Alright, a question arose at work today regarding a document I was writing some code based on. I can't give specifics for obvious reasons, but I'll try to describe the situation as best I can. My hunch is that the document needs some legal interpretation or a revision.

Anyway, this document never once says "you must do everything exactly as written." It has a major section that is divided into four subsections. Preceding the first of the subsections is a paragraph which briefly describes the subsections to follow. This paragraph says something to the effect of "we have a methodology. the methodology involves doing X by means of this kind of calculation. The methodology is detailed in the following [sub]sections." I call this "background information."

Each of the subsections has a bunch of variables which are defined at the beginning of the subsection. Some variables will be assigned via calculations which are detailed in that subsection. Previously used variable names are used in subsequent subsections for more calculations without defining at the beginning of the section what the variable means or how it is calculated. When such a variable is used, most of the time its use is followed by the phrase "as calculated (emphasis added) in Equation ##." However, in a very few cases, the variables are used and followed by the phrase "as defined above (emphasis added)."

And there is the question. We have numbers which we know are more accurate to be used in one of the "defined" variables. And the calculations for how to get these numbers for the variables are even specified in a previous section. But, this calculation would be different than the type of calculation alluded to in the "background information." So, could one legally interpret the document as allowing the use of a different calculation method in the "defined" instance? Is this an actual conflict in the document that has to be resolved? Or, is the background information legally binding in this instance, overriding the word "defined" and making it have to mean "as calculated previously"?




We are probably going to interpret it to mean "calculated" anyway so as to cover our asses, but the question of the binding nature of supplemental background information versus specific detailed information is something that I'm curious about. Any lawyers out there care to enlighten me?

5/1/2008 4:52:12 PM

The generalness of your post made this hard to absorb. Can you rewrite this as an alternate application so we can look at the process while obscuring the actual application?

5/1/2008 5:01:41 PM

Wat?

5/1/2008 8:25:28 PM

yeah, I'll try.

You've got a value, V, that you need to calculate about some object O. (Let's say V is the weight of gumballs in a container)

You've got two ways to calculate V: method A and method B.
Method A is a calculation which is based on a direct measurement of O. (Method A calculates the weight based on the counted number of gumballs in the container)
Method B is a calculation which is extrapolated from a measurement on a different, but related, object P. (Method B calculates the weight based on the deflection of a trampoline on which the container is placed)
Method A is far more accurate and reliable than method B.

There are two times when value V is needed. The first time, the only way to calculate it is to use method A. And, in the document, when it references value V for this, it says "as calculated via method A."

For the second time, we will always be able to calculate it via method B. occasionally we may have enough information to calculate V using method A. In the document, when it references value V, it says "as defined above." The definition corresponding to that variable is, effectively, "value V for object O." In the "above" section, it clearly uses method B to calculate V.

In an introduction to the various calculations, it says "the methodology uses method A to find V the first time and uses method B the second time." However, nowhere in this introduction does it say method B has to be used.

5/1/2008 8:28:19 PM

Ok. I think I understand what you're dealing with. I'm wondering how this is a legal issue.

5/5/2008 5:54:25 PM

perhaps the lack of precision is known, and already compensated for elsewhere.

5/5/2008 6:22:59 PM