tootypeg wrote:
I would be really interested to have your feedback on this, any evaluation or additions, edits would be very much appreciated.
You might want to follow some flow-charting/process standard (unless you are already following one I haven't seen before). <>-boxes are almost always used for decisions, for example ... (Already covered?)
Add reference numbers to the boxes. Makes it so much easier to talk about 'decision D5', instead of the green box to the left of the yellow box near the center.
It's a bit odd that testing (to unknown standards) trumps peer-reviewed publication.
It's very much waterfall. The area of 'expand knowledge' should probably loop back to 'do we know enough to report?', which probably makes the outcome of 'expand knowledge' some form of publication. (It makes it less practical, but that is probably not relevant here.)
Quote::
I know some of it is very much basic but I want to hone it to the point where the process is engaged with to prevent misinterpreted, erroneous content entering DF reports/statements.
That requires a decision box 'Am I competent to make any or all the decisions in this flow chart?' before this sequence is entered.
Not sure if 'evidence type' is a good starting point. Perhaps 'conclusions, inferences and assumptions' would be slightly better, as that makes it clear that it's something to do once a preliminary report is available.
↧