Article 10 showed how one routing choice affects the work that follows. Hermod.gg brings the same question to champion selection: what changes if we choose Ashe instead of Varus? Its public example keeps Aatrox, Master Yi, Orianna, and Shen as allies, and Renekton, Qiyana, Syndra, Xayah, and Soraka as opponents.1
The comparison follows contributions to team jobs. Varus's Living Vengeance is linked to offensive-stat enhancement and maintaining damage uptime in Protect and Convert. Ashe's Hawkshot is linked to scouting and converting a removal in Breach and Remove. These are selected paths; each champion can contribute in other ways.
The map makes those relationships visible. The timing view illustrates when the contributions might matter in a plan to approach, engage, and convert an opening.
A relationship map links Varus’s Living Vengeance to offensive-stat enhancement and maintaining damage uptime in Protect and Convert. It links Ashe’s Hawkshot to scouting and converting a removal in Breach and Remove, with a dashed change-pick connection from Varus to Ashe. Soraka has conditional pressure links: damage-source disruption concerns the damage-uptime job, and enemy control of the entry or contest area concerns converting a removal. These conditions are not asserted to hold. A matching schematic timing view places scouting and relevant information during Approach, and sustained damage uptime during Engage and Convert. The bars are explanatory windows, not measured ability durations or predicted match outcomes.
A minimal implementation stores selections separately from the relationships they activate. Copy the case, replace the selected-pick fact, and run the same rules again. Keep the other picks and model version fixed. Recompute conclusions that depend on the changed pick, including downstream conditions and pressure.
Soraka remains in both cases, but the job and condition attached to the pressure finding change. Reusing the old finding after changing only the champion's name would give the wrong explanation.
An illustrative phrase pattern is “<capability> supports <job> when <condition>.” Each finding can retain its path back to a recorded mechanic, a capability mapping, and the conditions used to derive it. That path lets a reader inspect the reasoning.
Compare the supported jobs, their conditions, and remaining gaps. Losing one contribution path does not prove the whole team lost that capability: another ally may supply it. Missing coverage should remain unresolved until checked.
This is counterfactual reasoning within a declared model: change one choice, derive its consequences, and compare the two cases. The result explains a strategic difference; it does not establish a universal ranking or predict a win.