Archive correction log: source versions, units and publisher notices · RESEARCH-09543

Case 95 — 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 95 — 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 95 — 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 95 — 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 95 — 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 95 — 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 96 — 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-09543/96: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 96 — 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 96 — 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 96 — 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 96 — 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 96 — 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 96 — 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 97 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · uncertainty exercise

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

Review focus: uncertainty. Leave the unresolved part visible instead of supplying a result. Use the original answer fragment “Locate the primary study and confirm that it…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.

Exercise RESEARCH-09543/97: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 97 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · uncertainty exercise

Clarification for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: the point beginning “Locate the primary study and confirm that it…” 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: uncertainty. Leave the unresolved part visible instead of supplying a result.