Ask whether a response explains the wrong through rights, noncomparative harm, or impersonal value, and which additional cases it can handle. A solution should not suggest that the resulting people have lesser worth. The puzzle concerns the justification of choices, not a demand that anyone regret being alive.
Sketch an original pair of fictional development plans that lead to different future populations. Assume both sets of people have worthwhile lives but inherit different infrastructure. Ask whether a decent-inheritance requirement could explain the objection to the worse plan. Then state what makes that standard defensible and how it weighs present burdens. The exercise evaluates a possible response without implying lesser worth for the people who exist or asking them to regret their existence.