Public comment period · §3
Draft citation policy — disposition
The disposition of every submission and the amendments that resulted.
§3Disposition and amendments
§3.1Disposition table
Table 1. Every submission with its disposition. Each row links to the submission in full.
| Reference | Respondent | Point raised | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| DRAFT-CITATION-POL/001 | Vittoria Ylönen | A party that is assessed and also sponsors should be disclosed on its own assessment | Accepted |
| DRAFT-CITATION-POL/002 | Dr Evander Ashworth-Danquah | Where a document is generated rather than authored, the reader should be told | Accepted |
| DRAFT-CITATION-POL/003 | Wilhelmina Oppenheimer-Ade | The position of a contributor who withdraws consent is not stated | Accepted |
| DRAFT-CITATION-POL/004 | Professor Bartolomeu Nkosi-Lindegaard | The decision rule for a contested certainty rating is not stated | Accepted |
| DRAFT-CITATION-POL/005 | Ivo Mountstephen | Nothing states what happens to the document set if the Institute ceases to operate | Accepted |
| DRAFT-CITATION-POL/006 | Dr Beatrijs Hazelrigg | No period is stated within which a submission will be answered | Accepted |
| DRAFT-CITATION-POL/007 | Dr Perpetua Haverkamp-Diallo industry | The disclosure requirements exceed those of comparable bodies | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-CITATION-POL/008 | Dr Vasilisa Sandringham-Adu | The materiality threshold for a declarable holding is set too high | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-CITATION-POL/009 | Dr Jozef Brandvold-Achterberg | Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence | Accepted |
| 9 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 7 | The submission is accepted and the draft is amended as proposed. The amendment is recorded in the amendment log of the document it changed and is traceable to the numbered submission. |
| Accepted in part | 1 | Part of the submission is accepted and part is not. The secretariat response states which part is which and on what ground the remainder was declined. |
| Noted, no amendment | 1 | The submission raises a point the Institute accepts but that does not require a change to the draft, most often because the draft already states it elsewhere. The location is given in the response. |
| Not accepted | 0 | The submission is not accepted. The secretariat response gives the reason. A submission that is not accepted remains published in full; the Institute does not remove a submission because it disagrees with it. |
§3.3Resulting amendments
- A party that is assessed and also sponsors should be disclosed on its own assessment — arising from DRAFT-CITATION-POL/001. The disclosure now appears as a numbered section on the dossier of any assessed party that sponsors the site, as well as on the funding page.
- Where a document is generated rather than authored, the reader should be told — arising from DRAFT-CITATION-POL/002. Every generated record now carries a notice stating that its prose frame is templated and that its included studies, summary of findings and certainty rating are computed from the underlying records, so that the reader can see which parts were authored and…
- The position of a contributor who withdraws consent is not stated — arising from DRAFT-CITATION-POL/003. The policy now states that a contributor may withdraw from the register at any time and that the register entry is removed, while a signed submission already published remains published, because the consultation record is a record of what was said and by…
- The decision rule for a contested certainty rating is not stated — arising from DRAFT-CITATION-POL/004. Quorum, the decision rule and the treatment of a tie are now stated. A rating carried on a divided committee is marked and the dissenting position is published with it.
- Nothing states what happens to the document set if the Institute ceases to operate — arising from DRAFT-CITATION-POL/005. The governance document now records that the document set is licensed for reuse and mirroring, and names the deposit arrangement under which it would be preserved.
- No period is stated within which a submission will be answered — arising from DRAFT-CITATION-POL/006. Receipt is acknowledged within five working days and a substantive response is published within eight weeks of the window closing. Where that period cannot be met the reason is published in its place.
- The materiality threshold for a declarable holding is set too high — arising from DRAFT-CITATION-POL/008. The materiality threshold is lowered and is now expressed as a proportion of the declarer's holdings as well as an absolute figure, so that a holding material to the person is declarable whether or not it is large in absolute terms.
- Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence — arising from DRAFT-CITATION-POL/009. A standing formulation has been adopted and is applied wherever an evidence gap is recorded, distinguishing an outcome assessed and not demonstrated from an outcome not assessed. The formulation is identical at every occurrence so that it can be recognised at…
References cited on this page
References are numbered in order of first citation in this document. Each superscript in the text links to its entry below.
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. ISO/IEC Standard 2017;3rd edition. identifier not held by the Institute
Identifiers are reproduced only where the Institute holds them. Where a digital object identifier or PubMed identifier is not shown, the Institute has recorded the journal and year and has not constructed an identifier.
Compound Evidence Institute · CEI-CP-012/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-citation-policy/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026