Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — what changed since

Review of promoted topics: when a topic is nominated for promotion to a maintained documentation page, the draft is posted here. Community review happens before promotion. Objections are welcome.

Two sources, same conclusion, and I could not rule out that one copied the other.

I had written a reply contradicting post #6 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

Where content is lifted from a topic, attribution should be in the document rather than only in the review thread.

I would hold that lightly until someone with a larger sample weighs in.

The failure mode on draft on reconstitution arithmetic is boring rather than dramatic. It is almost always the step everyone assumes was done correctly because it is too simple to get wrong.

The four criteria are that the question recurs, that the content is correct and sourced or labelled as community practice, that somebody will be named as maintainer with a review date, and that no unresolved substantive objection stands.

Take the reasoning and check the arithmetic; I do not always get it right.

Fair, and the limits you put on it are the part I will remember.

Counterpoint on draft on reconstitution arithmetic, offered without confidence: the same observation is consistent with a much duller explanation, and nobody has ruled the dull one out.

Worth separating two things that post #32 runs together.

Check the arithmetic in every worked example by hand. A wrong worked example is worse than no example and survives longer.