The sentence a visitor reads is part of the experiment
A school projector displays the letter A on a small screen. The image is inverted. Three children read the letter from a marked viewing position; a fourth asks why the picture is upside down. A student writes a label: ‘Our amazing lens turns any picture into a perfect giant image.’ The label is lively, but almost every important word is wrong. The observation concerned one letter, a particular position and a specific screen. Nothing in the test established ‘any’, ‘perfect’ or even ‘giant’.
This guide teaches a narrower and more useful skill: writing a caption that tells a reader what was observed, what it means and what the evidence does not yet support. Public exhibition language often fails because a writer is trying to persuade before understanding the measurements. Correcting the sentence does not require dull writing. A calm, vivid sentence can be accurate: ‘At the tested screen position, the lens formed a clear, inverted image of the letter.’ That sentence lets the reader picture an actual result and leaves room for a good explanation.
English, Mathematics and Science meet at this point, but each has a different task. Physics determines whether an image is real and how a lens can form it. Mathematics calculates sizes and limits from the given geometry. English decides which ideas a visitor can follow and which words oversell the evidence. We will not re-teach the optics or the equations. Instead, we will learn to carry their findings into accurate language.
A precise place in the 2027 SEC English syllabus
The first Singapore–Cambridge Secondary Education Certificate examination takes place in 2027. The official SEAB G3 directory, updated on 26 October 2026, identifies G3 English Language as K300 (formerly O-Level 1184). The K300 English Language syllabus assesses Writing, Comprehension, Listening and Oral Communication. Paper 1 Writing is 1 hour 50 minutes and worth 35%. Paper 2 Comprehension is 1 hour 50 minutes and worth 35%. Paper 3 Listening is approximately 45 minutes and worth 10%. Paper 4 Oral Communication is approximately 20 minutes, including preparation, and worth 20%.
These examination components reward different responses to language. A visual text in Comprehension asks the candidate to interpret how words and presentation create meaning. Situational Writing in Paper 1 requires purpose, audience and context to shape a coherent response. Spoken Interaction asks a learner to explain and respond thoughtfully. Short captions in a classroom exhibition are not themselves a separate SEC paper or a prediction of an official task. They are practical practice in evidence, editing, audience and the difference between what a sentence states and what it merely suggests.
Where official examination details matter, the registered syllabus and paper instructions control them. This guide uses invented school displays and fictional test results, not reports of actual students. Any model answer labelled ‘visitor text’ is an example for learning, not a claim that SEAB uses this exact wording.
Where the earlier owners stop and this guide begins
Start with Physics Volume 0476 for the distinction between a focused real screen image and a merely bright patch. Use Mathematics Volume 0477 for similar triangles, inverse size calculations and screen-fit inequalities. This English guide will cite those ideas only when a caption must express them faithfully. It does not become a second Physics or Mathematics lesson.
The canonical Volume 0474 on comparative reviews teaches weighing two options in a sustained evaluation. Volume 0400 on explaining unseen diagrams teaches guiding a reader through a figure they cannot see. Volume 0460 on laboratory evidence writing explains observation and inference in a report. Here the new problem is short-form publication: a few lines on an exhibit label that must remain accurate when separated from the full laboratory notebook.
That separation is the difficulty. In a notebook, a table may give the conditions on the preceding page. A visitor sees the headline and two sentences. A caption must carry enough context to avoid misleading that reader while remaining short enough to be read at a glance.
Four parts of a reliable caption
A useful caption often has a subject, an action, an observed result and a boundary. The subject says what was tested: ‘our classroom projector’ is more informative than ‘technology’. The action tells what happened: ‘a lens formed an image’ is clearer than ‘light magic occurred’. The result gives the important finding: ‘the printed letter appeared inverted on the screen’. The boundary states the condition when it matters: ‘with the screen at the recorded focus position’. These are ingredients, not a fixed four-sentence formula.
Most captions do not need to explain every mechanism. If the question on the wall asks ‘Why is it upside down?’, the writer can add one sentence about ray geometry. If the wall asks ‘Which design will fit the display?’, use the screen measurement and a clear comparison. One caption should not try to become the entire laboratory report. A short text becomes helpful when it does one job well and links naturally to the next question.
The word ‘accurate’ includes more than correct spelling. It means the visitor will not be led to infer a larger result than the evidence permits. A picture can be clear but the wording deceptive. For example, ‘We measured a perfect focus’ implies an unrealistic standard. ‘The letters were clearest near 29 cm in our test’ says what was actually judged.
Verbs carry the burden of certainty
Consider the verbs ‘showed’, ‘suggested’, ‘proved’ and ‘guaranteed’. The writer who says ‘the readings suggest’ leaves room for uncertainty; the writer who says ‘the trial proved’ claims a much stronger relationship. Sometimes ‘showed’ is entirely justified, such as when the screen visibly captured an inverted image. But ‘showed that this lens will work for every visitor’ changes the scope. It moves from the observed image to a promise about future situations.
Good qualifiers should be precise, not merely timid. Writing ‘maybe a possible image might perhaps have formed’ hides the result behind unnecessary hesitation. A better sentence draws a line between what is secure and what is not: ‘An image formed on the screen. We did not test whether the fine print could be read at the farthest viewing position.’ The first claim is direct. The second gives a real limitation.
Another important difference is between a cause and a coincidence. A class sees a sharper image after moving the screen. If the object or lighting also changed, the caption should not say that screen movement alone caused the improvement. The experiment may support that conclusion only when the relevant conditions were controlled. English can keep a scientific explanation honest even when the vocabulary is simple.
Twenty-eight original caption-editing clinics
Each clinic starts with a misleading sentence or an incomplete communication problem. Read the first sentence as if you were a visitor. Ask what you would be led to believe. Then compare the proposed revision and explanation. The exercises deliberately vary: some concern scientific certainty, others concern pronouns, numbers, instructions, captions next to diagrams, audience, attribution or the difference between a planned action and a completed test.
01 — Replace impossible universality
Before: ‘This lens always makes everything appear bigger.’
After: ‘In this arrangement, the projected letter appeared larger than the source letter.’
The revision names a tested object and arrangement. A converging lens can produce real images that are larger, equal in size or smaller, and it can produce a virtual image in the appropriate arrangement. The word ‘always’ makes the original caption false even though the class saw enlargement once.
What to remember: The habit: attach a result to its actual conditions.
02 — Do not call an inverted image a fault
Before: ‘The projector made a mistake and turned our letter upside down.’
After: ‘The focused real image was inverted, as expected from the ray construction.’
The first version gives the equipment a human intention and labels a normal optical outcome a malfunction. The revision names the observation and gives a modest explanation. If the visitor needs more detail, direct the reader to a separate ray sketch rather than trying to insert an entire Physics lesson into one caption.
What to remember: The habit: describe before evaluating.
03 — Separate brightness from legibility
Before: ‘The bright image was perfectly focused.’
After: ‘The screen was bright, but the small letters became clearest when we moved it near the recorded focus position.’
Brightness is a visual property; resolving fine detail is another. A visitor may otherwise assume that a bright patch was an adequately focused picture. The revised sentence preserves both observations without pretending that one establishes the other.
What to remember: The habit: do not let one desirable adjective stand in for a different measured outcome.
04 — Make the distance meaningful
Before: ‘The best position was 29.’
After: ‘The letters were clearest with the screen about 29 cm from the marked lens reference.’
A bare number has no unit and no measured endpoints. The revision supplies the unit, object and approximation without claiming millimetre precision. If the apparatus measured from the holder rather than from the optical centre, the caption should say that rather than silently substituting a more convenient origin.
What to remember: The habit: every reported measurement needs a quantity, unit and relevant reference.
05 — Write the comparison basis
Before: ‘Our new picture is 200% better.’
After: ‘The projected letter was twice as tall as the source letter in the tested arrangement.’
‘Better’ is undefined: it could mean larger, sharper, brighter or easier to read. ‘Twice as tall’ names the dimension and comparator. It does not imply improved focus. The original percentage could also confuse readers about whether the new height is 200% of the original or has increased by 200%.
What to remember: The habit: name what was compared, not just the impressive number.
06 — Keep a source’s statement attributed
Before: ‘All visitors could read the text clearly.’
After: ‘Three of four visitors in the short trial said they could read the smaller letters from the marked position.’
This tells the reader who supplied the judgement, how many responses were recorded and where the test took place. It avoids changing a subjective reported result into an objective universal property. The sample is small, so a responsible caption should not use it to promise population-wide readability.
What to remember: The habit: a report about people needs a visible source and scope.
07 — The screen really did move
Before: ‘The lens automatically corrected the blurry image.’
After: ‘We moved the screen until the printed edges became easier to distinguish.’
The change was made by a learner. The passive word ‘automatically’ misattributes the action and gives the device a capability not tested. If the writer wants to explain the mechanism, a follow-up sentence can say that the focused real image forms at a particular plane. The caption should first record the actual intervention.
What to remember: The habit: preserve agency, not merely grammatical smoothness.
08 — Avoid a false guarantee
Before: ‘This display is completely safe for every age.’
After: ‘The display is supervised. Visitors should follow the teacher’s instructions and avoid touching the optical equipment.’
One demonstration does not establish universal safety. A safety message should tell people what to do under the actual arrangements. This revised notice does not claim a formal certification. Where institutional requirements exist, the teacher and school remain responsible for deciding and publishing approved instructions.
What to remember: The habit: instructions need observable actions, not promises of zero risk.
09 — Correct an inaccurate tense
Before: ‘The class has tested twelve images’ when only two trials are complete.
After: ‘The class has completed two trials and plans to test ten more arrangements.’
The completed and planned actions now occupy different grammatical spaces. The original perfect tense implies that evidence already exists for all twelve. This distinction matters whenever a school announces a pilot activity or a preliminary result.
What to remember: The habit: keep planned, attempted, completed and verified separate.
10 — Restore the missing condition
Before: ‘The card gives a sharp image.’
After: ‘The card showed a sharp image when it was placed at the focus position used for this object.’
A display label often sits beside movable equipment. Without the condition, a reader may expect sharpness wherever the screen is placed. The revision is still readable but protects against a misleading generalisation about a position-dependent result.
What to remember: The habit: include the condition that changes the truth of the claim.
11 — A result is not a promise
Before: ‘Everyone will see a clear letter.’
After: ‘A clear image was obtained on the test screen; visitor readability will be checked during the supervised demonstration.’
The trial established an image under one arrangement. It did not establish the viewing experience of every future visitor. The future-tense promise is replaced by a completed statement and a planned test. That does not weaken the project; it tells visitors what is known and what remains to be checked.
What to remember: The habit: avoid projecting yesterday’s result onto an untested future.
12 — A pronoun without an owner
Before: ‘It was too large, so we moved it.’
After: ‘The projected letter was too large for the screen, so we moved the screen to test another arrangement.’
Two occurrences of ‘it’ leave the reader uncertain whether the letter, lens or screen was too large or was moved. Clear nouns reduce cognitive effort. An accurate caption is usually shorter after its referents are repaired because the reader no longer has to reread the sentence.
What to remember: The habit: revise pronouns that could attach to more than one object.
13 — A cropped picture is not complete
Before: ‘The entire word fitted on the screen’ when its final letter was cut off.
After: ‘Most of the word appeared on the screen, but the final letter was clipped.’
The source image may be visible enough for a guess, but the word ‘entire’ is disproved by the clipping. A good caption does not conceal an imperfection to protect the display. Instead, it tells the reader what happened and creates a clear next task: adjust the layout or use a smaller image.
What to remember: The habit: completeness is a fact, not a hopeful impression.
14 — Change a diagram caption’s viewpoint
Before: ‘The image is on the left’ without identifying who is looking.
After: ‘Viewed from the marked visitor position, the image appears to the left of the reference line.’
Spatial words depend on orientation. The revised caption fixes the observer’s position and a reference line. If the diagram is instead a plan view from above, say so. The correct viewpoint is a small detail with a large effect on a reader’s reconstruction of the setup.
What to remember: The habit: locate the reader before using left, right, above or behind.
15 — Do not disguise a hypothetical value
Before: ‘Our screen showed an image 7.2 cm high’ when the figure came only from a ratio calculation.
After: ‘The similar-triangle model predicts an image height of 7.2 cm for the specified distances.’
The revision does not present a calculated consequence as a measured observation. The difference is essential in school Science and in responsible public writing. A later practical trial may confirm or challenge the prediction, but the two kinds of evidence should remain separately labelled.
What to remember: The habit: say whether a number was given, calculated, predicted or measured.
16 — Keep a sample statistic honest
Before: ‘The average visitor could read the image’ when the class recorded only successful or unsuccessful responses.
After: ‘Seven of ten trial readers identified the displayed letter correctly from the marked position.’
A simple success count does not define an ‘average visitor’, and the original phrasing obscures the actual statistic. The revised sentence states the numerator, denominator and task. The class can compute a success rate if useful, but should still avoid claiming the sample represents every possible visitor.
What to remember: The habit: write a count as a count and a rate as a rate.
17 — An unsupported superlative
Before: ‘The world’s clearest student projector.’
After: ‘The clearest projection among the three arrangements we tested.’
The original requires evidence about an impossible comparison class for a small school experiment. The revision preserves a genuine comparison but tells the reader its boundary. If no consistent sharpness criterion was applied across the three arrangements, even this narrower label should be revised further.
What to remember: The habit: a superlative demands a defined set and a shared criterion.
18 — Repair the broken cause
Before: ‘The card became larger because the room was darker.’
After: ‘Dimming the room made the image easier to see; we did not measure a change in its physical size.’
Visibility and geometric size are different. Without a size measurement, the original ‘because’ claims a causal relationship that the trial has not demonstrated. The new text distinguishes a plausible illumination effect from a change in dimensions. This is a language repair with scientific consequences.
What to remember: The habit: do not let a convenient cause replace the variable actually observed.
19 — Keep negatives within scope
Before: ‘The lens cannot focus images’ because the class did not obtain a sharp image on its short bench.
After: ‘We did not obtain a focused image within the screen positions available on this bench.’
The original makes a universal negative claim from a limited test. The revised sentence records the real failure and the detection boundary. The missing result may reflect object position, alignment or insufficient screen travel rather than a defective lens.
What to remember: The habit: a test that fails within one range does not establish impossibility everywhere.
20 — Use the right audience register
Before: ‘Image distance v is directly proportional to image height h at fixed u and H.’
After: ‘With the source and its position unchanged, a greater distance from the lens to the focused image corresponds to a larger image in this simplified geometry.’
The first sentence can suit a notebook if its assumptions are supplied, but it is dense for a visiting younger child. The second retains the relationship and explicitly locates it within a simplified model. In a visitor caption, a concrete observation may work better still. Audience adaptation should change the wording, not the scientific claim.
What to remember: The habit: replace symbols with meaning when readers have not been taught the symbols.
21 — Put the exception next to the rule
Before: ‘Converging lenses make screen images.’
After: ‘A converging lens can form a real image on a screen for suitable object positions; other positions produce a virtual image instead.’
The broad original is not wholly false, but it leaves out a condition important enough to mislead. The revised version communicates the common case and its boundary in one compact sentence. It does not need to teach the entire five-case ray diagram to preserve truth.
What to remember: The habit: keep a decisive exception close to the main statement.
22 — Avoid borrowed authority
Before: ‘SEAB recommends this cardboard projector for examinations.’
After: ‘Our cardboard projector is an original classroom activity for practising ideas found in the G3 Physics syllabus.’
A learning activity can be syllabus-relevant without being officially recommended or set in an examination. The corrected caption respects the difference between a government syllabus and a school’s teaching exercise. A visitor can follow a link to the official syllabus if they need the examination’s actual scope.
What to remember: The habit: state accurately who owns a claim or recommendation.
23 — Replace a slogan with an observation
Before: ‘Optics changes everything!’
After: ‘Move the screen and watch the letter shift from blur to focus and back to blur.’
The new sentence tells the visitor what the station demonstrates. It has a natural rhythm without manufacturing scientific certainty. A slogan may attract attention but cannot serve as the only explanation when visitors need to know what to notice. An invitation to observe often works better than exaggerated praise.
What to remember: The habit: let the reader perform a small act of noticing.
24 — Repair punctuation and scope
Before: ‘We tested a lens that magnifies every letter, with a small screen.’
After: ‘We used a small screen to test whether this lens formed a larger image of the printed letter.’
The original relative clause suggests the lens magnifies every letter universally. The dangling placement of the screen also makes the sentence harder to parse. The revised main clause carries the purpose of the trial and narrows the claim to the specific item tested.
What to remember: The habit: place modifiers beside what they modify and use the main verb for the main job.
25 — A unit error has become prose
Before: ‘The projected height increased by 20 cm per second’ for a stationary screen image.
After: ‘The image was 20 cm tall in the stated arrangement.’
Centimetres per second is a rate, not a static height. The original caption may have imported a unit from an unrelated graph. An editor who checks the sentence’s physical meaning can catch a numerical mistake that a grammar-only proofread would miss.
What to remember: The habit: use unit meanings as a second language-editing test.
26 — Do not hide disagreement
Before: ‘Every observer agreed on the exact focal position’ when readers chose 29 and 30 cm.
After: ‘Observers found the image clearest between about 29 and 30 cm in repeated adjustments.’
The revision reports the range without pretending that a visually judged sharpness boundary is exact. If the readers used different conditions, the writer should also report that limitation. The honest result may be a range, and a range can be more useful for operating the station than one invented perfect number.
What to remember: The habit: if the data vary, choose language that preserves the variation.
27 — Comparison needs a shared task
Before: ‘Screen A was better than Screen B’ when different source letters were used.
After: ‘The two screens were not tested with the same source text, so this trial cannot establish which was more readable.’
The original conclusion asks the reader to ignore the changed task. A disciplined writer can say that the evidence is insufficient. This is not an admission that the entire lesson failed; it identifies precisely what must be controlled in the next comparison.
What to remember: The habit: state when evidence does not answer the intended question.
28 — Turn a command into a safe visitor instruction
Before: ‘Grab the lens and shine it wherever you like.’
After: ‘Please watch the supervised projection. Ask the teacher before moving the lens or screen.’
A public caption has a responsibility beyond being interesting. It should match the setting and actual supervision. We do not need to invent a technical danger, but instructions should not invite unpredictable manipulation of optical equipment or strong light sources. The final text is courteous, specific and easy for a child to follow.
What to remember: The habit: describe a permitted action rather than an exciting but uncontrolled one.
From notebook entry to public label: one complete example
Imagine the class notes say this: ‘Object: printed capital A. Object-to-lens: 40 cm. Screen moved from 20 to 55 cm from the lens reference. Clear inverted image judged at 40 cm on the screen side. Image height 3.0 cm; source height 3.0 cm. Two readers checked orientation, but small-text readability was not tested.’ This is useful raw information, although it may still require a diagram and more information about the setup. It is not yet a caption.
First decide the visitor’s question: ‘What do you see when a real image comes into focus?’ We do not need to display every reading from the notebook. The main finding is that the image was inverted and as tall as the source at the tested focus position. A public label could say: ‘At the tested position, this converging lens projected a sharp, upside-down image of the printed A. The projected letter measured about the same height as the original.’ If the equipment is movable under supervision, add a separate instruction: ‘Ask the teacher to show how moving the screen changes the sharpness.’
The full notebook can remain available as a secondary explanation or a teacher’s record. It would be misleading to write that the lens works perfectly at every position, that it has been certified for visitors or that the result predicts every student’s experience. Good selection is not the same as hiding a relevant limitation; it is choosing the facts the reader needs for the question being answered.
Editing against five questions
The first question is whether the subject of the sentence is clear. ‘It changes’ may be grammatical but useless if the reader cannot tell whether ‘it’ is the lens, image or screen. Replacing the pronoun with a noun is often the quickest improvement. The second question is whether the verb says exactly what happened. ‘Projected’ is a different claim from ‘appeared’, and ‘measured’ is different from ‘predicted’.
The third question is whether a number includes its basis. A caption that states ‘50% larger’ should indicate the size being compared, the previous quantity and the sense of ‘larger’. The fourth question is whether the sentence contains an unnecessary universal claim: always, never, perfectly, completely, all, guaranteed. Some universal claims are justified by definitions, but most classroom observations do not establish them.
The fifth question concerns the reader’s next step. Does the label answer the question a visitor is likely to have, or does it offer clever vocabulary without a usable idea? A strong caption can be read in seconds, remembered accurately and used to ask a better question. If the visitor could leave with a false impression, the writing is not finished.
Compare three captions written for three distinct readers
A younger visitor wants one concrete observation: ‘Watch the letter appear upside down when the screen is in the right place.’ This is accessible, but if the apparatus is not to be moved by visitors, the instruction should not invite handling. For an upper-secondary student, a fuller caption can say: ‘A focused real image forms where refracted rays meet; this is why the screen position matters.’ The second sentence carries a mechanism but still avoids unnecessary symbols.
A teacher evaluating the evidence may need: ‘A focused inverted image was judged at the recorded screen position for the stated object arrangement. The trial did not establish a readability threshold for all visitors.’ This version is less playful and more explicit about the limit. The claims are compatible, but the selection and vocabulary differ with audience. Audience adaptation should not turn a careful result into an unsupported boast.
A common examination weakness is to treat tone as a decoration added after content. Purpose, audience and context determine what information belongs in the answer from the beginning. In an email to a teacher, the writer may need an action and a reason. In a visitor caption, the writer needs a clear observation. In a formal report, the writer needs the conditions, results and limits. One topic can produce three good pieces of English because they are doing three different jobs.
Read an exhibit caption as a comprehension question
Now reverse the roles. The reader sees the claim: ‘Our new screen makes the text easier to read.’ Ask what evidence would support this. Did the writers measure error-free reading? Did the same visitors view both versions at the same distance? Did the text size change? Could ambient light or viewing angle explain part of the result? These questions distinguish what the caption asserts from what the available evidence could justify.
Next examine the implied audience. A promotional phrase like ‘Discover the secret of perfect vision’ suggests dramatic certainty. A scientific visitor label like ‘Why does a lens turn the projected letter upside down?’ invites inquiry. Neither form is automatically right for every purpose, but the words and layout affect the reader’s expectation. A G3 candidate analysing a visual text should identify the effect of specific choices rather than simply naming a technique and calling it persuasive.
Finally, evaluate a line that seems harmless: ‘We placed the screen at 40 cm.’ Does the sentence say from where? If the picture includes an unlabeled ruler, the reader may not know whether 40 cm refers to the object, lens holder or viewing platform. In comprehension, the most revealing question is often what a sentence leaves implicit. In writing, the repair is to supply the missing reference without turning the caption into a paragraph of laboratory procedure.
A short situational-writing application
Imagine the teacher asks you to draft a note for parents visiting the school learning fair. The note must explain the projector activity, one finding and an appropriate visitor instruction. A suitable opening is: ‘At the Science display, students will demonstrate how a converging lens can form a real image of a printed letter on a screen. During our classroom trial, the letter appeared inverted when the image was in focus.’ This is direct and specific.
Continue with the reason the reader should care: ‘The activity helps visitors see why both lens and screen position matter.’ Then provide the action: ‘Please let the student presenters handle the equipment and ask them to show you the focusing step.’ There is no need to claim the demonstration is a formal part of the SEC exam or that it proves a universal result about all lenses.
For an actual K300 situational-writing task, use the stimulus and instructions in the paper, not this sample as a fixed template. Check who is speaking, who is receiving the message, what the purpose is, which required points must be covered and what tone is appropriate. The value of this exercise is that it trains accurate transfer from evidence into purposeful prose.
A calm method for revision and self-checking
On the first practice day, highlight the verbs in six captions: measured, saw, predicted, proved, tested, recommended. For each, ask whether the evidence supports that precise verb. On the second day, highlight every number and underline its reference quantity. On the third, replace ambiguous pronouns. These small tasks isolate weaknesses that are easily hidden inside a long composition.
On the fourth day, take two accurate but long paragraphs and turn each into a two-sentence visitor label. On the fifth, read the edited label as if you knew nothing about the exhibit. What would you infer? If that inference is false, repair the wording. On the sixth, practise a short explanatory answer about the writer’s purpose and word choice. On the seventh, write one new label from a set of fictional results without consulting the earlier model.
Correction should be precise. It is not helpful to mark every sentence ‘be clearer’. Name the fault: missing unit, unsupported universal, changed denominator, wrong tense, weak attribution, ambiguous pronoun or unsuitable audience. The student can then revise one mechanism of error. That makes independent writing more reliable over time.
Follow the learning route
For official examination requirements, see SEAB’s 2027 G3 syllabus directory and K300 English Language. For the physical observation behind the captions, use Volume 0476. For the geometry and screen-fit numbers, use Volume 0477. For the distinct job of weighing competing options in a longer response, return to Volume 0474.
For a direct bridge from Primary English, the PSLE English revision guide and the PSLE Learning Guide help rebuild reading and sentence control. The Secondary English Learning Hub offers broader routes. The next EMS guide will bring the three new subject owners together to evaluate a fictional projector-station decision, checking that the Physics observation, Mathematics constraints and public wording all describe the same case.
Good editing removes the unnecessary claim without removing the interesting fact. The visitor should leave knowing what was seen, what that observation means and what still needs to be tested.
