Documentation that materially improves an appeal's chances posts 91–99

Nobody has said the unglamorous part of documentation yet, so: most of the variation is explained by things that are boring to write about and easy to check.

Appeal deadlines are strict and are stated in the letter. Missing one is the most avoidable way to lose.

I would call that likely rather than established.

Small correction to my own earlier position on documentation. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.

Thank you for the correction. I would rather find out here than later.

Where a criterion requires documented prior attempts, the documentation has to exist in the record rather than in your memory of it.

That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.

Before the thread moves on from documentation — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.

Where I part company with post #94, and it is a narrow parting.

Adding the boring version of documentation, because the interesting version keeps getting posted and the boring one is usually right.

Check the ordinary explanations, in order, and stop when one of them accounts for what you are seeing. Most of the time the second one does.

Denial letters: the stated reason tells you exactly what to submit next. A denial is not final; it is a specification for an appeal. Reading the reason carefully and responding point-by-point to it works better than general appeals.

Take it as a starting point and not as a specification.