conclusions, OR
Narrative
AND ANALYSIS ‘ 7. j e ,. » , of ; o ' ‘ « WUiltrse ° Fl Bae £53 & ‘) (eRe ; af | \ 4 : ; ty : ae ' ad = Ld] ’ e = ‘ . - aa . - A, meri 2 a} Pd * é a f . tf = ’ “ 7 r a 4 pt, ) af. a 9 ook od » ails OL NAMe yL 7 * . * . ~~ . ~. ” “* ’ | TYPE OF OBSERVATION OO C : Lt ‘ ; | , L pi id i a 1. . = =- wie > w' - i ww ‘ * ‘ i, , .* or" «# ~~ - _— = @ ¥ heir C. 0 re "AT Oe rs Ae . rom s " | . = 3. Ww ’ de A . : ; - — PS ey) - . . *- = ® ~ | i iJ te ‘ i ett i. ‘ én 5% Peuihe 4 gua L a " ~_« ..2 “7~ P ® . ~ A bad rr , yy * , - * ‘uy ia © > by - I 4 le rigs [| i oe eke f - 4 ' * o * »* ] 7 —- Py , } . > h
extracted via: pbb_case_v1
Source documents (1)
Click filename to view on Internet Archive (where these are mirrored as public-domain US-government records).
- 28955494.pdfNARAvalue 2.1[direct]
Score evidence (5)
Why this event scored the way it did. Every contribution is traceable.
p
- docs=1 (+0.5)
- single agency (+0.5)
- pbb_case_file institutional review (P floor 4)
evid
- narrative only (base 1)
- pbb_case_file institutional documentation (EVID floor 3)