Public comment period · §3
Draft supplier evaluation rubric — 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-SUPPLIER-RUB/002 | Dr Wilhelmina Erlingsson | The same concept is given three different names in one document | Accepted |
| DRAFT-SUPPLIER-RUB/008 | Dr Rurik Underhill-Okafor | A superseded version should remain reachable from the version that replaced it | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-SUPPLIER-RUB/007 | Xenia Nyquist-Obiora | The document should state what a reader ought to do | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-SUPPLIER-RUB/001 | Dr Adaeze Dunmore-Ekpo | Scores are reported to a precision the underlying judgements do not support | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-SUPPLIER-RUB/010 | Nkechi Larsson-Ekwueme | A rubric score will be read as a statement about product quality | Accepted |
| DRAFT-SUPPLIER-RUB/009 | Vittoria Quintanilha | A dossier rests on a small number of documents and does not say how many | Accepted |
| DRAFT-SUPPLIER-RUB/003 | Dr Rosalind Grünbaum-Sowande | Point estimates are given without an interval | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-SUPPLIER-RUB/004 | Ignatius Erlingsson | Quantitative claims are reproduced without the method that produced them | Accepted |
| DRAFT-SUPPLIER-RUB/005 | Dr Oisín Marchetti-Bassey | The search date is not on the face of the document | Accepted |
| DRAFT-SUPPLIER-RUB/006 | Dr Rurik Haverkamp-Diallo industry | The document should not describe uses outside the approved indication | Not accepted |
| 10 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 | 2 | 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-SUPPLIER-RUB/002. 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.
- Scores are reported to a precision the underlying judgements do not support — arising from DRAFT-SUPPLIER-RUB/001. Scores are now reported to the precision the criteria support, the criterion-level judgements are published alongside the total so that the derivation can be checked, and the dossier states that a difference smaller than the reported precision is not a…
- A rubric score will be read as a statement about product quality — arising from DRAFT-SUPPLIER-RUB/010. A standing statement that the score assesses evidence and documentation rather than product quality is now printed at the head of every dossier, adjacent to every score wherever it appears, and in the comparison table.
- A dossier rests on a small number of documents and does not say how many — arising from DRAFT-SUPPLIER-RUB/009. Every dossier now states the number and type of documents examined, the period they cover and the route by which they were obtained, and a criterion assessed from a single document is marked as such.
- Point estimates are given without an interval — arising from DRAFT-SUPPLIER-RUB/003. Every estimate now carries its interval where the source reported one, and where it did not, the estimate is annotated as reported without an interval rather than left to appear as a precise figure.
- Quantitative claims are reproduced without the method that produced them — arising from DRAFT-SUPPLIER-RUB/004. 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.
- The search date is not on the face of the document — arising from DRAFT-SUPPLIER-RUB/005. 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.
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-002/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-supplier-rubric/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026