Replacing a component may require several whiskies when no single candidate reproduces its relevant contribution.
This is practitioner testimony, not proof that any particular substitution succeeds.
Paterson describes combining two or more malts when an identical substitute is unavailable (PDF 215). Treat the replacement as a new candidate combination to test against the intended profile. Shared descriptors do not prove equivalence, and preserving one feature may alter another.
Idea
Replacing a component may require several whiskies when no single candidate reproduces its relevant contribution.
Paterson describes combining two or more malts when an identical substitute is unavailable (PDF 215). Treat the replacement as a new candidate combination to test against the intended profile. Shared descriptors do not prove equivalence, and preserving one feature may alter another.
Limits
This is practitioner testimony, not proof that any particular substitution succeeds.
Goodness Nose — expanded source review
The full supplied-copy traversal strengthens the context for the existing idea without changing its maturity. PDF 207/215 links substitution to changing stocks; PDF 226 adds actual-cask selection, costing and later production checks. A combination that appears plausible on paper still needs comparison with the intended character. The book's company history makes inventory and commercial constraints visible, but does not demonstrate the success of every proposed substitute.
Proposed Academy application: specify the missing component's functions, compare candidate combinations at recorded proportions and matched final strength, then document remaining differences. This is an adaptation, not an experiment reported by Paterson and Smith.
Existing atomic statement, relationships and maturity are retained. The damaged passages at PDF 124/126 and preservation/verification holds remain in the Source record.