[Demo notebook] Collector’s comparison desk: dimensions, fit and documented differences · RWI-10558

Case 9 — Movement identification: the limits of a rotor photograph

Method note for “Movement identification: the limits of a rotor photograph”: use “Describe visible bridge shapes and markings separately…” 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. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 9 — Movement identification: the limits of a rotor photograph

Limit of the answer in “Movement identification: the limits of a rotor photograph”: “Describe visible bridge shapes and markings separately…” 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: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 9 — Movement identification: the limits of a rotor photograph

Correction note for “Movement identification: the limits of a rotor photograph”: retain the wording beginning “Describe visible bridge shapes and markings separately…” 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. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 9 — Movement identification: the limits of a rotor photograph

Summary draft for “Movement identification: the limits of a rotor photograph”: the answer addresses “Describe visible bridge shapes and markings separately…”; the related point is “Ask a qualified watchmaker to inspect it if identification matters for…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 10 — Service enquiry: information a watchmaker can use

A service question only says that the watch stops occasionally. Which observations make an initial enquiry more useful?

Exercise RWI-10558/10: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 10 — Service enquiry: information a watchmaker can use

Clarification for “Service enquiry: information a watchmaker can use”: the point beginning “Document when it stops, winding behaviour, recent impacts 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: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 10 — Service enquiry: information a watchmaker can use

Document when it stops, winding behaviour, recent impacts and the positions in which it happens. Be honest about the watch and request an assessment before approving work or ordering parts.

Case 10 — Service enquiry: information a watchmaker can use

Limit of the answer in “Service enquiry: information a watchmaker can use”: “Document when it stops, winding behaviour, recent impacts 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: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 10 — Service enquiry: information a watchmaker can use

Method note for “Service enquiry: information a watchmaker can use”: use “Document when it stops, winding behaviour, recent impacts 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. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 10 — Service enquiry: information a watchmaker can use

Correction note for “Service enquiry: information a watchmaker can use”: retain the wording beginning “Document when it stops, winding behaviour, recent impacts 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. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 10 — Service enquiry: information a watchmaker can use

Summary draft for “Service enquiry: information a watchmaker can use”: the answer addresses “Document when it stops, winding behaviour, recent impacts and…”; the related point is “Be honest about the watch and request an assessment…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 11 — Lug-to-lug and end-link overhang in wrist photographs

Clarification for “Lug-to-lug and end-link overhang in wrist photographs”: the point beginning “Record lug-to-lug and the effective span…” 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: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 11 — Lug-to-lug and end-link overhang in wrist photographs

A wide-angle wrist photo exaggerates the nearest edge of the case. How can two watches be compared fairly?

Exercise RWI-10558/11: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 11 — Lug-to-lug and end-link overhang in wrist photographs

Record lug-to-lug and the effective span including rigid end links. Use a similar camera distance and neutral wrist position; photographs support fit discussion but do not replace measurements.

Case 11 — Lug-to-lug and end-link overhang in wrist photographs

Limit of the answer in “Lug-to-lug and end-link overhang in wrist photographs”: “Record lug-to-lug and the effective span…” 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: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 11 — Lug-to-lug and end-link overhang in wrist photographs

Method note for “Lug-to-lug and end-link overhang in wrist photographs”: use “Record lug-to-lug and the effective span…” 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. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 11 — Lug-to-lug and end-link overhang in wrist photographs

Correction note for “Lug-to-lug and end-link overhang in wrist photographs”: retain the wording beginning “Record lug-to-lug and the effective span…” 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. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 11 — Lug-to-lug and end-link overhang in wrist photographs

Summary draft for “Lug-to-lug and end-link overhang in wrist photographs”: the answer addresses “Record lug-to-lug and the effective span…”; the related point is “Use a similar camera distance and neutral wrist position; photographs support…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 12 — Strap compatibility: width is only the first measurement

Measure the lug opening and document bar diameter, shoulder position and strap thickness. Avoid forcing an assembly that does not fit and let a watchmaker check uncertain clearances.

Case 12 — Strap compatibility: width is only the first measurement

Two straps share the same nominal width but differ in thickness and spring-bar clearance. Which dimensions need checking?

Exercise RWI-10558/12: address this question within its stated limits.