best-practice-and-impact / analysis_project_documentation Goto Github PK

Several small issues in rendering in the quality questions with the new structure:

• Q22 Code of Practice: Line break in question that is inconsistent with other two tabs

• Q36: split when rendering, so question number appears in the tab and the content is split across 2 rows

• [ ]
  
  

• Q46: space needed between "you" and "should"

• Q39: rendering misses question number so columns are offset
  

This may be better separated into 2 questions to reduce the risk of any one of these important questions being missed. Under importance, we should also add that analysts should not assume datasets are high quality and should conduct your own quality assurance on the data.

Typos to correct

Introduction page

• Introduction: "The stages are covered by the following tabs on the website" to "the questions are..."
• Correct AQuA spelling in "key Aqua roles..."
• Introduction: Pressing Ctrl+S will automatically download a copy of the HTML page on your machine." to "will allow you to save a copy..."
• AQuA roles and responsibilities - change "creation" to "allocation"
• AQuA roles and responsibilities - bullet points have not worked
• Responsibilities of the Senior Responsible Owner: remove hyphen next to "signs off"
• Responsibilities of Commissioner: remove "The Commissioner"

Quality questions: I. SCOPING

• Q1 (Why the questions matter): comma needed after "clear"
• Q15 (Why the questions matter): commas needed after "analysis" and "occurring"
• Q19 (Why the questions matter): Remove full stop mid-sentence
• Q8 (Code of Practice): Correct spelling of Chief
• Q17 (Code of Practice): Fix line break if possible
• Q17 (Code of Practice): Remove capitalisation of "Producers"
• Q15 (AQuA): Inconsistent capitalisation of roles

Quality questions III: CONDUCTING AND CHECKING ANALYSIS

• Q30: Consider rephrasing of "do you think this would be helpful" to "if not, why not?"
• Q38 (why the questions matter): Correct spelling of externally
• Q49 (why the questions matter): Correct spelling of assure
• Q33 (Code of Practice): Fix line break if possible

FAQs

• Business critical numbering not formatted like numbered points
• Bullet points for AQuA book roles haven't rendered properly
• Help available bullet points not rendered properly

Sample assumptions on quality questions currently not in table format. Needs a table created so these are structured in the same way as the template assumptions log.

Currently documented as a Yes/No response for each question. Suggestion to change this to initials to clarify who has signed it off (particularly if SRO changes during lifecycle of a project)

Additionally, suggestion of some kind of line for commissioner, SRO, and analytical assurer to all confirm they have read this document and agree with the responses.

"If assumptions are inadequate or absent, then these uncertainties often persist and can drastically impact the analysis outputs" - should also add that if assumptions are inadequate, may impact users' interpretation.

There is no description of the columns related to value of estimated mean or distribution, so this should be added for clarity.

This may be more suitable as 2 separate questions to ensure that analysis do not miss documenting whether they have discussed risks with customers.

No example of an Amber assumption, which may be helpful for people to see

When merging, differences caused by rendering the quarto files create unnecessary merge conflicts which do not need to be reviewed.
Can we put all the files that regenerate each time there is a render into a .gitignore to avoid this happening?

Need to create a html, completable version of the assumptions and decisions log. This will create consistency between all the forms in this documentation repo.