What would you expect to happen if you submitted a correction?
Optional short open textTest the intended replacement rule without treating every repeat as abuse.Survey testing and reporting / Survey guide
Survey methods · Decision workshop
Choose an inclusion rule for survey resubmissions
Separate repeated submissions from distinct respondents using an explicit eligibility and revision rule.
Opens product registration. Example questions are not imported automatically.
DESIGN THE ANSWER SPACE
Where should the invitation explain whether another submission replaces the first?
Optional short open textLocate the disclosure needed before participation, not after a report dispute.What would you need to know before allowing a submission to be linked to an earlier one?
Optional short open textCheck understanding of linkage without collecting an identifying value in this pilot.Suggested formats to adapt, not preconfigured product fields.
A worked interpretation example
From a comment to a practical next step.
Illustrative scenario. These are not customer results.
Keep the finding specific
Four rows reconcile to two included known respondent records, one superseded row and one unresolved row.
Choose an action to test
Write the unit and permitted linkage rule before counting; document unresolved cases separately.
Check the experience again
Use fabricated repeat cases in the next pilot and ask whether readers can explain replacement and unresolved identity.
Read the answers carefully
Keep the interpretation within the evidence
Similar answers do not prove duplicate respondents. Identity, permission to link, eligibility and counted unit must be established separately.
Under the stated latest-eligible-version rule, two known respondent records contribute; one earlier version is superseded and one unknown identity remains unresolved.
From question to next step
Make the feedback useful.
Run the pilot
Before collection, show volunteers a fabricated correction scenario and the intended replacement notice.
Choose a bounded action
Write the unit and permitted linkage rule before counting; document unresolved cases separately.
Check the revision
Use fabricated repeat cases in the next pilot and ask whether readers can explain replacement and unresolved identity.
A useful starting point
Optional free-text pilot questions
A synthetic report contains two eligible submissions from volunteer A, one from B and one row with unknown respondent identity. A declared policy keeps each known respondent’s latest eligible submission before the cutoff.
If nothing was unclear or difficult, say so. Skip questions about steps you did not experience; use not applicable where appropriate.
What would you expect to happen if you submitted a correction?
Test the intended replacement rule without treating every repeat as abuse.
Where should the invitation explain whether another submission replaces the first?
Locate the disclosure needed before participation, not after a report dispute.
What would you need to know before allowing a submission to be linked to an earlier one?
Check understanding of linkage without collecting an identifying value in this pilot.
What would you do if you were unsure whether your correction was received?
Find uncertainty about the process rather than asking for real response content.
If nothing was unclear or difficult, say so. Skip questions about steps you did not experience; use not applicable where appropriate. What would you expect to happen if you submitted a correction? Where should the invitation explain whether another submission replaces the first? What would you need to know before allowing a submission to be linked to an earlier one? What would you do if you were unsure whether your correction was received?
Download the questions as text ↓
Examples to adapt, rather than a validated research instrument.
Choose the response format
Make room for the explanation.
| Question | Suggested format | What to preserve |
|---|---|---|
| What would you expect to happen if you submitted a correction? | Optional short open text | Test the intended replacement rule without treating every repeat as abuse. |
| Where should the invitation explain whether another submission replaces the first? | Optional short open text | Locate the disclosure needed before participation, not after a report dispute. |
| What would you need to know before allowing a submission to be linked to an earlier one? | Optional short open text | Check understanding of linkage without collecting an identifying value in this pilot. |
| What would you do if you were unsure whether your correction was received? | Optional short open text | Find uncertainty about the process rather than asking for real response content. |
Make questions optional where appropriate. If you add a rating scale, label its endpoints, keep one idea per question, and retain a follow-up for reasons. These examples are not a validated measurement instrument.
Before you send it
Check what your wording assumes.
Why did you submit an unwanted duplicate?
What would you expect to happen if you submitted a correction?
The pilot asks about a replacement expectation without assuming a repeat is unwanted or a duplicate.
Build with SurveyTeams
Adapt these pilot questions in SurveyTeams
Use these examples to draft your questionnaire. Create a survey draft, add questions, and check the respondent preview in SurveyTeams. Additional features depend on your account and plan.
Create your survey in SurveyTeams
Opens product registration. Example questions are not imported automatically.
Learn about the product ↗Run a focused feedback cycle
Plan the invitation, review and follow-up.
When and whom to ask
Before collection, show volunteers a fabricated correction scenario and the intended replacement notice.
Who reviews the finding
The survey owner defines the unit; the data reviewer checks the version and cutoff ledger.
What to check after a change
Use fabricated repeat cases in the next pilot and ask whether readers can explain replacement and unresolved identity.
Handle responses carefully
Keep real identifiers out of this exercise. Explain any real linkage separately and retain optional participation.
A practical decision workshop
Inspect the example before choosing a rule
Trace an invented case, preserve the evidence limits, then adapt the manual worksheet to your own decision.
Version comparison viewer
Keep the draft and its correction visible
Draft or earlier version · review its limits
Four rows are four distinct respondents.
Revised example · limits retained
Under the stated latest-eligible-version rule, two known respondent records contribute; one earlier version is superseded and one unknown identity remains unresolved.
| Review boundary | Draft to review | Revised example |
|---|---|---|
| Unit | Submission row | Known respondent with eligible version |
| Unknown identity | Assumed new person | Separate unresolved row |
Wide tables scroll sideways on small screens.
Synthetic example · not customer data
Inspect the records
| Synthetic respondent | Submission | Timing | Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | v1 | Before cutoff | Superseded |
| A | v2 | Before cutoff | Include |
| B | v1 | Before cutoff | Include |
| Unknown | u1 | Before cutoff | Unresolved identity |
Wide tables scroll sideways on small screens.
Download records (.csv) · Download complete decision kit (.json)
Decision explorer
Choose an evidence situation
This returns a written example explanation. It does not inspect your records or approve a real report.
Read every situation without the interactive tool
- Identity, eligibility and cutoff are known
- Apply the stated latest-version rule and retain the superseded row in the audit.
- Repeated participation is an intended separate event
- Define the event unit instead of deduplicating by person.
- Identity or permission to link is unavailable
- Do not infer duplication from similar answers.
Before you send it
Questions, answered.
Should every repeated answer be deleted?
No. Repeated events may be intended, and similarity does not prove a shared respondent.
Can an unknown row be counted as a new person?
Its identity is unknown; keep that limitation visible instead of asserting a distinct respondent.
Will the example import or configure a results view?
No. Copy the optional text prompts into a manual draft. Tables, coding rules and comparisons are separate educational worksheets; check supported product features in your account.
Continue exploring