[Demo notebook] QC clinic: photographic evidence and its limits · RWI-11733

Case 32 — Comparing versions without mixing case sizes

Clarification for “Comparing versions without mixing case sizes”: the point beginning “Match reference, dimensions 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 32 — Comparing versions without mixing case sizes

Limit of the answer in “Comparing versions without mixing case sizes”: “Match reference, dimensions 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 32 — Comparing versions without mixing case sizes

Method note for “Comparing versions without mixing case sizes”: use “Match reference, dimensions 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 32 — Comparing versions without mixing case sizes

Correction note for “Comparing versions without mixing case sizes”: retain the wording beginning “Match reference, dimensions 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 32 — Comparing versions without mixing case sizes

Summary draft for “Comparing versions without mixing case sizes”: the answer addresses “Match reference, dimensions and…”; the related point is “List confirmed differences separately from seller descriptions and date the comparison…”. 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 33 — QC checklist: prioritise observable faults over pixel hunting

A large crop makes tiny differences look dramatic. How can a checklist remain proportionate?

Exercise RWI-11733/33: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 33 — QC checklist: prioritise observable faults over pixel hunting

Start with function, legibility, assembly and clear visible damage. Explain what the full-size image shows, what the crop adds and what remains uncertain; do not turn an overlay into an automatic verdict.

Case 33 — QC checklist: prioritise observable faults over pixel hunting

Clarification for “QC checklist: prioritise observable faults over pixel hunting”: the point beginning “Start with function, legibility, assembly 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 33 — QC checklist: prioritise observable faults over pixel hunting

Method note for “QC checklist: prioritise observable faults over pixel hunting”: use “Start with function, legibility, assembly 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 33 — QC checklist: prioritise observable faults over pixel hunting

Limit of the answer in “QC checklist: prioritise observable faults over pixel hunting”: “Start with function, legibility, assembly 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 33 — QC checklist: prioritise observable faults over pixel hunting

Correction note for “QC checklist: prioritise observable faults over pixel hunting”: retain the wording beginning “Start with function, legibility, assembly 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 33 — QC checklist: prioritise observable faults over pixel hunting

Summary draft for “QC checklist: prioritise observable faults over pixel hunting”: the answer addresses “Start with function, legibility, assembly and…”; the related point is “Explain what the full-size image shows, what the crop adds and…”. 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 34 — Clasp photographs: what to request before judging alignment

The available image hides the hinge and only shows the outer surface. Which additional views would answer the question?

Exercise RWI-11733/34: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 34 — Clasp photographs: what to request before judging alignment

Clarification for “Clasp photographs: what to request before judging alignment”: the point beginning “Request open and closed views from both sides,…” 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 34 — Clasp photographs: what to request before judging alignment

Request open and closed views from both sides, with the watch supported safely. Separate cosmetic alignment from whether the clasp engages reliably; functional concerns need hands-on inspection.

Case 34 — Clasp photographs: what to request before judging alignment

Method note for “Clasp photographs: what to request before judging alignment”: use “Request open and closed views from both sides,…” 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 34 — Clasp photographs: what to request before judging alignment

Correction note for “Clasp photographs: what to request before judging alignment”: retain the wording beginning “Request open and closed views from both sides,…” 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 34 — Clasp photographs: what to request before judging alignment

Limit of the answer in “Clasp photographs: what to request before judging alignment”: “Request open and closed views from both sides,…” 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 34 — Clasp photographs: what to request before judging alignment

Summary draft for “Clasp photographs: what to request before judging alignment”: the answer addresses “Request open and closed views from both sides,…”; the related point is “Separate cosmetic alignment from whether the clasp engages reliably;…”. 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 35 — Magnetism and rate: record evidence before naming a cause

A sudden rate change is being attributed to magnetism without a measurement. How should the discussion be structured?

Exercise RWI-11733/35: address this question within its stated limits.