TL;DR
- -��Inspect labels, legends, definitions and notes before extracting a value.
- -��Carry material qualifications into the claim review even when they do not appear in final prose.
- -��Escalate when the source cannot explain the number’s population, method or status.
A chart in a board report shows 84 percent beside the label “resolved.” It looks perfect for a service announcement. In eight-point type below the table, a note says the figure covers priority cases closed within the quarter and excludes cases awaiting third-party action. The number is real. The attractive broad claim is not.
Footnotes often carry the population, exclusions, revised method or uncertainty that turns a value into a meaningful statement. They are part of the evidence, not optional background. A copy-and-paste workflow can separate the number from exactly the text a reviewer needs.
Read outward from the cell
Begin with the value, then inspect its row label, column heading, unit, legend, table title, reporting period and all referenced notes. Read the paragraph before and after the table. Check whether the figure is a count, share, rate, index, estimate or target. For a chart, confirm the axis origin and whether series use different scales.
Open the original page when a document has been extracted into text. Page layout may connect a symbol to a note or show that a heading spans only certain columns. If the scan is unclear, ask the source owner for an accessible original or confirmation. Guessing which asterisk belongs to which number creates false precision.
Record the report version and whether the table is final. A note may say figures are unaudited, restated or rounded. Those labels do not automatically prohibit communication, but they affect how the number should be described and who needs to approve its use.
Translate the note into review questions
Who is included?
Identify the measured population and exclusions. Ask whether the draft’s noun matches it. “Customers” may be too broad if the source covers survey respondents, active accounts or completed cases.
What counts?
Capture the source definition of terms such as resolved, active, local or successful. Everyday meanings can differ from an operational measure. Keep the defined term visible during drafting.
When and under which method?
Record the period and any method change. A comparison across years may fail if a footnote says the later table uses a new inclusion rule. Ask whether earlier values were restated on the same basis.
How certain and how complete?
Note estimates, suppressed small groups, missing sites, rounding and pending validation. Decide whether the proposed precision and confidence reflect those limits.
Annotated table: one cell, three possible claims
Imagine a fictional service report with “84% resolved” in the quarterly column. Its note defines resolved as priority cases closed within five working days, excludes cases awaiting an external provider and says one branch submitted incomplete data. These details and the figure are invented for this example.
“We resolve 84 percent of customer issues within five days” broadens priority cases to every issue and loses the exclusion and reporting gap. “Eighty-four percent of recorded priority cases were closed within five working days during the quarter” keeps more of the source meaning, but the incomplete branch and exclusion still need evaluation. The team may decide that the result is unsuitable for promotional copy until the gap is addressed.
A longer qualification can make copy cumbersome. The answer is sometimes to choose a less fragile fact, link to the report where appropriate or omit the number. Compressing the sentence is acceptable only if the remaining wording still represents the measured population and the reviewer records why omitted detail is immaterial.
Keep context attached through approval
In the claim record, store a view of the table with its notes, plus a transcription where helpful. State the proposed wording, calculation, material qualifications, source owner and public-use status. If a note conflicts with the headline finding or another table, flag the discrepancy rather than choosing the convenient passage.
After edits, recheck the exact sentence. A late change from “recorded priority cases” to “customer issues” can undo the review without changing the number. The retained evidence view should make the table label, symbol and note inseparable from the approved wording.
QuoteIt is being developed to keep source context visible beside claims during evidence review. Join the waitlist to follow development.
Join Waitlist