Process continuity requires evidence beyond an equipment label

Argument

MacLean reports historical heating conversions and adjustments to operating regimes and cut points (2016, printed pp. 156–158; PDF 158–160). These accounts motivate a research question: what else changed, and what was actually compared? The equipment label alone cannot answer whether character was preserved.

Provenance

MacLean’s Miscellany — Still firing and historical process continuity

Connection

A historical source needs a transmission chain preserves the distinction between a historical witness and later retelling.

Counterpoint

This is a methodological inference from secondary historical reporting. It neither establishes equivalence between heating methods nor proves a universal sensory effect.

Fresh source audit

PDF 160 visually confirms a one-week 1980 trial on one Glenfarclas spirit still and the phrase “lightly flavoured.” Avoid expanding this to a whole-plant controlled comparison. Related discussions of malting, condensation and wood in PDF 145–189 reinforce the need to record concurrent variables, but supply no universal equipment ranking. The full available extraction has been read; the original PDF and most visual evidence remain unavailable.