Methods reading room: what analytical reports actually establish · RESEARCH-25905

Case 75 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · documentation exercise

Reader check for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: distinguish the discussion point “Keep this as research documentation and do not turn…” from its proposed application. The thread offers a way to reason about the question, without adding a personal experience or a newly observed outcome. Review focus: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 76 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · documentation exercise

Clarification for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: the point beginning “Statistical significance alone does not establish…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 76 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · documentation exercise

A result is described only as statistically significant. What information is missing?

Review focus: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format. Use the original answer fragment “Statistical significance alone does not establish…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.

Exercise RESEARCH-25905/76: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 76 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · documentation exercise

Limit of the answer in “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: “Statistical significance alone does not establish…” is an excerpt from the discussion, not an independent verification. A reader needs the relevant original material before treating an interpretation as established. Review focus: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 76 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · documentation exercise

Method note for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: use “Statistical significance alone does not establish…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 76 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · documentation exercise

Correction note for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: retain the wording beginning “Statistical significance alone does not establish…” in the record. If later material changes it, add the date, the changed wording and the source for that change; do not invent a completed correction here. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 76 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · documentation exercise

Summary draft for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: the answer addresses “Statistical significance alone does not establish…”; the related point is “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 76 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · documentation exercise

Reader check for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: distinguish the discussion point “Statistical significance alone does not establish…” from its proposed application. The thread offers a way to reason about the question, without adding a personal experience or a newly observed outcome. Review focus: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 77 — A correction log for an archive article · documentation exercise

A transcription error changes the units in a figure caption. How should the archive record be repaired?

Review focus: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format. Use the original answer fragment “Keep the correction visible to readers who may have…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.

Exercise RESEARCH-25905/77: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 77 — A correction log for an archive article · documentation exercise

Method note for “A correction log for an archive article”: use “Keep the correction visible to readers who may have…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 77 — A correction log for an archive article · documentation exercise

Clarification for “A correction log for an archive article”: the point beginning “Keep the correction visible to readers who may have…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 77 — A correction log for an archive article · documentation exercise

Limit of the answer in “A correction log for an archive article”: “Keep the correction visible to readers who may have…” is an excerpt from the discussion, not an independent verification. A reader needs the relevant original material before treating an interpretation as established. Review focus: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 77 — A correction log for an archive article · documentation exercise

Summary draft for “A correction log for an archive article”: the answer addresses “Keep the correction visible to readers who may have…”; the related point is “Identify the original error and the corrected text, date…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 77 — A correction log for an archive article · documentation exercise

Correction note for “A correction log for an archive article”: retain the wording beginning “Keep the correction visible to readers who may have…” in the record. If later material changes it, add the date, the changed wording and the source for that change; do not invent a completed correction here. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format.

Case 78 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation · documentation exercise

An animal experiment is cited as though it establishes a human outcome. What qualification is required?

Review focus: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format. Use the original answer fragment “Differences in biology and study conditions limit translation; the…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.

Exercise RESEARCH-25905/78: address this question within its stated limits.