Reference-table workshop: comparable quantities and missing context · RESEARCH-30288

Case 47 — Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together · source wording exercise

Reader check for “Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together”: distinguish the discussion point “Make synthetic examples explicit and never combine them…” 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 48 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion · source wording exercise

Clarification for “Clinical questions in an archive discussion”: the point beginning “Individual decisions belong with a qualified clinician who…” 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 48 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion · source wording exercise

Method note for “Clinical questions in an archive discussion”: use “Individual decisions belong with a qualified clinician who…” 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. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 48 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion · source wording exercise

Limit of the answer in “Clinical questions in an archive discussion”: “Individual decisions belong with a qualified clinician who…” 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.