Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
390
Posts
390
Users
0
Reactions
6
Views
03/03/2018 3:21 am
Case 47 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion · source wording exercise
Reader check for “Clinical questions in an archive discussion”: distinguish the discussion point “Individual decisions belong with a qualified clinician who…” 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.
03/03/2018 3:37 am
Case 48 — A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation · source wording exercise
Clarification for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: the point beginning “Add a cross-reference for alternate meanings rather than assuming that every…” 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.
03/03/2018 3:59 am
Case 48 — A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation · source wording exercise
Method note for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: use “Add a cross-reference for alternate meanings rather than assuming that every…” 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.
03/03/2018 5:09 am
Case 48 — A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation · source wording exercise
Limit of the answer in “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: “Add a cross-reference for alternate meanings rather than assuming that every…” 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.
03/03/2018 5:23 am
Case 48 — A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation · source wording exercise
Correction note for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: retain the wording beginning “Add a cross-reference for alternate meanings rather than assuming that every…” 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. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
03/03/2018 6:07 am
Case 48 — A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation · source wording exercise
Summary draft for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: the answer addresses “Add a cross-reference for alternate meanings rather than assuming that every…”; the related point is “Expand it on first use and name the…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
03/03/2018 6:27 am
Case 48 — A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation · source wording exercise
Reader check for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: distinguish the discussion point “Add a cross-reference for alternate meanings rather than assuming that every…” 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.
03/03/2018 7:17 am
Case 49 — Certificate of analysis: which claim does each measurement support? · comparison exercise
A reagent dossier contains a summary purity percentage but not the method or underlying trace. The draft index calls it fully verified. Which parts of that label can actually be supported?
Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it. Use the original answer fragment “Ask whether the sample identifier, issuing laboratory, report date and…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-00385/49: address this question within its stated limits.
03/03/2018 7:49 am
Case 49 — Certificate of analysis: which claim does each measurement support? · comparison exercise
Clarification for “Certificate of analysis: which claim does each measurement support?”: the point beginning “Ask whether the sample identifier, issuing laboratory, report date 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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
03/03/2018 8:03 am
Case 49 — Certificate of analysis: which claim does each measurement support? · comparison exercise
Method note for “Certificate of analysis: which claim does each measurement support?”: use “Ask whether the sample identifier, issuing laboratory, report date 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. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
03/03/2018 8:09 am
Case 49 — Certificate of analysis: which claim does each measurement support? · comparison exercise
Limit of the answer in “Certificate of analysis: which claim does each measurement support?”: “Ask whether the sample identifier, issuing laboratory, report date 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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
03/03/2018 8:30 am
Case 49 — Certificate of analysis: which claim does each measurement support? · comparison exercise
Correction note for “Certificate of analysis: which claim does each measurement support?”: retain the wording beginning “Ask whether the sample identifier, issuing laboratory, report date 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. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
03/03/2018 9:44 am
Case 49 — Certificate of analysis: which claim does each measurement support? · comparison exercise
Reader check for “Certificate of analysis: which claim does each measurement support?”: distinguish the discussion point “Ask whether the sample identifier, issuing laboratory, report date 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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
03/03/2018 9:44 am
Case 49 — Certificate of analysis: which claim does each measurement support? · comparison exercise
Summary draft for “Certificate of analysis: which claim does each measurement support?”: the answer addresses “Ask whether the sample identifier, issuing laboratory, report date and…”; the related point is “A copied certificate may be genuine as a document while its…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
03/03/2018 10:34 am
Case 50 — Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing? · comparison exercise
Clarification for “Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing?”: the point beginning “Before comparing laboratories, ask whether sample handling, method conditions…” 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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
Share: