[Demo notebook] QC clinic: photographic evidence and its limits · RWI-17881

Case 6 — 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 6 — 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 6 — 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 7 — 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-17881/7: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 7 — Magnetism and rate: record evidence before naming a cause

Record the change and the circumstances without treating the suspected cause as established. A competent watchmaker can test and diagnose it; random adjustment is not a substitute for assessment.

Case 7 — Magnetism and rate: record evidence before naming a cause

Clarification for “Magnetism and rate: record evidence before naming a cause”: the point beginning “Record the change and the circumstances without treating…” 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 7 — Magnetism and rate: record evidence before naming a cause

Method note for “Magnetism and rate: record evidence before naming a cause”: use “Record the change and the circumstances without treating…” 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 7 — Magnetism and rate: record evidence before naming a cause

Limit of the answer in “Magnetism and rate: record evidence before naming a cause”: “Record the change and the circumstances without treating…” 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 7 — Magnetism and rate: record evidence before naming a cause

Correction note for “Magnetism and rate: record evidence before naming a cause”: retain the wording beginning “Record the change and the circumstances without treating…” 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 7 — Magnetism and rate: record evidence before naming a cause

Summary draft for “Magnetism and rate: record evidence before naming a cause”: the answer addresses “Record the change and the circumstances without treating…”; the related point is “A competent watchmaker can test and diagnose it; random adjustment…”. 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 8 — A maintenance log that remains useful after a sale

Which information should a transferable maintenance log retain while protecting the owner’s identity?

Exercise RWI-17881/8: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 8 — A maintenance log that remains useful after a sale

Keep the date, work performed, provider invoice reference and test results where available. Redact addresses and payment information; do not invent service events to fill an empty history.

Case 8 — A maintenance log that remains useful after a sale

Clarification for “A maintenance log that remains useful after a sale”: the point beginning “Keep the date, work performed, provider invoice reference…” 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 8 — A maintenance log that remains useful after a sale

Method note for “A maintenance log that remains useful after a sale”: use “Keep the date, work performed, provider invoice reference…” 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 8 — A maintenance log that remains useful after a sale

Correction note for “A maintenance log that remains useful after a sale”: retain the wording beginning “Keep the date, work performed, provider invoice reference…” 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 8 — A maintenance log that remains useful after a sale

Limit of the answer in “A maintenance log that remains useful after a sale”: “Keep the date, work performed, provider invoice reference…” 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 8 — A maintenance log that remains useful after a sale

Summary draft for “A maintenance log that remains useful after a sale”: the answer addresses “Keep the date, work performed, provider invoice reference…”; the related point is “Redact addresses and payment information; do not invent service…”. 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 9 — Packing photographs: document condition without exposing an address

A condition record is useful but a shipping label contains personal information. How can the record be shared safely?

Exercise RWI-17881/9: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 9 — Packing photographs: document condition without exposing an address

Clarification for “Packing photographs: document condition without exposing an address”: the point beginning “Photograph the item and protective packing…” 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 9 — Packing photographs: document condition without exposing an address

Photograph the item and protective packing separately from the label. Remove names, addresses, barcodes and tracking tokens from public images while keeping originals privately.