# Qualitative coding decision worksheet

This example documents a proposed editorial response to actual recognition disagreements. It is not a validated research codebook or a finding about the speaker. The original wording has not been independently established.

Source: Library of Congress archive identifier ncr002360. Audio: https://stream-media.loc.gov/afc/buckaroos/afc1991021_017.mp3 . Run configuration and exact selected records: /data/qualitative-coding-record.json .

| Passage | Observed draft disagreement | Proposed code | Inclusion condition | Current editorial decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A-tiny.en cue 8 / B-small.en cue 9 | winter muckus / Winnemucca | Named commuting destination | Independently checked place wording in context | Withhold place attribution; retain both candidates |
| A-tiny.en cue 12 / B-small.en cue 13 | So do you / Why did you | Reason for moving | Checked question and relevant answer | Review question before interpreting answer |
| A-tiny.en cue 5 / B-small.en cue 6 | swathe / swather with different surrounding wording | Specific machine activity | Checked noun and exchange | Leave machine-specific label pending |

Reviewer:

Independent wording reference:

Resolution and amended transcript version:

Revision date:

Keep these empty fields until checked. Keep interpretation separate from the transcript. A machine segment number is meaningful only with its run version.