Direct textual support
The identified text expressly describes the element under the stated assumptions.
FICTIONAL WORKED EXAMPLE / NO CLIENT DATA
Follow the evidence.
See what is missing.
An executive summary and technical appendix for the same decision. Every claim, source excerpt and revision below is invented solely to demonstrate the report format.
Download the fictional report as text ↓Not a patent assessment
This example uses no real patent, product, 3GPP document or release. It makes no essentiality, infringement, validity or client-outcome claim. Fictional source identifiers must never be reused as technical citations.
01 / The decision summary
Question: Does the invented claim merit a complete standards chart on the evidence shown?
Recommendation: Do not treat the mapping as complete. One element has direct support in the fictional text, one is conditional, and one has no identified support. Resolve the third element before expanding the work.
Decision consequence: Agree a narrow follow-up source search. Product evidence is a separate question; nothing here shows an actual device implements the claimed behaviour.
Scope and assumptions
- One invented independent claim, split into three elements.
- Two invented revisions of the same example source. These are not 3GPP releases.
- No external searching, dependent claims, product testing or legal interpretation performed.
- The wording is intentionally simplified to make the reasoning inspectable.
02 / The source register
In an actual commissioned report, each source entry would identify the real document, release, full version, date and stable location. These entries demonstrate that structure without inventing real citations.
| Identifier | Revision | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| EXAMPLE-SOURCE | A, version 1.0 | Invented clauses 4.1 and 4.2; baseline procedure. |
| EXAMPLE-SOURCE | B, version 2.0 | Invented clauses 4.1 and 4.2; expanded condition for recording. |
03 / The mapping worksheet
Read across each row: element, source, reasoning, dependency and next action. A contextual similarity is not silently upgraded to support.
| Element | Fictional source text | Reasoning and support label | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|
| E1: Receive configuration C before the procedure begins. | EXAMPLE-SOURCE A v1.0, §4.1: “The device receives configuration C before starting the procedure.” | Direct textual support. Both receipt and ordering appear expressly in this invented sentence. | In real work, confirm the applicable claim interpretation and full surrounding source text. |
| E2: Record event R after receiving C. | EXAMPLE-SOURCE A v1.0, §4.2: “When feature F is enabled, the device records event R after receipt of C.” | Conditional support. The source requires feature F; the invented claim wording does not express that condition. Support cannot be assumed for all configurations. | Determine whether feature F is part of the intended analysis scope and whether any alternate procedure applies. |
| E3: Delete the record exactly 10 milliseconds later. | No matching provision in the fictional source set. A general reference to record management contains no timing requirement. | No support identified. Do not infer the specific delay from general record management. | Run a scoped search for the timing condition. Keep the element unresolved if evidence is not found. |
04 / Compare revisions without losing conditions
| Question | Example A v1.0 | Example B v2.0 | Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| E1 ordering | Explicit | Same invented wording | No change in the example support. |
| E2 condition | Feature F must be enabled | Invented §4.2 says: “The device records R after receipt of C.” | The stated condition is removed in this example; inspect the whole procedure before reaching a real finding. |
| E3 timing | No support identified | No support identified | Neither revision completes the invented mapping. |
05 / Keep the evidence labels meaningful
Conditional support
The correspondence depends on a feature, configuration or interpretation that must be recorded.
No support identified
The in-scope material does not establish the element. This does not prove no source exists elsewhere.
Implementation evidence needed
A separate product question remains. None of these labels establishes actual product behaviour.
06 / A practical next step
- Confirm the selected claim wording and review assumptions with the commissioning team.
- Search the agreed source set for E3; record search boundaries and any unresolved result.
- Revisit the E2 configuration condition before choosing a revision for deeper work.
- Only then decide whether a complete chart or separate product-evidence plan is justified.
No confidence percentage is assigned: this example demonstrates reasoning, not a validated scoring system.
Discuss your review scope ↗