CDR Tickets

Just a pointer for future requests: it's always safer to provide a list of specific changes than to hope I'll find all the differences between one complete letter and an earlier version of that letter.

The advice offered in the previous comment is particularly applicable for requests which are described as involving "a few small changes." Also, itemizing the specific changes has the additional advantage of avoiding unintended discrepancies being inadvertently introduced (and making it clear when minor discrepancies which might appear to have been unintended are actually intentional). For example: as far as I can tell, the only changes represented for the three mailers in the "Correspondence Letter Response Form Changes ..." file are rewording of the "Please send ..." sentence and the addition of the "Please complete the information below" sentence to the "I am willing to accept ..." option - except, that in the third mailer that added sentence is enclosed within parentheses, whereas in the other two it is not. Is this discrepancy really intentional? (I would vote for using the parentheses in all three mailers; it's odd enough even with the parentheses to have a sentence ostensibly asserted by the board member followed by a sentence which is addressed to that board member, looking as if that board member were asking NCI to "complete the information below"; the parentheses would go at least a little way toward indicating a change of voice.)

Another discrepancy which was probably unintentional was "Please complete information below" versus "Please complete the information below"; should the definite article be used for all mailers, or do you really want the wording to be different for that sentence?

I see that there are other differences for the member invitation letter, dropping some of the lines from the board member information form. Do the lines being dropped include the "I would like to join the following genetics working groups ..." block?

I see that my most recent question has been answered in the second attachment.

Another puzzling discrepancy: what is the reason that the genetics invitation letter keeps the second home address line, but the same letter drops that line for the other boards?

Sorry for the confusion. I'll review these attachments and provide a list of the changes.

Hi Bob,

I'm attaching a list delineating the specific changes to each of the Ed Board letters. We're making a lot of the same changes to multiple letters but I listed them by letter since I think that's how you need to do the work.

Thank you!
Robin

I removed the old attachments to (hopefully) avoid confusion. Just let me know if you have any questions.

I think I got everything. I'm sure your eagle-eyed review will catch anything I missed, though. 🙂

The last line of the response form for the Adult invitation letter (CDR424400-Adult) is not indented but everything else is. Please indent this last line (for the e-mail address) to match everything above it. Thanks.

The same is true (final E-mail line needs indenting) for the Supportive & Palliative Care, Screening & Prevention, and CAM invitation letters.

Please also indent the text about joining genetics working groups on the genetics invitation letter so that it is lined up with the rest of the form. Thanks!

Both modification have been made on DEV. Please verify.

On the genetics invitation letter, could you please change the "Psycosocial and Behavior Issues" working group to "Psychosocial and Behavioral Issues"? Thanks.

Verified the other invitation letters. Just have genetics left.

Working group name tweaked as requested (pretty sure the Word doc had "Behavior Issues").

It did. But there's also a typo - should be "Psyc*h*osocial". Thanks.

Typo fixed.

Verified on DEV. Thanks!

Verified on QA.

I spot-checked a few of these on stage and they looked good. Thanks.

I spot-checked a few of these on prod and they looked good. Closing issue.