Providing clarifications to Design Phase Review

Susannah, that is one way of doing it. Another way would be create a document and upload it with the rest of the uploads. You could call it "Supporting Narrative " and make one for each credit where you want to make changes.

I agree with Emmanuel, write a memo to the reviewers with your response and any changes that have been made. We typically call it just that, "Response to Reviewer Comments".

Frankly, it is quite often that if we had done a memo as part of the original submission if we know it comes up fairly often (which you get a feeling for as you do more projects), we might have avoided the question in the first place. It is never wrong to provide more information than asked if it would enhance the logic of your submission.

We have several credits that require a narrative explanation in response to the review, but several of these have no place to upload a response. I read the comment about clicking "special circumstances" (where is that?), and the one about loading with the rest of the uploads. Do we need to be concerned about the responses being associated with the credit they questioned?

Special circumstances is at the end of each form.

I would suggest that you not use that for providing a narrative response. Just upload a separate document with your narrative response. Your response should be associated with each credit in question.

I should clarify. Each of our credits in question has a separate response narrative, labeled per credit. I just don't know where to upload the narrative response.

Denise, the Special Circumstances section appears at the bottom of every Credit Form in LOv3. When you click that box, it opens up a new text field and a new upload field specific to that credit. It's generally easier to compose the narratives in word and then upload the doc/pdf as a response than try to type in that text field.

It's strongly recommended that separate narratives be provided for each pending credit due to the fact that different people look at different credits. You don't want to upload the response to EAp2 for example within SSc4.1 as it might then be missed by the person when looking at the model. We typically will paste in the entire review comment into word and then write our response to each pending issue below that. That way the reviewer knows that we saw each issue and knows exactly what we changed/how we responded to the questions. I concur with Scott that calling it something like "Project Response" is a good practice. That helps reviewers identify it quickly as a guiding document to then help them examine the additional new information/changes with a better understanding of your thought process/actions.

Thanks Kristina and Marcus. I finally opened my eyes and found the special circumstances!