Case 9 — Price comparisons: compare like-for-like information
Method note for “Price comparisons: compare like-for-like information”: use “Identify those fields using legitimate product information and distinguish…” 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.
Case 9 — Price comparisons: compare like-for-like information
Limit of the answer in “Price comparisons: compare like-for-like information”: “Identify those fields using legitimate product information and distinguish…” 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 9 — Price comparisons: compare like-for-like information
Correction note for “Price comparisons: compare like-for-like information”: retain the wording beginning “Identify those fields using legitimate product information and distinguish…” 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 9 — Price comparisons: compare like-for-like information
Summary draft for “Price comparisons: compare like-for-like information”: the answer addresses “Identify those fields using legitimate product information and distinguish…”; the related point is “Use licensed services and professional advice rather than treating the…”. 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 10 — Discontinued packaging versus an unverified listing
A listing says packaging changed but provides no official source. How should the claim be evaluated?
Exercise PHARMACY-20359/10: address this question within its stated limits.
Case 10 — Discontinued packaging versus an unverified listing
Clarification for “Discontinued packaging versus an unverified listing”: the point beginning “Look for manufacturer or regulator documentation and record the…” 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 — Discontinued packaging versus an unverified listing
Look for manufacturer or regulator documentation and record the date and market it covers. Treat an unsupported explanation as unresolved, not as proof that a product is genuine.
Case 10 — Discontinued packaging versus an unverified listing
Limit of the answer in “Discontinued packaging versus an unverified listing”: “Look for manufacturer or regulator documentation and record the…” 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 10 — Discontinued packaging versus an unverified listing
Method note for “Discontinued packaging versus an unverified listing”: use “Look for manufacturer or regulator documentation and record the…” 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.
Case 10 — Discontinued packaging versus an unverified listing
Correction note for “Discontinued packaging versus an unverified listing”: retain the wording beginning “Look for manufacturer or regulator documentation and record the…” 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 10 — Discontinued packaging versus an unverified listing
Summary draft for “Discontinued packaging versus an unverified listing”: the answer addresses “Look for manufacturer or regulator documentation and record the…”; the related point is “Treat an unsupported explanation as unresolved, not as proof…”. 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 11 — A dated correction to a source discussion
An earlier thread included an unsupported assurance. What should an editorial correction contain?
Exercise PHARMACY-20359/11: address this question within its stated limits.
Case 11 — A dated correction to a source discussion
Identify the specific statement, explain the evidence gap and link authoritative information where available. Preserve a dated correction and avoid substituting a different unverified assurance.
Case 11 — A dated correction to a source discussion
Method note for “A dated correction to a source discussion”: use “Identify the specific statement, explain the evidence gap 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.
Case 11 — A dated correction to a source discussion
Clarification for “A dated correction to a source discussion”: the point beginning “Identify the specific statement, explain the evidence gap and…” 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.