐明这些实践的重要特征。