Content
Citation(s) & Footnote(s)
Book(s)No access / No access
Full supplied-source reading completed. Needs Review is retained for the unresolved worked-example discrepancy and publication cautions, not because pages were skipped.
Source argument
The author treats blending as an organized production system: components must be available, differentiated and understood before their proportions are chosen. Mathematical assembly is only one part; choosing what to combine requires a target, sensory experience, inventory and commercial judgment.
Evidence map
Production and historical evidence boundaries
PDF 1–3, printed 48–50; Introduction, Table 1 and Figures 1–3.
Livermore combines historical mash bills, distilling apparatus and commercial context to explain Canadian component production.
Table 1 describes nineteenth-century formulations, not present bottle specifications. Wartime closure, world-ranking and legislative firsts are source claims requiring independent historical verification before website use.
Evidence ![[SRC-126] Production and historical evidence boundaries](https://images.spr.so/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/j42No7y-dcokJuNgXeA0ig/95dc2f1d-5993-42f1-a7c0-c08fe42504f7/whiskey_research/w=1920,quality=90,fit=scale-down)
Imperial proof and archival ingredient notation
PDF 3–4, printed 50–51; Figures 4–6 and surrounding text.
The archival formulas use Imperial proof notation, differing units and ingredients including syrup, tea, rum and Scotch.
Do not read Imperial proof as US proof. The syrup water quantity is absent, ingredient weight is not gallon volume, and OF is not defined. These are historical records, not modern American legal recipes.
Evidence
Component identity and barrel-entry context
PDF 5–6, printed 52–53; Figures 7–8.
Separate grain streams and different distillation and maturation treatments create distinguishable blending components; the review illustrates changing formulations and entry strengths.
Company examples are not universal Canadian practice. Figure 7 includes a base of 100 plus additions, so its columns are not normalized percentage totals. The stated 9.09 percent explanation is historical regulatory interpretation, not an American blending permission.
Evidence
Figure 9 arithmetic and dimensional audit
PDF 7–8, printed 54–55; Figure 9 and proof adjustment discussion.
Figure 9 prints a 10,000-liter, 40-percent-ABV target and a bourbon component at 1 percent of alcohol, 48.2 percent ABV and 114.1 liters; these inputs are inconsistent.
Researcher calculation: 10,000 × 0.40 × 0.01 ÷ 0.482 = 82.98755 liters, not 114.1. The printed volume contributes 54.9962 liters of alcohol instead of 40. Summed printed alcohol contributions are approximately 4,015.0339 liters versus the 4,000 target. Which input the author intended is unresolved. Printed density units L/kg conflict with multiplication to obtain kg. Do not deploy this table or infer exact final ABV from summed volumes; contraction and temperature matter.
Evidence
Target brief, sensory expertise and knowledge transfer
PDF 8–8, printed 55–55; Conclusion.
The review distinguishes mathematical assembly from choosing components for a purpose, integrating flavor knowledge, costs, inventory, equipment, defect awareness and transfer of practitioner expertise.
Useful industry testimony for target-relative selection and inventory planning. It does not supply a controlled consumer trial or a validated rule for predicting sensory outcomes.
Evidence
Reference and publication provenance
PDF 8–9, printed 55–56; References and issue metadata.
The bibliography combines company archives, historical reports, government tables and regulations, books and the author's flavor-wheel and training material.
All references in the supplied PDF were read as a bibliography; their underlying works were not thereby independently verified. Publisher date is March 1, 2023; printed footer says Winter 2022. Stable existing citation key retained, bibliographic year corrected to 2023.
Evidence
Existing evidence retained
Researcher synthesis
For a consumer blending guide, transfer the discipline, not the industrial formula: record bottle identity and actual proof, assign a tentative role, test against an explicit brief, preserve ratios and evaluate the resulting blend. Industrial inventory planning is a useful analogy for limited bottle stocks; it is not evidence that a particular four-bottle blend succeeds.
Existing linked ideas remain Developing. Target-relative component value and inventory architecture receive direct practitioner support (printed pp. 52–55; Figures 7–9 and Conclusion). The source does not experimentally establish sensory non-additivity, blind-test design or repeat-session reliability; those ideas need their other linked evidence. Do not treat the arithmetic discrepancy as a sensory effect.
Assessment
Quantitative quarantine
At the stated target, total alcohol is 4,000 liters. One percent supplies 40 liters of alcohol; at 48.2 percent ABV that requires approximately 82.99 liters. The printed 114.1-liter row instead supplies approximately 55 liters of alcohol. The source's intended correction is unknown. Preserve the original values and the discrepancy side by side, rather than silently substituting a repaired table. The printed water balance and final ABV are not certified by this check. Figure 7's wavelength label “mm” and absorbance scaling also require clarification before quantitative reuse.
Historical and legal boundaries
The Civil War narrative, early aging-law dates, the text's “Taft Act 1907” wording, industrial world ranking and differing proof-system transition dates remain verification leads, not approved timeline facts. The suggestion about the origin of “angel's share” is speculative. Archival OF and modern NW codes are not expanded without evidence. The source's regulatory discussions are dated Canadian context.
Reference coverage
The full reference list was read, including company archives, parliamentary material, government tables, Otto's heritage study, MacKinnon's thesis and Livermore's own teaching resources. Reading this bibliography is not equivalent to processing each referenced work. MacKinnon's thesis is a bibliography lead, not a verified existing catalog match. The separately processed LINK144 thesis concerns Washington's distillery and must not be confused with it.
