Starting with what we know well:

1. Intransitive -> Transitive

{yIt K} "K walks"

{K yItmoH F} "F makes K walk" / "F walks K"

2. Transitive -> Ditransitive

{X ghoj K} "K learns X"

{KvaD X ghojmoH F} "F makes K learn X" / "F teaches X to K"

And now the step to the unknown:

3. Ditransitive -> Tritransitive

{ZvaD X nob K} "K gives X to Z"

Goal: "F makes K give X to Z"

3.1. By the logic "expand 2. above," we start with "F makes K give X":

{KvaD X nobmoH F}

Then we need to insert Z somehow

*{ZvaD KvaD X nobmoH F} is clearly ambiguous

*{Z'e' KvaD X nobmoH F} "As for Z, F makes K give X"

3.2. By the logic "keep existing objects and make the original subject as close as possible," we start with

*{Zvad X nobmoH F}

and need to insert K somehow

*{K'e' ZvaD X nobmoH F}?

note that if this logic applies, then we cannot mechanically translate this "As for K, F makes Z give X" just as {KvaD X ghojmoH F} does not mean *"F makes X learn for K" but "F makes K learn X"

3.3. Lieven's suggestion

*{X'e' ZvaD K nobmoH F}

...if would be so much easier if {KvaD X ghojmoH F} were *{X'e' K ghojmoH F}... but this does not exclude that the tritransitive construction, if any, works this way

3.4. Semantically, what about

*{ZvaD Kvo' X noblu'moH F} or  *{Kvo' ZvaD X noblu'moH F}?

however, itdoes not seem so easy to use this approach with {'ang} or {cha'}

3.5. [rant] And now remove F, add {-wI'}, and consider using it as a heading. [/rant]

P.S. To avoid confusion: {mayqel qunenoS} and I are different persons.