Supports a broader authorship model that includes selection and blending. Specific Canadian technical generalizations should be corroborated before public use. Blending authorship is useful; the9.09%/10mL-in100mL example has an inconsistent denominator and is not adopted as a regulatory or formulation rule.
The author contrasts Canadian production and storytelling conventions with American emphasis on the distiller.
In the Canadian comparison, separate grain distillates become a finished whiskey through deliberate blending, making the blender's selection and composition central acts of authorship rather than merely corrective steps.
224
223
Canadian Whiskey
Fresh full345-sheet reading and visual review, September29,2026. Blending authorship is useful; the9.09%/10mL-in100mL example has an inconsistent denominator and is not adopted as a regulatory or formulation rule.
Evidence
In the Canadian comparison, separate grain distillates become a finished whiskey through deliberate blending, making the blender's selection and composition central acts of authorship rather than merely corrective steps.
Locator and context
2024 supplied ebook, PDF sheets 223–224. Canadian Whiskey.
The author contrasts Canadian production and storytelling conventions with American emphasis on the distiller.
Annotation
Supports a broader authorship model that includes selection and blending. Specific Canadian technical generalizations should be corroborated before public use. Blending authorship is useful; the9.09%/10mL-in100mL example has an inconsistent denominator and is not adopted as a regulatory or formulation rule.
Fresh review — September 29, 2026
Fresh full345-sheet reading and visual review, September29,2026. Blending authorship is useful; the9.09%/10mL-in100mL example has an inconsistent denominator and is not adopted as a regulatory or formulation rule.
