Public comment period · §3
Draft structure of the document registry — 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-REGISTRY-STR/003 | Dr Vittoria Ylönen | The search date is not on the face of the document | Accepted |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/006 | Dr Anselm Thorsby-Nakamura | The document should state what a reader ought to do | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/002 | Dr Katarzyna Oppenheimer-Ade industry | Two factual descriptions of the sponsor's programme are inaccurate | Accepted |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/007 | Dr Séverin Oppenheimer-Ade | The front matter delays the reader from reaching the assessment | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/009 | Dr Delphine Trelawney | Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence | Accepted |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/004 | Dr Mordecai Glendinning-Uche | A superseded version should remain reachable from the version that replaced it | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/001 | Dr Ivo Quintanilha | The document is unreadable without specialist training | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/005 | Dr Torvald Kettlewell | References should carry a persistent identifier for every cited source | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/008 | Dr Lorcan Trelawney | Quantitative claims are reproduced without the method that produced them | Accepted |
| 9 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 4 | 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 | 3 | 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 search date is not on the face of the document — arising from DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/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.
- Two factual descriptions of the sponsor's programme are inaccurate — arising from DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/002. The trial status now reads as completed at a pre-specified interim analysis, with the analysis identified, and the dose is stated in the unit used in the approved labelling. The submission is identified as an industry submission on its face in accordance with…
- The front matter delays the reader from reaching the assessment — arising from DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/007. Every document now opens with its assessment statement and its certainty rating, with the identifiers, dates and declarations following immediately beneath rather than above, so that the first thing read is the finding and the second is its provenance.
- Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence — arising from DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/009. A standing formulation has been adopted and is applied wherever an evidence gap is recorded, distinguishing an outcome assessed and not demonstrated from an outcome not assessed. The formulation is identical at every occurrence so that it can be recognised at…
- The document is unreadable without specialist training — arising from DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/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.
- References should carry a persistent identifier for every cited source — arising from DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/005. Every reference without a persistent identifier now carries an explicit statement that the identifier is not held by the Institute, so that its absence is a recorded fact rather than an apparent oversight.
- Quantitative claims are reproduced without the method that produced them — arising from DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/008. Every quantitative claim now carries the determination that produced it at the point of use, and figures obtained by non-comparable methods are no longer presented in the same row or sentence.
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-028/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-registry-structure/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026