Content
Citation(s) & Footnote(s)
Book(s)No access
Source account
The tasting sequence on p. 14 records appearance, aroma, taste and later development. Page 15 supplies descriptor families. The form at pp. 334–337 includes identity, bottler, age, appearance, aroma, taste, a separate water condition, finish and a repeat-purchase/drinking preference verdict. Rendered p. 334 confirms the layout; it does not supply dedicated fields for initial ABV, sample volume, water amount, time or temperature.
Researcher synthesis
Separating a water condition is useful, but the condition needs a preparation record. Preserve the initial observation and attach each later observation to its preparation and elapsed time. A preference verdict is not a quality score or evidence of a component's contribution to a blend. For an Academy record, add exact bottle/lot identity, starting strength and volume, measured addition, time, conditions and comparison purpose only as needed for the question.
Source critique
Page 14 includes dryness among four primary tastes; Academy teaching instead retains its existing separation of drying mouthfeel from basic taste. The source's legs-to-body inference, universal preference for added water, molecular explanation and fixed ten-minute suggestion are not adopted as validated protocols. The glassware section is practitioner guidance, not a controlled comparison establishing one mandatory glass.
Implemented use
Lesson 05 receives a paper exercise testing whether a short water note can be reconstructed. The research companion separates description, preparation and preference and includes a vocabulary-classification exercise.
Full-reading extension
All 354 supplied pages have now been read. The complete worksheet sequence is printed pp. 334–339 (PDF 336–341): six blank pages, each with three sample columns, for 18 slots. Each repeats identity, bottler, age, descriptive channels, water condition and a three-choice preference verdict. All six layouts were inspected; the copy contains no filled-in tasting results.
The regional tasting entries illustrate why preparation metadata matters: Overeem port and bourbon samples are 60%, while its sherry sample is 43% (printed p. 329/PDF 331). Differences cannot be attributed solely to cask type. Amrut’s pictured cask-strength sample is specifically 61.9%, bottled September 2007 (printed p. 320/PDF 322); neither strength nor tasting should be generalized across releases.
For an original Academy comparison sheet, add sample code, bottle/lot, date, starting ABV and volume, water addition, elapsed time, glassware, temperature, order, repeat observations and uncertainty as appropriate. Separate descriptive intensity from liking. This is a proposed application; no new public lesson implementation is claimed. Links to the existing tasting-literacy and Jackson notes above support further synthesis, not automatic independent corroboration.
Full reading strengthens the scope of this note but does not resolve every source claim. External fact checks, source attachment/copy identity and browser review remain separate verification work.
