RMP.4:4.2 - Preserve the smallest material whose loss would matter
Ask what the critic would be unable to distinguish if one record disappeared. Start with those distinctions. Examples include which specimen was measured, which document was inspected, why a source was excluded, or whether an outcome was already visible when a choice was made.
Arrange capture at the point where the relevant event or choice occurs. An existing qualified laboratory or data practice may already do this. Reference its records and qualifications rather than reproduce them in an RMP form.
Preserve the applicable plans with their versions and timing. A registration, protocol and analysis intention may have different contents and dates. Keep enough to compare intention with conduct, including amendments. A record’s title cannot establish its prospective status.
Distinguish these evidential situations in ordinary language:
| Basis for the account | How to report it |
|---|---|
| A contemporaneous record supports the event or choice. | Identify the record, its scope and the connection it supports. Its mere existence does not make every recorded statement true. |
| A person reports the event later. | Identify it as a later report and retain what supports or limits that account. |
| Surviving sources support a reconstruction. | Mark the reconstructed part, its sources, reasoning and uncertainty. |
| The relevant conduct, reason or timing is unknown. | Say what is unknown and which examination depends on it. |
Retain the distinction even if all four occur in the same notebook or account. Date a reconstruction as a reconstruction. A polished description of earlier intentions does not establish that those intentions preceded data access.
Actual retention, access and authorized destruction requirements come from their owners. Preserve permitted evidence of loss and its consequences where possible; do not retain prohibited material merely to improve a trace.