Competition calendars and result status
Separate the performance window, standings cutoff, audit status and date you inspected the source.
Added 15 October 2026
Four clocks can describe one result
An event has a performance window. A standings table has an observation cutoff. An organiser may have a review or audit stage. A publication has its own inspection and release dates. These clocks can all differ without a contradiction. A page inspected in October can describe a completed prior-year event. Conversely, an attractive current percentage can still belong to an unfinished event. Record each supplied date under its own heading, and avoid promoting a source-access date into a new performance period.
Read the section heading before the row
A standings page can place annual, quarterly, monthly and recent events together. Finding a familiar name is not enough: first establish which heading owns the row. Copying a row into a private notebook without its heading can detach the percentage from its dates and category. The official competition site distinguishes several event periods and warns that standings are subject to final audit. Link to the original table rather than reproduce its full standings. Your review note should identify the section and the time you read it.
Keep status words intact
Current, provisional, pending audit and final are not decorative labels. They tell a reader what the source is asserting at a particular point. A record-reading worksheet should preserve the source's exact wording before assigning any normalised field. Two entries with the same numeric value but different status labels should not silently become identical evidence. The comparability tool compares supplied labels; it has no connection to an organiser's audit workflow and cannot independently move an entry from one state to another.
Use interval conventions consistently
Our chain worksheet uses date-only half-open intervals: the start date is included and the end date is excluded. A segment ending on February 1 can therefore meet the next segment beginning on February 1 without overlap. A source describing inclusive calendar dates needs an explicit interpretation before it is entered into that worksheet. Do not change dates merely to make a continuity test pass. Retain the original convention in the source notebook, and treat any conversion as a separate, documented step.
Investigate a change before describing it
Suppose a private review captures an invented event on one date and reads a different number later. That difference might reflect an update, another division, a changed display filter or a mistaken source match. Compare issuer, event, division, period and record identity first. A later reading does not by itself prove that the earlier publication was inaccurate. Keep the two observations rather than overwrite the first. If the issuer provides a revision notice, link that notice and describe only the fields it actually addresses.
A dated article is not a live feed
A static guide can accurately discuss a dated record without claiming to monitor it continuously. Future event updates need fresh source inspection and an actual publication update. A page's availability on cloud hosting does not mean its financial facts are being re-audited every time someone opens it. Our new practice packet is explicitly fictional and fixed. It teaches date and status distinctions, not the latest positions in a live contest. Use the organiser's current page when the question is who leads an ongoing event today.
An authored reading exercise
Imagine a source inspected on October 15 whose event window ends September 30 and whose status says pending review. Record October 15 as inspection date, September 30 as the event endpoint under the source convention, and pending review as status. A second inspection on October 22 is a separate observation even if the number remains unchanged. The fictional dates illustrate a notebook structure; they do not announce the status of a real event. The tool never upgrades status because a calendar date has passed.