ME.22:5.1 - Added stop information versus a table
This is a constructed comparison, with explicit text rather than an assumed reader study.
The receiving action is deciding whether an earlier review may support a current description revision.
A, earlier prose: “Reuse the previous review for a display-only change.”
B, revised prose: “For a display-only change, reuse the previous review only while the reviewed claims, question and qualification window still match. If a required source argument cannot be recovered for a new recheck, stop that recheck and return to its source; preserve unrelated earlier results.”
C, the same revised content in a table:
| Condition | Action |
|---|---|
| The change is display-only, and reviewed claims, question and qualification window still match | Reuse the previous review only under this full condition. |
| A required source argument cannot be recovered for a new recheck | Stop that recheck and return to its source. |
| An earlier result is unrelated to the missing argument | Preserve that result. |
Initially, the facts say that the change is display-only, the claims and question are unchanged, and the qualification window is current. All variants can support reuse. The later condition says that a new recheck needs an argument outside the available excerpts and that the retained dossier contains only its locator.
B and C explicitly support the local stop and preservation answer; A does not contain that distinction. This establishes a content-coverage difference in the constructed texts. It does not show that an actual reader preferred or used C more effectively than B. A reader comparison would still be needed for that form claim.
The useful authoring decision is to retain the missing stop information and withhold the table-superiority claim.