What can the library tell its board about support?
Check response counts and sources before you brief the board.
The question
You advise a library in England about later winter opening. The board needs a summary of responses and the concerns behind them. Count each valid submission once.
420 of 600 online response rows explicitly support later opening. That means 70% of residents support the change.
“What can you say from this draft, and what would you check before using it?”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Name the denominator
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Describe 70% as the share of online rows in the draft.
The strong move. The denominator identifies the response rows the summary counted.
Tell the board that 70% of residents support later opening.
Tempting, but it misses something. The file contains submitted online rows. It gives no estimate for all residents.
See how a strong candidate says it
“420 of 600 is 70% of the online rows in the draft. I’d use that only as a provisional count for the online file.”
Why it works: The denominator identifies the response rows the summary counted.
Step 2: Check the source records
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Check which channels and unique responses the draft covers.
The strong move. The count depends on both file coverage and how the responses were classified.
Approve the summary after checking that 420 divided by 600 equals 70%.
Tempting, but it misses something. That checks the division. Duplicate rows, missing channels and label errors could still change the result.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I’d ask the consultation analyst which response channels were included and how they handled repeats. I’d check a sample of the labels against the actual submissions.”
Why it works: The count depends on both file coverage and how the responses were classified.
Step 3: Reconcile the channels
The analyst confirms 60 repeat online rows, all coded as support. They check the remaining online labels against the submissions and verify 120 distinct paper submissions with no online overlap. Of those, 36 explicitly support later opening.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Use 396 of 660, with the online and paper rates beside it.
The strong move. Remove duplicate support rows from the numerator and denominator. Add the verified paper responses once.
Take the average of 66.7% and 30% for the combined result.
Tempting, but it misses something. The channels contain different numbers of submissions. Combine the verified counts before dividing.
See how a strong candidate says it
“After removing the repeats, 360 of 540 online submissions support the change, about 66.7%. On paper it is 36 of 120, or 30%. Together, 396 of 660 verified submissions support it, or 60%.”
Why it works: Remove duplicate support rows from the numerator and denominator. Add the verified paper responses once.
Step 4: Give the board the result
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Report the two channels and ask for the relevant concerns from the responses.
The strong move. The board gets the verified result and the different views it still needs to consider.
Say the combined result proves residents prefer the change.
Tempting, but it misses something. The response set is self-selected. It describes submitted views and leaves the wider resident preference open.
See how a strong candidate says it
“60% of verified submissions support later opening. Support was 66.7% online and 30% on paper. I’d ask the analyst to bring the accessibility and timing concerns from the responses before the board chooses the hours.”
Why it works: The board gets the verified result and the different views it still needs to consider.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Report 396 of 660 verified submissions and give the rates by channel.
- Because
- The draft included repeat online rows and omitted the paper submissions.
- What would change it
- A new verified response file or a representative survey would change what the board could say.
Common traps
- Treating response rows as unique submissions.
- Treating a consultation as a resident poll.
Check your answer
- I named the original denominator.
- I checked repeats and missing channels.
- I reconciled the revised counts.
- I gave the board a result within its scope.
Last reviewed Nov 11, 2026