[Demo notebook] Workbench questions: what to record before asking for service · RWI-16563

Case 18 — 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-16563/18: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 18 — 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 18 — 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 18 — 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 18 — 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 18 — 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 18 — 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 19 — 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-16563/19: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 19 — Strap compatibility: width is only the first measurement

Clarification for “Strap compatibility: width is only the first measurement”: the point beginning “Measure the lug opening and document bar diameter,…” 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 19 — 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 19 — Strap compatibility: width is only the first measurement

Limit of the answer in “Strap compatibility: width is only the first measurement”: “Measure the lug opening and document bar diameter,…” 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 19 — Strap compatibility: width is only the first measurement

Method note for “Strap compatibility: width is only the first measurement”: use “Measure the lug opening and document bar diameter,…” 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 19 — Strap compatibility: width is only the first measurement

Correction note for “Strap compatibility: width is only the first measurement”: retain the wording beginning “Measure the lug opening and document bar diameter,…” 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 19 — Strap compatibility: width is only the first measurement

Summary draft for “Strap compatibility: width is only the first measurement”: the answer addresses “Measure the lug opening and document bar diameter,…”; the related point is “Avoid forcing an assembly that does not fit 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 20 — Lume comparison: keep exposure and charging conditions consistent

Two glowing dials are shown with different camera exposure and unknown charging time. What can the images establish?

Exercise RWI-16563/20: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 20 — Lume comparison: keep exposure and charging conditions consistent

Treat the comparison as inconclusive. Repeat with equal light source, charging duration, elapsed time and camera settings; disclose conditions rather than assigning an unsupported quality score.

Case 20 — Lume comparison: keep exposure and charging conditions consistent

Method note for “Lume comparison: keep exposure and charging conditions consistent”: use “Treat the comparison…” 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 20 — Lume comparison: keep exposure and charging conditions consistent

Clarification for “Lume comparison: keep exposure and charging conditions consistent”: the point beginning “Treat the comparison…” 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 20 — Lume comparison: keep exposure and charging conditions consistent

Limit of the answer in “Lume comparison: keep exposure and charging conditions consistent”: “Treat the comparison…” 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 20 — Lume comparison: keep exposure and charging conditions consistent

Correction note for “Lume comparison: keep exposure and charging conditions consistent”: retain the wording beginning “Treat the comparison…” 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.