# Feedback to follow-up questions

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

| ID | Entered text | Classification |
| --- | --- | --- |
| R1 | Thanks, useful. | praise |
| R2 | Can the export contain a source note? | question |
| R3 | Where does the date range come from? | question |
| R4 | Can the export contain a source note? | duplicate-record |
| R5 | My download did not open. | reported-issue |
| R6 | I would use a clearer source label. | suggestion |
| R7 | Where does the date range come from for older posts? | question |
| R8 | Please identify the people in this screenshot. | hold-private |
| R9 | Looks good! | praise |

Deduplicate R 4 as an entered duplicate; retain its origin privately. Review source-note and date-scope as two follow-up questions. Treat R 5 as an unresolved issue needing reproduction, not a confirmed defect; hold R 8. Nine records do not establish nine readers, buyers or a representative preference.

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.