fwiw the natural way I parsed this sentence was as claiming that in SFF that each evaluator has to look at all applications, and indeed give them a comprehensive look. I now think you’re trying to say that in SFF each evaluator has to look at all applications, which is itself comprehensive, and you’re requiring neither that evaluators look at all applications, nor that any given application get a comprehensive treatment
Every evaluator is supposed to skim/familiarize themselves with every application
Every application gets investigated by at least one evaluator (where investigation involves writing at least some notes, and at one point involved giving some positive or negative feedback)
I think this is reasonably well described by “evaluators need to look comprehensively at all applications”, but happy about rewordings that are clearer to you.
Sure, I don’t personally feel that strongly—mostly I was trying to intercept a potential miscommunication and registering how I initially parsed it. I think squidging those two claims into one statement is kind of hard. Maybe: “for all applications to get a comprehensive evaluation, or for every evaluator to look at every application”?
fwiw the natural way I parsed this sentence was as claiming that in SFF that each evaluator has to look at all applications, and indeed give them a comprehensive look. I now think you’re trying to say that in SFF each evaluator has to look at all applications, which is itself comprehensive, and you’re requiring neither that evaluators look at all applications, nor that any given application get a comprehensive treatment
My understanding is:
Every evaluator is supposed to skim/familiarize themselves with every application
Every application gets investigated by at least one evaluator (where investigation involves writing at least some notes, and at one point involved giving some positive or negative feedback)
I think this is reasonably well described by “evaluators need to look comprehensively at all applications”, but happy about rewordings that are clearer to you.
Sure, I don’t personally feel that strongly—mostly I was trying to intercept a potential miscommunication and registering how I initially parsed it. I think squidging those two claims into one statement is kind of hard. Maybe: “for all applications to get a comprehensive evaluation, or for every evaluator to look at every application”?
Good enough, edited!