Public comment period · §3
Draft scope of the analytical and methodological standards… — disposition
The disposition of every submission and the amendments that resulted.
§3Disposition and amendments
§3.1Disposition table
Table 1. Every submission with its disposition. Each row links to the submission in full.
| Reference | Respondent | Point raised | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/005 | Dr Jacinta Steenkamp-Ferreira | The same concept is given three different names in one document | Accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/006 | Dr Mordecai Bellingham-Ojo | A multi-part document does not indicate how many parts it has | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/002 | Yusuf Whitmarsh-Obi | A withdrawn document should not simply disappear | Accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/009 | Dr Jolyon Grünbaum-Sowande | The document should state what a reader ought to do | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/001 | Dr Amara Quaresma | The document is unreadable without specialist training | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/008 | Dr Katarzyna Yorkstone | The series scope is drawn widely enough to absorb documents that belong elsewhere | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/007 | Dr Lorcan Zaleski-Mbeki | The same quantity is presented differently in two series | Accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/003 | Dr Wolfram Kaltenbach-Mensah | The search date is not on the face of the document | Accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/004 | Quentin Gwynne-Sarpong | A printed copy loses the information that makes it checkable | Accepted |
| 9 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 5 | The submission is accepted and the draft is amended as proposed. The amendment is recorded in the amendment log of the document it changed and is traceable to the numbered submission. |
| Accepted in part | 2 | Part of the submission is accepted and part is not. The secretariat response states which part is which and on what ground the remainder was declined. |
| Noted, no amendment | 1 | The submission raises a point the Institute accepts but that does not require a change to the draft, most often because the draft already states it elsewhere. The location is given in the response. |
| Not accepted | 1 | The submission is not accepted. The secretariat response gives the reason. A submission that is not accepted remains published in full; the Institute does not remove a submission because it disagrees with it. |
§3.3Resulting amendments
- The same concept is given three different names in one document — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/005. A single term is now used throughout for each defined concept, and the glossary entry is linked at first use within each section rather than once per document.
- A withdrawn document should not simply disappear — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/002. A withdrawn document is now replaced at its own address by a notice recording its identifier, its title, the date and ground of withdrawal, and a link to whatever supersedes it, and the withdrawal is recorded in the corrections log.
- The document is unreadable without specialist training — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/001. Every document now opens with a plain-language summary of not more than 150 words, placed above the technical abstract and carrying the same certainty language, so that the two cannot diverge.
- The series scope is drawn widely enough to absorb documents that belong elsewhere — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/008. The series scope now carries an explicit exclusion list naming the document classes that do not belong to it and stating where each belongs instead, so that a placement decision is checkable rather than editorial.
- The same quantity is presented differently in two series — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/007. Certainty ratings are now presented identically across every series, using the same badge, the same wording and the same accompanying formulation, and the presentation is specified in the series structure document rather than left to each series.
- The search date is not on the face of the document — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/003. The search date is now printed adjacent to every certainty rating and is carried in the document metadata, so that the interval between the search and the reading is visible without reference to the methods section.
- A printed copy loses the information that makes it checkable — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/004. The print stylesheet now carries the identifier, version, publication date and retrieval date on every page, expands link destinations into the text, and prints the full reference list rather than a link to it.
References cited on this page
References are numbered in order of first citation in this document. Each superscript in the text links to its entry below.
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. ISO/IEC Standard 2017;3rd edition. identifier not held by the Institute
Identifiers are reproduced only where the Institute holds them. Where a digital object identifier or PubMed identifier is not shown, the Institute has recorded the journal and year and has not constructed an identifier.
Compound Evidence Institute · CEI-CP-015/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-analytical-series-scope/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026