Dec. 12, 2023
4:19 p.m.
As a participant: I agree with everything Jim said, highlighting two points:
Yes, on reflection, +1 from me on this.
Honestly, I think we decided to keep R2 in large part because we were looking for recommendations to include.
This matches my recollection; there was dithering over how to present the small amount of recommendation text that we had.
I (again, as a participant) am happy with Steve's suggestion for R1 and then otherwise removing R2 as now being merged with R1.
That seems to work. R1 looks good and includes the important parts of R2 -- so removing R2 (I think) removes the objectionable part that Paul identified. --TW