A community garden reported that twelve participants had successfully identified plant diseases during a workshop. The number sounded encouraging, but the coordinator noticed that the report did not say how many participants had been tested or how much help they had received. Some had used a guide with labeled photographs, while others had examined unfamiliar leaves without it. The next report separated these conditions and included the number of attempts in each group. It also recorded which signs participants used to justify an identification. The coordinator did not rank the two groups as if their tasks had been equally difficult. Instead, the records were used to decide whether the next session should focus on recognizing visible symptoms or explaining why similar symptoms could have different causes. The report became more useful when it showed what a successful answer depended on, rather than presenting a success count without context. In a later session, one group identifies twelve of twelve leaves with a guide; another identifies twelve of twenty unfamiliar leaves without help. Neither set was selected at random, and their difficulty has not been compared.