usnistgov / CastVoteRecords

Common data format specification for cast vote records
https://pages.nist.gov/CastVoteRecords
Other
20 stars 2 forks source link

CVRSnapshot.Type has conflicting descriptions #31

Open raylutz opened 3 years ago

raylutz commented 3 years ago

Organization Name: CitizensOversight.org

Organization Type: 2

Document (e.g., CastVoteRecords): CastVoteRecords

Reference (Include section and paragraph number): 4.14 vs. 4.34

Comment (Include rationale for comment): Text at 4.14 says " Type specifies the type of the snapshot, i.e., whether interpreted by the scanner according to contest rules, modified as a result of adjudication, or the original, that is, the version initially scanned before contest rules are applied."

This implies that 'modified' == 'adjudicated' and 'interpreted' = 'after rules are applied'

But in section 4.34, type definitions say 'interpreted' == 'adjudicated' 'modified' == 'after contest rules are applied'

which is the reverse.

Suggested Change: It appears that the text in section 4.34 is incorrect.

It is also unclear if multiple "modified" records can exist, and how one is to tell the difference.

It is too bad that it appears that it is necessary to revise the original CVR snapshot so that it is no longer marked as current when a modified (adjudicated) record is added. It would have been better to simply number them, and it would be necessary to then use the highest number as current, thereby allowing multiple adjudications without the requirement to modify each prior record to create a new record, which violates the goal of immutability.

The same is true for "needs adjudication" but it is not clear. Is 'needs adjudication' something that is modified in the original, once a 'modified' cvr snapshot is added? Is it the case that if the status is not 'needs adjudication' then it does not need adjudication? This should be explained.


Organization Type: 1 = Federal, 2 = Industry, 3 = Academia, 4 = Self, 5 = Other