A tasting record labeled with water identifies a condition but does not specify how to reconstruct it.
Casual personal notes need not meet laboratory standards; the required detail depends on the purpose.
Attach observations to starting identity, strength and volume, measured water addition and relevant time and serving conditions. Record enough to answer the intended comparison.
Idea
A condition label alone does not define a reproducible preparation. A separate water row helps distinguish observations, but two people can fill that row after materially different additions.
Source case and synthesis
The printed p. 334 form separates the water condition but omits dedicated quantitative preparation fields. The Academy extension is to pair the observation with enough preparation details to recreate the comparison. This is a critique of the form's use for repeatability, not a claim that the book intended a laboratory protocol.
Complete-copy check
The entire repeated worksheet sequence, printed pp. 334–339 (PDF 336–341), was read and visually inspected during the full 354-page review. All six pages retain the same missing preparation fields; there are 18 blank sample slots. This extends the observation beyond the original single-form inspection without changing the purpose-dependent boundary above.
An additional comparison case is Overeem, printed p. 329/PDF 331: the port and bourbon samples are listed at 60%, the sherry sample at 43%. A difference in tasting notes cannot isolate cask influence when strength and sample identity also differ. This is a methodological inference from the listed sample conditions, not a controlled experiment conducted by the book or Academy.