Research repository onboarding test
===================================

StatMedAnalysis | Original downloadable worksheet | 6 November 2026

Check that a new collaborator can understand and run the public project instructions.

How to use this worksheet
Ask a reader unfamiliar with the repository to locate its purpose, inputs, environment
and execution steps. Use synthetic or openly licensed inputs for the test. Record the
first point of confusion before providing help. Revise the README and repeat the task
from a clean start.

Save a working copy and keep the original blank version. Use public, hypothetical or
aggregate information only; do not enter patient identifiers, credentials or confidential
records. Keep source evidence in your approved project workspace. Mark unresolved text
fields UNKNOWN or NOT REPORTED with a reason; never substitute zero for an unknown count.

Project/version __________________  Prepared by role/date __________________

Working fields
1. Intended reader and repository revision
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

2. Research question and output location
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

3. Required input access conditions
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

4. Environment setup instructions
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

5. Execution order and expected runtime
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

6. Expected example output
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

7. Reader failure or ambiguity
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

8. Documentation revision and retest
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

Hypothetical worked case
A fictional README says run the analysis but omits a required configuration file. The
author can run it from memory; the new-reader test exposes the missing instruction
without relying on that memory.

Decision rule and limitations
Publish instructions only after the stated workflow can be followed with the declared
inputs and dependencies. Clearly distinguish reproducible public examples from
restricted-data analyses.

Decision _______________________  Remaining uncertainty ____________________
Next action ____________________  Owner / review date ______________________
Independent check and discrepancy resolution _______________________________

Official method or reporting reference checked 6 November 2026
https://book.the-turing-way.org/

This is an original planning aid, not an official checklist, validated instrument,
clinical recommendation or certificate of expert approval. Apply the referenced
guidance to the specific design and record any additional requirements.