In Incident 3 for example, we documented an issue, but found that in listing alternative solutions, we were tackling two closely related problems. Once these were made explicit, each was addressed separately, and the relationships between them clarified. Claims made are substantiated by accounts of the relevant design processes. E.g. as above, except users are not the researchers. Modern papers would define a problem such that you can tell if the paper failed to reached some goal.
Cautions Be aware that papers are written for different communities.
Further, some problem that obsesses one community might appear trivial to another community because the subtleties of the problem are not appreciated. Don't be too quick to disregard some paper. Consider that maybe it was written for a community that you are unfamiliar with. On the other hand, many papers are truly terrible and it was a waste of a good tree to print it. If, after due consideration, you really believe that a paper is bad then, statistically speaking, you are probably right.