Status of old official interpretations

[Guest Puzzling]

 

Am a bit puzzled by the reference in 

To a ( 14 year) old official interpretation.

I guess at the time this interpretation was made the 10th edition was the current edition. 

Now we are 2 editions further. Is this and (probably other old interpretations) still valid?

Is there a mechanism in place to remove old (and invalid) interpretations?

 

[Dan Honemann]

12 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

 

Am a bit puzzled by the reference in 

To a ( 14 year) old official interpretation.

I guess at the time this interpretation was made the 10th edition was the current edition. 

Now we are 2 editions further. Is this and (probably other old interpretations) still valid?

Is there a mechanism in place to remove old (and invalid) interpretations?

 

 Official Interpretation 2006-13 remains valid.  RONR, 12th ed., 49:7, 56:41.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Now we are 2 editions further. Is this and (probably other old interpretations) still valid?

Is there a mechanism in place to remove old (and invalid) interpretations?

Official interpretation 2006–13 is still perfectly valid.. What makes you think it is not? The rule that it is based on has not changed. Have you looked at the relevant provisions in the 12th edition? They are the same.

Some official interpretations, which may not still be valid, have been removed, such as 2006–14 and 2006–21.  I would consider the fact that official interpretation 2006-13 and others are still there on the new website that came out in conjunction with the release of the 12th edition is pretty strong evidence that the official interpretations which are still there are still valid.  I do hope, however, that the authorship team will update the citations to the 12th edition.

edited to add: although it appears that official interpretation 2006–14 has been removed, I noticed that there are two interpretations numbered 2006–15. I’m wondering if perhaps that is a numbering error. I also noticed that 2006–21 is still there despite a statement contained in 2011–1 that 2006-21 is no longer valid.. I would think it would be removed or be noted on the opinion itself that it is no longer valid.

Edited May 11, 2021 at 01:53 PM by Richard Brown
Edited an incorrect statement with a strikethrough and added the last paragraph

[Guest Puzzling]

12 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Official interpretation 2006–13 is still perfectly valid.. What makes you think it is not? The rule that it is based on has not changed. Have you looked at the relevant provisions in the 12th edition? They are the same

I was more thinking if it is still valid it will be incorporated in the 12th edition and did not have to be an interpretation anymore (I did not check, my question was about official interpretations in general not about a specific interpretation) and we should refer to the place in RONR where it is mentioned not to the interpretation)

 

19 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Some official interpretations, which may not still be valid, have been removed, such as 2006–14 and 2006–21.  I would consider the fact that official interpretation 2006-13 and others are still there on the new website that came out in conjunction with the release of the 12th edition is pretty strong evidence that the official interpretations which are still there are still valid.  I do hope, however, that the authorship team will update the citations to the 12th edition

Good to know that the official interpretations are still up to date (except the references) and that outdated ones are removed 

[Richard Brown]

8 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Good to know that the official interpretations are still up to date (except the references) and that outdated ones are removed 

Well, it is not so clear that those official interpretations which are no longer valid have been removed. I edited my comment above to reflect that. The removal of 2006–14 may well just be a numbering error and 2006-21 is still there despite a statement in 2011–1 that it is no longer valid. I would agree that the apparent omission of 2006–14 and the continued inclusion of 2006–21 do seem a bit puzzling.

@Daniel H. Honemanncan you clarify the situation regarding official interpretations 2006–14 and 2006–21?

[Dan Honemann]

45 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

@Daniel H. Honemanncan you clarify the situation regarding official interpretations 2006–14 and 2006–21?

Well, I can confirm the fact that there is no Official Interpretation 2006-14.   

As to 2006-21, I frankly don't remember what the change was that was made by the 11th edition which prompted the warning concerning its invalidity in 2011-1, but if I remember it at some later time, I'll be sure to let you know.   🙂

I admit that we need to do something about updating these Official Interpretations.

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, I can confirm the fact that there is no Official Interpretation 2006-14

Thank you.  Can you explain why there two different official interpretations numbered 2006-15? Is this perhaps a numbering error and one of them should actually be 2006-14?  If so, can that be fixed?

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

As to 2006-21, I frankly don't remember what the change was that was made by the 11th edition which prompted the warning concerning its invalidity in 2011-1, but if I remember it at some later time, I'll be sure to let you know. 

That would be nice! 

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I admit that we need to do something about updating these Official Interpretations.

That would be nice, too.  Thank you!

[Dan Honemann]

2 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Can you explain why there two different official interpretations numbered 2006-15?

Yes. 15 is my favorite number.