Case 22 — Case finishing: distinguish a reflection from a surface mark
Ask for photographs with the light moved and retain the same viewing angle. A mark should be assessed across multiple views; aggressive polishing is not an appropriate diagnostic test.
Case 12 — Packing photographs: document condition without exposing an address
Limit of the answer in “Packing photographs: document condition without exposing an address”: “Photograph the item and protective packing…” 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.
Method note for “What a water-resistance claim does and does not establish”: use “A photograph or a caseback engraving is not…” 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.
Start with function, legibility, assembly and clear visible damage. Explain what the full-size image shows, what the crop adds and what remains uncertain; do not turn an overlay into an automatic verdict.
Record wrist circumference, removable links and the clasp adjustment range in millimetres. Request the closed bracelet circumference rather than inferring it from marketing dimensions.
Clarification for “Date window centring: compare the same date at the same angle”: the point beginning “Use the same numeral, camera axis…” 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 10 — 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.
Clarification for “Shipping timeline: separate dispatch, handover and scan events”: the point beginning “Ask the sender or carrier for clarification; missing scans alone…” 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 16 — 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 33 — QC checklist: prioritise observable faults over pixel hunting
Limit of the answer in “QC checklist: prioritise observable faults over pixel hunting”: “Start with function, legibility, assembly 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.
Use a correction row with date, old value, revised value and evidence. A worked example could change a lug-width entry from 20 to 22 mm; do not present that example as a correction to a real model.
Case 38 — Magnetism and rate: record evidence before naming a cause · source wording exercise
A sudden rate change is being attributed to magnetism without a measurement. How should the discussion be structured?
Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase. Use the original answer fragment “A competent watchmaker can test and diagnose it; random adjustment…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RWF-12774/38: address this question within its stated limits.
Case 23 — First QC request: the minimum useful information
Correction note for “First QC request: the minimum useful information”: retain the wording beginning “State the model configuration, the specific concern 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.
Case 44 — Lume comparison: keep exposure and charging conditions consistent · source wording exercise
Summary draft for “Lume comparison: keep exposure and charging conditions consistent”: the answer addresses “Repeat with equal light source, charging duration, elapsed time and camera…”; the related point is “Treat the comparison…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
Case 43 — First QC request: the minimum useful information · source wording exercise
Summary draft for “First QC request: the minimum useful information”: the answer addresses “Include complete instrument settings where relevant and say…”; the related point is “State the model configuration, the specific concern and…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.