Writing up a case file#

Week 6 — Field Case File due

Worked review: the seminar room#

Documentation-rigor pass: does the log let a second observer navigate the room as you found it, without you there to explain it? That’s the actual bar — not whether the write-up reads well.

Worked review: the 13-step stairwell#

Safety-protocol adherence shows up here in the write-up, not only in the field: was the buddy present for the full count, and did either observer invoke disengagement — and if not, why not?

The stairwell’s edge case#

Thirteen steps returns you to your starting floor. Fourteen doesn’t — it skips you down an extra floor instead. A stated rule with a documented edge, not a round number that happens to recur.

A signal that doesn’t need a count#

Light fixtures dim below a stated wattage threshold when the effect is live — independently of whether anyone counts steps that day. Log it on its own; it doesn’t wait for a count to be worth recording.

Citing a precedent you can’t verify yourself#

A write-up can cite SU-6-04 as precedent for why the disengagement rule exists — it cannot claim to have observed it. Knowing the difference is the documentation-rigor lesson this incident actually teaches.

A sample log entry#

Observer [redacted], buddy-paired, west stairwell, descending. Counted thirteen steps aloud with buddy confirming. Arrived at starting floor. Re-ran ascending: sixteen steps, arrived one floor above starting point as geometry predicts. No disengagement invoked. Provisional classification: responsive.

Why this entry works#

Count and confirmation are stated separately, and the classification is marked provisional rather than final. Redacting the observer’s identity costs nothing a marker needs: what happened, and what it’s classified as.