Case 8 — QC checklist: prioritise observable faults over pixel hunting
Correction note for “QC checklist: prioritise observable faults over pixel hunting”: retain the wording beginning “Start with function, legibility, assembly and…” 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.
Clarification for “Shipping timeline: separate dispatch, handover and scan events”: the point beginning “Distinguish label creation from physical acceptance and retain dated…” 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.
Method note for “Service enquiry: information a watchmaker can use”: use “Document when it stops, winding behaviour, recent impacts and…” 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.
Summary draft for “Disputed observation: is this dial colour shift real or just lighting?”: the answer addresses “The difficulty is that phone cameras adjust white balance automatically,…”; the related point is “Two photos of the same dial under different light can…”. 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 51 — Comparing dial colour under different lighting · source wording exercise
One image was taken beside a window and the other under a warm lamp. How should a colour comparison be qualified?
Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase. Use the original answer fragment “Compare controlled images where available and avoid calling a…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RWF-23699/51: address this question within its stated limits.
Case 6 — Date window centring: compare the same date at the same angle
Different numerals have different optical centres. A comparison mixes two dates and unequal magnification. How can the evidence be improved?
Exercise RWF-22187/6: address this question within its stated limits.
Document when it stops, winding behaviour, recent impacts and the positions in which it happens. Be honest about the watch and request an assessment before approving work or ordering parts.
Clarification for “Strap dimensions: lug width, taper, thickness and spring bar diameter explained”: the point beginning “Measure with a ruler marked in millimetres, ideally…” 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 12 — Movement identification: the limits of a rotor photograph
Describe visible bridge shapes and markings separately from the proposed identification. Ask a qualified watchmaker to inspect it if identification matters for servicing; do not open the case merely for a forum answer.
Clarification for “Crystal reflections: why a dark patch is not a coating test”: the point beginning “Compare multiple controlled angles and describe the visible observation without asserting…” 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.
Correction note for “Crystal reflections: why a dark patch is not a coating test”: retain the wording beginning “No single lighting setup settles…” 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 29 — Comparing dial colour under different lighting
State the lighting and white-balance limitations. Compare controlled images where available and avoid calling a colour defect from differently processed photographs.
Case 33 — Crown operation: when a forum cannot diagnose the resistance
Limit of the answer in “Crown operation: when a forum cannot diagnose the resistance”: “Describe whether resistance occurs during winding or setting and…” 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 — 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 40 — Movement identification: the limits of a rotor photograph · source wording exercise
Method note for “Movement identification: the limits of a rotor photograph”: use “Ask a qualified watchmaker to inspect it if identification matters for…” 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. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.