GtE, the way I've encountered these tools and been taught to use the. in airline and corporate training has not been as an initial diagnosis tool or model. The sequence taught by my current airline (which uses T-DODAR) is:
Warning/Caution/Bang
1. Fly the aircraft (ANC - manual/automatic flight)
2. Identify the failure
3. Memory and QRH drills
4. Analyse the situation and make a decision (T-DODAR)
And so on depending on the situation and actions.
The point you are making about diagnosing the failure is a very good one (iirc the chances of a fatal outcome are higher for a a partial than a full power loss,) but in my view is different to the D of DODAR. I think the big metal analogy for what you are talking about is running an incorrect checklist or executing an incorrect manoeuvre rather than not running through a decision making process.
A big Irish loco uses PIOSEE to make decisions - Problem, Information, Options, Select, Execute, Evaluate. I believe others use FORDEC - Facts, Options, Risks, Decide, Execute, Check.
In your partial failure case, it might look some thing like:
- Bang/vibration
- Fly the aircraft - level off, wings level, appropriate speed/trim
- Identify the problem - checklist/memory actions ie carb heat, fuel, mags &c
At this point you are left with either a failed engine, limited power or a fully working engine.
In the first case your choice is made and you simply execute a forced landing. In the second and third, you have a decision to make, at which point DODAR, PIOSEE or FORDEC enters the equation and a structured tool is of great value.
Having re-read your original post, I think we are actually coming at the same thing but from different staring points, which is making the appropriate response to the failure, rather than simply incorrectly pattern matching.