Archive correction log: source versions, units and publisher notices · RESEARCH-02447

Case 52 — Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing? · comparison exercise

Method note for “Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing?”: use “Before comparing laboratories, ask whether sample handling, method conditions…” 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.

Case 52 — Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing? · comparison exercise

Limit of the answer in “Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing?”: “Before comparing laboratories, ask whether sample handling, method conditions…” 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.

Case 52 — Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing? · comparison exercise

Correction note for “Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing?”: retain the wording beginning “Before comparing laboratories, ask whether sample handling, method conditions…” 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.

Case 52 — Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing? · comparison exercise

Summary draft for “Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing?”: the answer addresses “Before comparing laboratories, ask whether sample handling, method conditions…”; the related point is “Missing details should be visible…”. 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.

Case 52 — Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing? · comparison exercise

Reader check for “Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing?”: distinguish the discussion point “Before comparing laboratories, ask whether sample handling, method conditions…” 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.

Case 53 — Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract? · comparison exercise

The draft summary of a fictional reading exercise moves from an animal-model observation to a proposed human benefit. Which fields would keep the literature note within the evidence?

Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it. Use the original answer fragment “Was the analysis prespecified or exploratory, and…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.

Exercise RESEARCH-02447/53: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 53 — Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract? · comparison exercise

Clarification for “Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract?”: the point beginning “Was the analysis prespecified or exploratory, 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.

Case 53 — Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract? · comparison exercise

Limit of the answer in “Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract?”: “Was the analysis prespecified or exploratory, 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.

Case 53 — Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract? · comparison exercise

Method note for “Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract?”: use “Was the analysis prespecified or exploratory, 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.

Case 53 — Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract? · comparison exercise

Summary draft for “Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract?”: the answer addresses “Was the analysis prespecified or exploratory, and…”; the related point is “Record what the paper states and mark unreported fields…”. 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.

Case 53 — Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract? · comparison exercise

Correction note for “Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract?”: retain the wording beginning “Was the analysis prespecified or exploratory, 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.

Case 53 — Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract? · comparison exercise

Reader check for “Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract?”: distinguish the discussion point “Was the analysis prespecified or exploratory, 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.

Case 54 — A correction log that survives the next archive update · comparison exercise

A archive table has a transcription error in a unit label. A later publisher notice also changes a figure. How can the correction history distinguish those two events?

Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it. Use the original answer fragment “Each entry should retain the date, old text, corrected…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.

Exercise RESEARCH-02447/54: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 54 — A correction log that survives the next archive update · comparison exercise

Clarification for “A correction log that survives the next archive update”: the point beginning “Each entry should retain the date, old text, corrected…” 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.

Case 54 — A correction log that survives the next archive update · comparison exercise

Limit of the answer in “A correction log that survives the next archive update”: “Each entry should retain the date, old text, corrected…” 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.