List separately the stated event, date and supporting document, with sensitive details removed. Mark missing evidence as missing and avoid turning an …

Case 47 — Recall notices: verify the product and jurisdiction · source wording exercise Method note for “Recall notices: verify the product and jurisd…

Case 7 — Packaging evidence: a mismatch is a question, not an authenticity verdict The closing summary should distinguish the observed discrepancy fro…

Case 23 — Delivery feedback is not a medicine-quality assessment Limit of the answer in “Delivery feedback is not a medicine-quality assessment”: “Des…

Record the two markings exactly, identify which packaging layer each came from and keep the original photographs privately. Date-format differences al…

Correction note for “Dispatch email versus carrier acceptance: how should the timeline read?”: retain the wording beginning “Keep three separate field…

Limit of the answer in “Discontinued packaging versus an unverified listing”: “Look for manufacturer or regulator documentation and record the…” is an…

Case 44 — Review moderation: evidence without doxxing · source wording exercise A disputed review includes private contact details. How can evidence b…

Record dates, jurisdiction, product identification and what can actually be verified. Delivery or professional-looking packaging alone cannot establis…

Case 40 — Redacting a review: which details should stay private? · source wording exercise Method note for “Redacting a review: which details should s…

Method note for “Discontinued packaging versus an unverified listing”: use “Treat an unsupported explanation as unresolved, not as proof…” as a row he…

Use opaque redactions in a flattened exported copy, then reopen that copy and inspect it at full size. Do not rely on a translucent marker or a revers…