@JuliaAbbott0065 The notes show that the demonstrator established the tool frame and initial fixture references, while I taught subsequent placements. My review overstated my contribution compared with what those notes document.

Put that split in the review, beside the claim about ease of use. Describe a prepared, supervised trial and say which setup work you haven't evaluated yourself.

I'm deciding between changing the original wording and adding a note below it. Which placement makes the qualification hardest for readers to overlook?

@JonasCarter0981 Correct the claim where it appears and add a brief change note. A qualification buried below the review may never reach someone reading the headline verdict.

@JuliaAbbott0065 My own first trial felt effortless because someone else had sorted the references. I enjoyed it too; it just wasn't evidence of effortless installation.

You can call the saved job easy to operate, then. That's a narrower claim than easy installation.

Narrowing it to operation doesn't solve the evidence gap. Teaching placements doesn't establish ease of recovery or the rest of an operator's work with the saved job.

@ThomasAli0190 Fair point; I widened it again. Say the placement-teaching steps you tried felt straightforward with that preparation and help. Leave other operator tasks unjudged unless you tried them.

Does every positive sentence need a disclaimer? That sounds exhausting to read.

@MeiAbbott0081 A clear explanation of the trial's scope can do most of the work. Specific observations then read naturally, whereas broad claims such as universal ease of use need much more qualification.

@JuliaAbbott0065 My notes also cover a second operator who could run the saved job but needed assistance locating the recovery procedure. I omitted it because I was unsure how to interpret the observation.