A repeated label is not a source-record identifier

By Figran Team. A repeated word in a figure is not necessarily a mistake. Two objects can legitimately share the label “Box.” The question is whether a reader can connect each object to the source record needed for the task. This paper exercise separates a display label, a record identifier, and an explicitly grouped result. It can be completed without an account or drawing software. Every record and count below is invented for the exercise; none describes an observation, experiment, or actual inventory. 1. Read the complete fictional source card Call this source Card A. Within Card A, each record has a different ID. Zone names are fictional grouping labels. The numbers are assigned toy token counts. Record ID; Display label; Zone; Assigned token count Q11; Box; North; 4 Q27; Box; South; 7 Q36; Tray; North; 3 Q52; Tray; South; 3 Q68; Spare; North; 0 The display label is a name intended for readers. The record ID distinguishes the rows of this particular card. The zone is another source field. None of these roles should be silently substituted for another. For example, Card A contains two Box records. It also contains two Tray records with the same assigned count. Matching both a label and a count cannot distinguish Q36 from Q52. 2. Review a draft that shows only labels A draft figure lists five separate objects: Object position in this draft; Visible label; Visible count First; Box; 4 Second; Box; 7 Third; Tray; 3 Fourth; Tray; 3 Fifth; Spare; 0 The draft keeps the source order for this exercise. That fact is supplied here; it is not a rule that a reader should assume for every figure. Suppose a revision request says, “Change the label on Tray.” Which object should the editor change? The request does not say. The visible word and number match two objects. A record-level instruction could instead say, “On the object corresponding to Card A / Q52, display the label as South Tray.” The source supports the South field. The instruction identifies its target without inventing a new record or relying on a screen position that might later move. The ID need not always be printed in large type. A caption, companion table, or clearly described mapping can carry it. What matters for this exercise is that the intended source record remains traceable. 3. Answer five identity questions Question 1. A note says, “The Box record has 4 tokens.” Is its target uniquely identified by the word Box? No. Box appears twice. The count 4 distinguishes Q11 from Q27 in this complete card, but the word Box alone does not. For a durable record-level note, write Card A / Q11 and retain its source fields. Question 2. An editor selects Tray with count 3. Has that combination uniquely identified a row? No. Both Q36 and Q52 have that label and count. Add the source record ID, or use another mapping whose uniqueness has actually been checked against this card. Question 3. A draft uses North Tray and South Tray. Has it necessarily added unsupported information? Not in this example. Card A supplies both zone values. The repair is supported if North Tray maps to Q36 and South Tray maps to Q52. Naming an object North merely because it appears above another object would be a different inference and is not supported by position alone. Question 4. A copied companion table gives both Tray objects the ID Q36. Can changing their display names fix the ID collision? No. Changing visible wording does not repair the copied identifier. Read Card A: the South Tray row is Q52. Correct the mapping from that source rather than inventing a replacement ID. Question 5. A second fictional source, Card B, contains a row with ID Q11 and assigned count 9. Must it be the same record as Card A / Q11? No. The exercise guarantees distinct IDs only within Card A, not across unrelated cards. Preserve the source context. Card A / Q11 and Card B / Q11 are different references in this exercise; the shared ID text alone does not authorize merging their counts or histories. 4. Distinguish a group from a single source record Now consider a different figure with just three entries: Group label; Input records from Card A; Sum of assigned counts Box; Q11, Q27; 11 Tray; Q36, Q52; 6 Spare; Q68; 0 These sums follow the stated rule: group Card A records by display label, then add their assigned counts. Box is 4 + 7 = 11; Tray is 3 + 3 = 6; Spare remains 0. Grouping is not automatically an error. Here it is a separate, explicitly derived view. Its caption should describe the grouping rule and source card. It should not present the Box total 11 as the unchanged count of Q11, whose assigned count is 4. Ask what the figure is meant to support. A grouped total can answer a group-total question. It cannot, by itself, replace a table that needs to identify which individual Tray record a revision concerns. Keep the input-record mapping when that distinction matters. 5. Write a traceable revision instruction Repair the vague request “Move Tray next to Box” for a task that specifically concerns the South records: In the Card A record-level draft, move the object mapped to Q52 next to the object mapped to Q27. Keep both source IDs, zone fields, and assigned counts attached to their objects. Display labels may read South Tray and South Box. Do not merge the objects or replace their counts with group totals. This is a fictional layout request. It does not establish an observed connection between the two objects, a causal relationship, or a real geographical arrangement. After the move, check the mapping again. A position can change while the intended source record stays the same. If the task changes to grouped totals, state that change and build the grouped mapping separately. 6. Keep a short identity review record For each object that needs record-level traceability, record: 1. Source card and the relevant version or excerpt. 2. Source record ID within that context. 3. Original display label and any source-supported distinguishing fields. 4. Assigned count and its stated meaning. 5. Object or companion-table location in the current draft. 6. Any grouping rule and input records, if this is a derived group. 7. The requested change and any unresolved ambiguity. For the worked move, the target is Card A / Q52; its original fields are Tray, South, and assigned count 3. The requested change concerns position and a source-supported display name. It does not change the source count or the identity of the row. The purpose is to make an ambiguous instruction explicit. This worksheet does not test a product, measure learning gains, validate a scientific figure, or demonstrate that a particular editing tool preserves identifiers. Reuse and transparency We represent Figran, a commercial scientific-illustration product. This original teaching worksheet was drafted with AI assistance and reviewed for the stated fictional source, arithmetic, and wording. It is a tool-independent exercise, not an independent product review or research result. The original teaching text and fictional card data in this worksheet are offered under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Attribute Figran Team and this title, link the license, and indicate changes. The license does not cover Figran software, brand assets, or third-party platfo