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

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

Reader check for “A correction log for an archive article”: distinguish the discussion point “Keep the correction visible to readers who may have…” 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 78 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation · documentation exercise

Clarification for “Animal evidence and the limits of translation”: the point beginning “Differences in biology and study conditions limit translation; the…” 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 78 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation · documentation exercise

Method note for “Animal evidence and the limits of translation”: use “Differences in biology and study conditions limit translation; the…” 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 78 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation · documentation exercise

Limit of the answer in “Animal evidence and the limits of translation”: “Differences in biology and study conditions limit translation; the…” 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 78 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation · documentation exercise

Correction note for “Animal evidence and the limits of translation”: retain the wording beginning “Differences in biology and study conditions limit translation; the…” 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

Summary draft for “Animal evidence and the limits of translation”: the answer addresses “Differences in biology and study conditions limit translation; the…”; the related point is “Describe the species, model and…”. 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 78 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation · documentation exercise

Reader check for “Animal evidence and the limits of translation”: distinguish the discussion point “Differences in biology and study conditions limit translation; the…” 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 79 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · documentation exercise

Clarification for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: the point beginning “Record when only a secondary account was accessible and…” 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 79 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · documentation exercise

A review cites another review for a claim about an experiment. How can the evidence chain be checked?

Review focus: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format. Use the original answer fragment “Record when only a secondary account was accessible and…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.

Exercise RESEARCH-25905/79: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 79 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · documentation exercise

Limit of the answer in “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: “Record when only a secondary account was accessible and…” 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 79 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · documentation exercise

Method note for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: use “Record when only a secondary account was accessible and…” 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 79 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · documentation exercise

Correction note for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: retain the wording beginning “Record when only a secondary account was accessible and…” 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 79 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · documentation exercise

Reader check for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: distinguish the discussion point “Record when only a secondary account was accessible and…” 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 79 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · documentation exercise

Summary draft for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: the answer addresses “Record when only a secondary account was accessible and…”; the related point is “Locate the primary study and confirm that it…”. 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 80 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample · documentation exercise

A collection of forum reports is being treated as a representative sample. What limitations belong in the note?

Review focus: documentation. Distinguish an original record from a proposed record format. Use the original answer fragment “Such material can suggest questions but…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.

Exercise RESEARCH-25905/80: address this question within its stated limits.