“It says here that you…”

From “positive” on a form to “deny” in a later entry. What gets added along the way—including the words “statement” and “decision”.

At the beginning, it says “Result: positive”. At the end, “Decision: deny admission to classes”.

Between these lines, a full first name, the word “ill” and the label “Basis” have appeared. Where, exactly, were they added?

The example below is constructed. Every passage was invented for comparison; no actual medical history or case of denied admission is presented here.

First passage:

Test result

Patient: A. Sokolova

Result: positive

Second passage:

“It says here that Anna Sokolova is ill.”

Third passage:

Decision: deny admission to classes.

Basis: Anna Sokolova is ill.

The first passage says “A. Sokolova”. The second and third say “Anna Sokolova”. A full first name has appeared in place of the initial. Yet none of the lines shown explains why “A.” has been read as “Anna”.

The first passage says “positive”. In the second, “ill” appears. Which test the heading refers to, what has been called positive, and how the new wording was arrived at are not specified in the example.

There is another connection: the fields have been read together, linking the result to the entry “A. Sokolova”. That reading draws on the layout of the fields. The connection can be shown. But the layout itself neither expands the initial nor replaces “positive” with “ill”.

Three steps can now be examined separately: expanding the initial, introducing wording about illness, and linking the result to the name. Each needs its own analysis. “It says here” does not, by itself, show how these connections and formulations were arrived at.

A paraphrase does not have to repeat the original words

The first passage could be described differently:

“The ‘Patient’ field contains ‘A. Sokolova’; the ‘Result’ field contains ‘positive’.”

New words appear in this sentence too: “field” and “contains”. They describe where the written entries are located. But “A.” has not been expanded to a full first name, and “positive” has not been replaced with “ill”.

Counting new words is therefore not enough. What matters is showing exactly what has been added and the role it takes in the chosen reading. In one case, the layout of the lines is described. In the other, a name and wording about illness are introduced without an explanation in any of the passages shown.

The analysis becomes more precise when the two versions are presented separately: what is written on the form, and the proposed reading of it. The two versions can then be compared. “It says here that…” should not take the place of that comparison.

“Statement” and “decision” are written too

The second passage can be called a “statement about illness”. But that description is also added to it in the analysis.

“Statement” is a written form: s t a t e m e n t. The label alone does not establish the status of the adjacent line. It is more precise to make the chosen reading explicit: “Here, this line is read as a statement about illness.”

The third passage contains the word “decision”: d e c i s i o n. It is followed by “deny admission to classes”. This entry can be read as a decision to deny admission. But what is presented in this example is writing. The word “decision” alone does not show who wrote it, who received it, on what grounds it is used, or what happened next.

“Proposed decision” could be added above it. That would be another written label. The letters p r o p o s e d remain the written form of a word. With the new label, the passage can be read as a proposal to deny admission. That label alone does not show who proposed this, to whom, or how.

The same applies to the word “basis”. In the third passage, “Anna Sokolova is ill” is repeated under that label. Its position there is visible. Why it should be used to deny admission needs to be set out separately. The word “basis” does not do that work in place of an analysis.

The entry names a specific action: “deny admission to classes”. Writing about denied admission does not turn into a denial that has already taken place. The action named in the text and the words connected to it can be examined without adding a story in which that action occurred.

After correction, another step remains

The careful description of the form has removed the earlier substitutions. What they obscured can now be considered separately.

Written:

A. Sokolova

A label could be added:

Initial and surname.

Or another:

This is you.

The sequence “A. Sokolova” has not changed. What changes is the reading suggested by the label. The first label presents the entry as an initial and surname. The second adds a direct address and suggests that the entry refers to the person being addressed.

The corrected description identifies which words appear where. Linking those words to whoever they are read as describing is a further step. Correcting the paraphrase does not replace examining that step.

The entry “A. Sokolova” does not become whoever it is linked to. “This is you” adds the words “this”, “is” and “you”; the person addressed does not appear among the letters along with those words. The word “patient” in the field label does not become a patient either.

The question remains after the name has been expanded, the result explained and further material presented. More records can then be compared and more connections shown. Using them as descriptions does not turn what is written into what is described.

What a rule would add

If the text of a rule is added to these passages, it becomes another passage to examine. The label “rule” does not stand in for its wording. How that wording is read, which lines it is applied to, and what is then proposed to be written or done on that basis need to be shown.

An explanation, a specialist’s report or an entry recording a completed action must likewise be presented separately. The label “specialist’s report” does not itself present a specialist; the words “action completed” do not become the performance of that action.

For any further reading, the whole sequence needs to remain available. If only the final “Decision: deny admission” is kept, it can no longer be compared with the first entry to see which connections were added between them.

The analysis remains written too

“Record”, “reading”, “statement”, “decision”, “proposed” and “rule” are words used in this article to label passages and ways of comparing them. These labels are not exempt from the analysis.

“Person”, “body”, “illness”, “specialist” and “evidence” are also written here. None of these words brings what it names into the article. A further explanation would add another piece of writing to which the same question applies: what is presented, and what is added in reading?

The “you” in the title is written too. It can be read as addressing you. That reading does not turn the letters into the person reading them.

The paraphrase can be corrected. The connections can be made explicit. Further material can be presented.

The written label “decision” remains writing, even when it is used as a decision.

A name remains a written entry, even when it is used to name you.

.