15.20417 · Section 15: Proofing

Proofing techniques

Key learnings

Visual verification vs proofreading
Visual verification means checking a document by eye against the ORIGINAL SOURCE document, to confirm the entered data matches it exactly. Proofreading means checking a document for errors with NO source to compare against — checking it is internally correct and consistent (spelling, layout, style) on its own terms. The examiner's test: does the check need a second document to compare against? Yes = visual verification; no = proofreading.
Verification and its two methods
Verification checks that data has been copied or entered correctly — that it matches the original source, NOT that the value itself is sensible or correct. Two methods are named. Visual checking: a person compares the entered data against the source by eye for any character that does not match. Double data entry: the same data is entered twice, independently (normally by two people), and the computer automatically compares the two entries and flags any mismatch.
Two fault categories: data-entry vs layout
Proofing fixes two distinct groups of fault. Data-entry errors sit in the typed content: transposed numbers (adjacent digits swapped, 3847 typed as 3874), incorrect spelling, inconsistent character spacing, and inconsistent case (a missing or unwanted capital). Document-layout faults sit in the structure: inconsistent line spacing, blank pages/slides, widows and orphans, inconsistent application of styles, and tables/lists split across a column or page/slide boundary.

Common mistakes

Drawn from real examiner reports.

Verified or valid ≠ actually correct

Verification only checks data was copied correctly (matches the source), not that the source value was right. Validation only checks data is reasonable, not that it matches the source. A value can pass BOTH and still be wrong: a wrong source value copied faithfully passes verification; an in-range mistype passes validation. Neither, alone or together, guarantees correctness.

w23 P11 Q10, w23 P12 Q9, s22 P13 Q13b — the core definition trap, every sitting: verification checks data was copied/entered correctly (matches the source), NOT that it is correct/valid; validation checks data is reasonable/allowable; neither alone (nor both together) proves data is correct.

Visual verification ≠ proofreading

Candidates call any "reading a document to check it" either technique. The one examinable difference: is a source document compared against? "Compare the invoice against the order form" = visual verification. "Read the report for spelling and bad headings", no source named, = proofreading. Naming the wrong one loses the mark even when the actions fit the OTHER technique.

s23 P11 Q14, w22 P12 Q15 — visual verification compares against the source document; proofreading does not need a source document.

Widow vs orphan (top vs bottom)

These two layout faults are constantly swapped. A WIDOW is the LAST line of a paragraph left alone at the TOP of the next page/column. An ORPHAN is the FIRST line left alone at the BOTTOM of a page/column. Both are fixed the same way (adjust the break, or use widow-and-orphan control), but the exam wants the precise term: widow = stranded at the top, orphan = at the bottom.

Double data entry is not just retyping

Describing double data entry as "typing it in again" loses marks: it drops the two features the mark scheme wants. Data must be entered TWICE INDEPENDENTLY (normally by two people, so the same slip is unlikely in the same place), and the COMPUTER automatically compares the entries and flags any mismatch. Omit the independence or the comparison and the answer is incomplete.

w23 P11 Q10 — double data entry = data entered twice by two people, then compared by the computer.

Transposed numbers ≠ any wrong number

"Transposed numbers" is a precise term, not a synonym for "a wrong number". It means two adjacent digits have SWAPPED PLACES: every digit is present, only the order is wrong (6192 typed as 6912). A digit simply mistyped to a different value (6192 as 6182) is NOT a transposition. Applying the term to any digit error, or losing it altogether, costs the mark.

Verifying ≠ correcting the source

When visually verifying you check the typed copy MATCHES THE SOURCE — you do NOT correct mistakes in the source itself. If the source form misspells a word and the typist copied it exactly, verification PASSES (the copy matches), so flagging it as a data-entry error is wrong. Fixing the source's own wording is a proofreading decision, not verification.

Exam tips

Name the exact fault, then its fix
Use the precise mark-scheme term, not a paraphrase: "orphan" not "a stray line", "transposed numbers" not "wrong numbers". Then give the fix as well as the fault — naming a widow scores little alone; add the correction (adjust the break, or use widow-and-orphan control).
Verification: name both methods
Asked to explain verification, name BOTH visual checking AND double data entry — many give only one. For double data entry, say how it works: entered twice, by two independent entries, then compared automatically by the computer — not just that it happens "twice".
Why validation is also needed
Asked why validation is needed as well as verification, do not just restate definitions — name the gap each leaves: verification never checks the value is sensible; validation never checks it matches the source. Neither alone nor both together guarantees the data is correct.
State whether a source is compared
In any answer covering visual verification and proofreading, state explicitly whether a source document is compared against — that one point separates them. The same phrase ("checking the document") fits either, so make the source-or-not distinction clear to earn the mark.

Revision notes