Public comment period · §3
Draft policy on the register of members and reviewers — 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-PEOPLE-REGIS/005 | Valentin Tollemache | The Institute publishes no telephone number and no messaging channel | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/008 | Dr Fitzwilliam Danquah-Öberg | What the site collects about a reader is not stated in terms a reader can check | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/006 | Gaspard Kettlewell | An industry submission should be identifiable without reading the declared interest | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/007 | Adaeze Underhill-Okafor | Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/010 | Dr Gervase Abergavenny | The document is unreadable without specialist training | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/003 | Dr Hyacinth Drakeford-Amadi | A sortable table implies a comparison the underlying data do not support | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/012 | Dr Oisín Marchetti-Bassey | The policy does not say what happens to a document the Institute is asked to remove | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/004 | Professor Bartolomeu Nkosi-Lindegaard | The same concept is given three different names in one document | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/011 | Dr Rurik Haverkamp-Diallo | The document set should be published in translation | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/009 | Hortensia Beauchamp-Ekong | Recusal should follow automatically from any declared financial interest | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/001 | Dr Zdenka Nyquist-Obiora | A superseded version should remain reachable from the version that replaced it | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/013 | Ignatius Erlingsson | The position of a contributor who withdraws consent is not stated | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/002 | Dr Zofia Petrossian industry | The disclosure requirements exceed those of comparable bodies | Noted, no amendment |
| 13 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 6 | 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 | 4 | 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 | 2 | 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
- What the site collects about a reader is not stated in terms a reader can check — arising from DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/008. The statement now enumerates what is collected and what is not, and is written so that a reader can verify it from the page source, which is the only form of the statement that can be checked without trusting the Institute.
- An industry submission should be identifiable without reading the declared interest — arising from DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/006. A submission made on behalf of a company is now identified as an industry submission on its face, at the head of the submission and in the disposition table, in addition to the declared interest published in full beneath it.
- Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence — arising from DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/007. 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…
- The document is unreadable without specialist training — arising from DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/010. Every document now opens with a plain-language summary of not more than 150 words, placed above the technical abstract and carrying the same certainty language, so that the two cannot diverge.
- The policy does not say what happens to a document the Institute is asked to remove — arising from DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/012. The grounds for withdrawal are now stated exhaustively, being a factual error that cannot be corrected in place and a legal obligation, a withdrawn document is replaced by a notice recording the fact and the ground rather than removed, and every withdrawal is…
- The same concept is given three different names in one document — arising from DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/004. A single term is now used throughout for each defined concept, and the glossary entry is linked at first use within each section rather than once per document.
- The position of a contributor who withdraws consent is not stated — arising from DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/013. 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…
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-021/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-people-register-policy/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026