Verify the fieldwork attachment, not only the row naming it

Establish which attachments were actually expected

Read the approved instrument and its conditional routes to identify when media is required, optional or deliberately absent. A blank attachment field may be correct when the corresponding task did not occur. Conversely, a filename can indicate an intended attachment without proving its successful delivery. Give each expected item a restricted submission reference and a clear purpose.

Keep the manifest minimal. It should identify the expected file relationship and status without copying media contents or unnecessary participant details into a shared tracker. Confirm which reviewer is allowed to inspect each category of evidence. An operational need to reconcile files does not authorize circulating them to everyone involved in the research project.

Separate source receipt from downstream availability

ODK Central reports missing expected media uploads and warns that external tools fetching submission data may not fetch associated media. This supports checking source receipt separately from the analyst’s file access.

Have the authorized owner compare the collection record, source attachment status and delivered analysis package. Record where the evidence stops. If the source has the file but the receiving package lacks it, investigate the extraction or transfer. If the source itself reports missing media, investigate the collection handoff. Do not describe an access-denied response as proof that a file is missing, and do not broaden permissions simply to make a preview work.

Verify the association and usability of received files

For permitted test fixtures, confirm that the file opens through the intended route and belongs to the expected observation. A successful download of the wrong image is not completeness. Check the filename association, relevant content and any approved format requirement without assuming files with similar names are interchangeable. Preserve the original source where correction is necessary.

When real evidence is unavailable or unusable, give the research owner the precise limitation. Do not ask collectors to recreate an observation, substitute a stock image or request another participant upload automatically. Any additional collection must be justified and authorized under the study arrangements. The analyst may need to narrow a conclusion or mark an observation unsupported rather than treating a technical recovery plan as permission to create new evidence.

Close discrepancies with the appropriate evidence

A receipt problem closes when the authorized source and intended receiving route demonstrate the expected file relationship. A legitimately absent attachment closes through the instrument rule and record context. An unresolved item remains explicit, with its consequence for review. Keep these outcomes separate rather than using one generic complete flag for every media field.

Before the analysis handover, reconcile expected, received, accessible and unresolved counts at the appropriate unit. Do not call a media review complete merely because all response rows arrived. Preserve the manifest under the project’s approved access and retention rules, and update it when a corrected file is accepted. The result should let the next authorized reviewer understand which evidence is available without encouraging unnecessary collection or uncontrolled duplicate copies.

Make the reasoning concrete.

A fictional study of office workflow boards permits a sanitized diagram image for one task. The response export contains an image filename, but the analyst’s ordinary data connector does not provide the image itself.

The team chooses receipt reconciliation and does not infer that a filename proves availability or that a failed preview authorizes wider sharing.

Take the questions into your next brief.

Use these prompts in your own notes. Nothing is submitted from this page.

1. Expectation

   Why should this record contain an attachment?

2. Receipt

   What evidence establishes arrival at the authorized source?

3. Delivery

   Can the intended reviewer access it through the approved route?

4. Association

   Does the file belong to the expected observation and remain usable?

5. Disposition

   Is the gap corrected, legitimately absent or unresolved?

Watch for the wrong conclusion.

• Treating filenames as proof that files arrived.
• Confusing denied access with missing evidence.
• Recollecting or sharing media before locating the actual gap.

Sources & scope

Workflows, worksheets and fictional examples are original editorial analysis. Sources support only specifically attributed principles. Platform guidance can change; legal requirements depend on jurisdiction and context. No measured results or named human reviewer are claimed.

• ODK Docs: Managing Submissions in Central →Primary submission-management documentation · Supports: Supports missing-media warnings and the distinction between submission-data access and associated media access. The manifest workflow is original analysis.