One number travels through three roles
Imagine an analyst sends a writer a result labeled “12% improvement.” The writer drafts a headline. A designer puts the number in a large graphic. None of them intends to mislead, but the original analysis may have meant a relative change in a questionnaire score, not a 12-percentage-point improvement in recovery.
The problem is not solved by telling everyone to communicate more. The number needs a definition, unit, comparator, time period, and a statement of what it does not establish.
A handoff note that could prevent the error
Measure: average questionnaire score. Comparison: change from baseline within the same group. Limitation: no comparison group, so the change cannot be attributed to the program alone. Review: send the final numerical wording back to the analyst before publication.
This fictional note makes the next task possible without asking the writer to reconstruct the analysis.
Assign review by question
An analyst can review numerical fidelity. A subject specialist can assess scientific interpretation. A designer can assess visual clarity and accessibility. One person's approval should not be assumed to cover every dimension.
NISO's CRediT roles distinguish research contributions. A project can use a similarly explicit description of responsibilities without adopting a formal taxonomy for every task.
Keep the final version connected
Changes made late in design can alter meaning: dropping a denominator, shortening a qualifier, or changing an axis. The relevant reviewer needs to see the final expression of the claim, not only an earlier draft.
The most useful handoff is therefore not the largest document. It is the smallest set of context and review decisions that lets the next person use the work faithfully.
