# Opening promise review

Complete original constructed examples. No real people, customers, outcomes or account actions.

## O1

**Source**

A local note lists 27 saved research links. Nine were reviewed; two of those were unavailable. No readership or customer measurement exists.

**Body**

I reviewed nine of 27 saved research links. Two of the nine were unavailable when checked. My next step is to preserve the useful source context before reusing a claim. This is a review log, not a complete literature survey.

- Candidate 1: I checked nine saved sources; two could not be verified.
- Candidate 2: Most research links are broken.
- Candidate 3: This method doubled my audience.

**Three other valid approaches to the same body**

- I checked nine saved research links; two were unavailable.
- What happened when I checked nine saved research links?
- Before reusing a claim, I will preserve the source context.

**Selected candidate: 1**

**Reason**

The first opening preserves the reviewed subset and the unresolved state; the others invent generality or an audience outcome.

## O2

**Source**

A public demonstration file now has five descriptive page headings. No assistive-technology or reader test has happened.

**Body**

I added descriptive headings to five pages of the demonstration document. I still need to inspect the reading order and test the relevant reading task. The change alone does not establish complete accessibility.

- Candidate 1: My document is now accessible to everyone.
- Candidate 2: Five pages now have descriptive headings; the reading test is next.
- Candidate 3: The secret every creator needs.

**Selected candidate: 2**

**Reason**

The selected opening describes an implemented change and the open test rather than a universal result or empty teaser.

## O3

**Source**

A draft offers a public checklist, but its linked destination has not been checked. No available download is established.

**Body**

The checklist draft covers source identity, observation time and missing values. Its public download is not verified yet. I am sharing the review criteria here, not an available tool.

- Candidate 1: Download the working tool now.
- Candidate 2: These three checks belong in my draft before I share a tool.
- Candidate 3: Everyone who tries this gets better results.

**Selected candidate: 2**

**Reason**

The opening does not promise access or outcomes that the evidence cannot establish.


Limits: the local checker verifies explicit arithmetic, file identity and some structural conditions. It does not judge the truth of private notes, language, fair context, permission or effectiveness.