Update closing sections#130
Conversation
ahouseholder
left a comment
ahouseholder
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One content clarification question and a few small copyedit items.
| The pilot study provides a methodology for measuring and evaluating reliability of the decision process description based on the agreement measure κ. This study methodology should be repeated with different analyst groups, from different sectors and with different experience, feeding the results into changes in the decision process description until the agreement measure is adequately close to 1. | ||
| The SSVC v1 pilot study provides a methodology for measuring and evaluating reliability of the decision process description based on the agreement measure κ. | ||
| This study methodology should be repeated with different analyst groups, from different sectors and with different experience, feeding the results into changes in the decision process description until the agreement measure is adequately close to 1. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The SSVC v1 pilot study provides a methodology...[ ] This study methodology should be repeated with different analyst groups, from different sectors and with different experience, feeding the results into changes in the decision process description until the agreement measure is adequately close to 1.
-- sounds like we're controlling the testing to get the results we expect/want --
Suggested change: The SSVC v1 pilot study provided a methodology...[ ] We are looking for different analyst groups, from different sectors and with different experience, to further test this methodology. The testing would be feeding the results into changes in the decision process description to determine the agreement measure. Is the agreement measures adequately close to 1? -- is this something we should do? --
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure I understand, both of these read the same to me. Both describe a feedback loop between a measurement and improving the system (SSVC). Sorry that I'm not understanding.
Maybe "using the results to make changes" would be better than "feeding the results into changes" and that would do it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My first question: Are we going to do any testing? E.g., sending out detailed use cases and ask for the results and analysis supporting the results? If not, maybe change it to a theoretical study. Or we could plan on doing a study in preparation for V3.
Yes, at a minimum, change it to "using the results to make changes". 'Feeding the results' sounds like manipulation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The plan is to do testing in the same way that 070 describes for v1, but on a wider set of people. We will do that once the v2.0 doc is settled, though, so we have something to test.
laurie-tyz
left a comment
laurie-tyz
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please take a look at my comments and include what is useful.
Otherwise, go ahead and merge. Thanks.
|
thank you for looking at this. |
3 participants
closes #38
closes #66