A parks investigator pastes an entire public Facebook thread into Word without marking which comment is the actual finding. What should the notes do instead?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
A box of raw ingredients is not the plated dish, and a dumped thread is not the finding. Save the capture, then write the claim next to the exact comment that supports it. Reviewers should never have to guess which line mattered.
Full Explanation
Notes must separate raw capture from analytical claim so evidence and conclusion stay distinct. Pasting an entire public Facebook thread into Word without marking which comment is the finding forces reviewers to guess what mattered and blends chatter with assertion. Keeping the whole thread unlabeled so reviewers can enjoy the full conversation is entertainment, not analysis. Deleting the thread and keeping only a one-word verdict removes the evidence that would support or refute that verdict. Merging every comment into a single unsigned paragraph destroys attribution and sequence. Exam caveat: long threads can be summarized, but the specific comment or post that supports a claim still needs a clear pointer, capture, and locator. Operational check: store the raw thread capture as an exhibit, then write a separate analytical sentence that cites the exact comment identifier or timestamp used as the finding. Keep the civic purpose, method limits, and exhibit labels aligned so reviewers can see what was public-source work versus other authorities. Document residual uncertainty explicitly rather than implying completeness. Prefer reversible public methods and preserve exhibits that a second analyst can reopen without guessing.