A month after a tasting, “lovely, orange, long” may remind you that you liked something. It will not necessarily tell you which bottle, which preparation, or what lasted. A useful record preserves enough of the occasion for your future self—or another reader—to understand the judgment.
Follow One Thread Through The Record
The Academy sequence is Frame → Observe → Test → Assess → Reflect.
- Frame the question
- Observe before explaining
- Test a useful comparison
- Assess for the stated purpose
- Reflect on what deserves another look.
You can do this in a few sentences for enjoyment or a fuller record for professional work.
Keep four fields distinct: observation, interpretation, quality assessment and preference.
- An observation describes your experience.
- An interpretation proposes an explanation.
- A quality assessment weighs performance for a purpose.
- Preference records your own liking.
Attach a confidence level to the specific claim rather than rating your overall ability.
The USWA Tasting Process
Prepare
- Create a product/sample key and keep it out of sight until the assessment is finished.
- Label strength when known
- Record the specific glass you used in the tasting.
- Pour volume
- Any water additions to the sample (after initial evaluation) and the estimated final proof
- Temperature of the pour (room temp, ice, chilled glass, etc.)
- How much time elapsed after pouring
- The serving order of the samples in the test
- Any relevant room conditions (excessively hot/cold, noisy and distracting, etc.)
- Mark missing information as unknown rather than filling it from memory later.
Frame
- Date and assessor:
- Sample code(s):
- The Tasting Question and its intended use:
- Record what, if any, identifying information was visible during the tasting.
Observe
- Appearance under stated lighting
- Aroma families and more specific reminders
- Basic tastes
- Texture and warmth
- Sequence through the sip and finish.
- Distinguish “not assessed” from “not noticed.”
- Use the intensity anchors when applicable.
Interpret
- Record your leading explanation, any plausible alternatives, and what would distinguish them.
- Keep label facts obtained after the reveal separate from sensory inferences.
Test
- Baseline and changed condition
- Independent comparison or repeat
- What changed and what stayed similar.
- Preserve the original notes and the code key.
Quality Assessment
- State the purpose and make an argument from observations.
- Identify a strength and a limitation if both are present.
Preference
- What you liked and why
- What you would choose, and how you would serve it.
- Record this even when it differs from the quality assessment.
Reflect
- Confidence level(s) and reason(s)
- Any unresolved questions
- Add the reveal, corrections and sources as dated additions.
- Record protocol version and any departures when working formally.
The worksheet is original Academy course material. Manska's bias and training discussions are useful background for keeping records and comparisons disciplined. Manska, Distilled Spirits Sensory Science, chapter 35, displayed ebook p. 253, and chapter 36, displayed ebook pp. 259–260 — literature note.
From Notes To A Readable Paragraph
Here is an invented example: “Sample 418, assessed blind at the recorded serving strength, showed orange peel and toasted grain, followed by a coating middle and a drying finish. Orange returned in the second coded pour. For a fruit-led neat pour, the clear opening was a strength, while the drying finish reduced its appeal. I preferred the measured-water preparation. Confidence is moderate because this was one session.”
Notice the paragraph does not need a guessed distillery or a numerical score. A report should identify the method and number of assessors when those matter, then present observations and a conclusion of matching scope. A professional batch decision may also require product specifications, laboratory results and a defined release process; the tasting paragraph is one part of that evidence.
Give Readers A Route Back
Use a book's printed page or a verified displayed ebook page, identifying which it is. For an unpaginated source, give the chapter, section or transcript phrase. Link the citation text and locator to a public bibliographic/literature note or legitimate public source. Keep the Academy's private uploaded PDFs out of the reader-facing path.
Keep The Speaker In The Sentence
A producer's explanation can be useful without being independently verified. In American Spirit, James Rodewald acknowledges that he did not verify distillers' stories. That makes attribution part of the evidence, not an optional courtesy.
Try this invented claim: “The producer says these barrels were selected for a fruit-led blend.” Keep the speaker and purpose in your report. Then separate what your own tasting could establish from what would require production records. You might observe fruit; that alone would not verify how the barrels were selected.
Rodewald, Introduction — current upload PDF 14; earlier library copy sheet 13
Check The Numbers Before Completing The Story
A small arithmetic check can save a large reporting mistake. Whiskey Rebels lists one Sagamore grain recipe as 51% rye, 43% corn and 5% malt barley. Add them: 99%. Write down the reported values and flag the incomplete total. Do not guess which ingredient supplies the missing percentage. A later correction can improve the record while leaving the original evidence visible. These grain percentages also do not tell you the proportions of whiskeys in the finished blend.
McCarthy, PDF 222 — recipe completeness and source analysis
Edit An Overconfident Note
Rewrite: “Definitely 12 years old, 95 points, everyone will love it.” A defensible alternative from the information supplied is: “The identity, age and basis for the score were not recorded. I need sensory observations and a stated assessment purpose before making a quality argument.” The skill is knowing what is missing, not decorating an unsupported verdict.
The Portfolio Record: What To Keep
Part | What the record contains |
Frame | Date, assessor, method version, question, intended use, codes, visible information; preparation recipe, finished serving volume, glass, temperature, rest and order. |
Observe | Independent first wording; channel and stage of each observation; selected attribute intensity 0–4, with not assessed separate; leading impression and recognition confidence. |
Test | Prediction and a result that would challenge it; baseline/change/repeat identities held separately by the preparer; observed similarities, differences and deviations. |
Assess | A purpose-specific judgment supported by observations; personal preference and its reason on a different line. |
Reflect | Claim-specific confidence with reasons; alternative explanation; locked original; reveal and source; dated revision; next practice target. |
Transfer | Fresh record on an unfamiliar whiskey or lot, using the same rules; what carried over, what needed adjustment and why. |
Keep the preparation key separate until the independent record is complete. Write not noticed for an assessed feature you did not perceive, not assessed for an untested feature, and unknown for unavailable facts. Preserve each coded sample’s record, including repeats; do not replace them with a group consensus.
For the 0–4 teaching scale, use 0 not noticed, 1 weak, 2 moderate, 3 strong, 4 very strong. Agree on definitions and references first. Record dominance separately and do not interpret numeric gaps as equal sensory distances. Record confidence per claim, not as a single score for the entire taster.
Meilgaard, Civille and Carr, Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 5th ed., chapters 6, 10–14 and 16
Keep exploring: Method and printable record · Course overview · Previous lesson · Next lesson: Capstone and Certification Development