1. Summary finding
Repair the unsupported assurances and supply a contact before the proposed publication. The notice clearly names a date, time, venue, and free entry. It does not support the seed guarantee or the broad accessibility claim, and its contact instruction cannot be followed.
This finding is limited to the fictional supplied text. It does not establish that an event exists, a venue is accessible, or the notice has been tested with readers.
2. What was examined
The four-line notice and three-line organizer note reproduced below. The example compares claims to the supplied information and checks whether the written next step is possible. No live website, contact route, venue, external records, or actual participants were examined.
3. Findings and repairs
F01 · Necessary correction · L02 / N01
The seed guarantee exceeds the supplied support.
Evidence: L02 promises seeds for everyone. N01 describes twenty packets and no attendance estimate or replenishment plan.
Why it matters: A reader may rely on a guarantee the organizer has not shown it can fulfill.
Repair: Replace the guarantee with a bounded availability statement, or provide evidence supporting a guarantee. Suggested wording: “Seed packets are available while supplies last.”
Recheck: Confirm that the final wording matches the organizer’s actual supply arrangements. No retest is recorded here.
F02 · Necessary correction + unresolved check · L03 / N02
The accessibility assurance is too broad.
Evidence: L03 says accessibility is fully assured; N02 only reports a step-free entrance.
Why it matters: The claim reaches beyond the information supplied. The evidence does not establish a broad accessibility conclusion.
Repair: Remove the broad assurance. Verify and describe specific access arrangements, identify a contact for questions, and disclose what remains unknown.
Recheck: Obtain the responsible venue’s information and an appropriate human review. This report is not an accessibility certification.
F03 · Necessary correction · L04 / N03
The next step has no destination.
Evidence: L04 asks readers to contact the organizer, while N03 states that no public contact has been selected.
Repair: Add one confirmed public reply route and identify who monitors it. Do not publish a fabricated address to complete the layout.
Recheck: Test a harmless message through that route and record receipt and reply. No test is claimed.
4. Repair checklist
Before the proposed publication: narrow the seed claim; replace the broad accessibility assurance with verified specifics and limits; and add a tested contact route. The organizer owns these actions.
Optional improvement: group the venue and contact details in a compact “Plan your visit” block. This is a presentation suggestion, not a condition established by the review.
5. Source record
All facts used in this example come from the fictional source text and note. Neither is evidence of a real event.
L01 Community Seed Swap — Saturday 10 October 2026, 10 am–noon. Maple Room, Example Community Center.
L02 Free entry. Seeds for everyone, guaranteed.
L03 Bring seeds or just come by. Accessibility is fully assured.
L04 Contact us for details.
N01 Entry is free. Twenty seed packets are available; there is no attendance estimate or replenishment plan.
N02 The organizer reports a step-free entrance. No other accessibility information has been provided.
N03 A public contact address has not yet been selected.
6. Limits, method, and next step
There was no client, human reviewer sign-off, live verification, reader test, venue visit, or retest. This demonstration uses the proposed service-report structure; it is not claimed as a complete v1.5, v1.7.1, or v0.4.0 protocol run.
A real report would record its exact operating packet, reviewer, permissions, assistance, scope agreement, and evidence. The next step in this fictional case is for the organizer to repair the notice and request a defined recheck.
To question this example or identify a mistake, use the Institute’s correction route and name TLRI-AR-EXAMPLE-001, v1.0. Real client reports use their agreed private correction contact. Correcting a report error is not the same as commissioning a new review.