Archive correction log: source versions, units and publisher notices · RESEARCH-20267

Case 30 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample · source wording exercise

Reader check for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: distinguish the discussion point “Such material can suggest questions but…” 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 31 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · source wording exercise

How can a reading table avoid highlighting only positive outcomes?

Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase. Use the original answer fragment “Separate the authors’ interpretation from the…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.

Exercise RESEARCH-20267/31: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 31 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · source wording exercise

Method note for “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: use “Separate the authors’ interpretation from 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. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 31 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · source wording exercise

Clarification for “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: the point beginning “Separate the authors’ interpretation from 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 31 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · source wording exercise

Limit of the answer in “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: “Separate the authors’ interpretation from 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 31 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · source wording exercise

Correction note for “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: retain the wording beginning “Separate the authors’ interpretation from 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. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 31 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · source wording exercise

Summary draft for “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: the answer addresses “Separate the authors’ interpretation from the…”; the related point is “Include all prespecified outcomes where reported, null…”. 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.

Case 31 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · source wording exercise

Reader check for “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: distinguish the discussion point “Separate the authors’ interpretation from 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.

Case 32 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · source wording exercise

Two results were collected years apart with unknown method changes. What should be clarified?

Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase. Use the original answer fragment “Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.

Exercise RESEARCH-20267/32: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 32 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · source wording exercise

Clarification for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: the point beginning “Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing…” 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 32 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · source wording exercise

Method note for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: use “Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing…” 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 32 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · source wording exercise

Limit of the answer in “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: “Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing…” 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.

Case 32 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · source wording exercise

Correction note for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: retain the wording beginning “Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing…” 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.