Consider these perplexing items from the evaluation report for a ceiling system used in conjunction with a fire sprinkler system.
- The document identifies three conditions of use. For two of the conditions, it states dimensional limits. But it says nothing about the dimensional limits for the third condition. Given the nature of the product, this appears to be an oversight.
- One of the dimensions is expressed as height from "top of ceiling grid", the other is expressed as height "from ceiling tile". This is a problem on two counts. First, the heights for both conditions should be expressed in the same manner to simplify comparison and enforcement. The other problem is that the ceiling tiles have depth, and we are not told if the measurement is to be from top or bottom of the tile.
- It hyphenates "quick-response sprinklers" but not "standard response sprinklers". Is this deliberate?
- In some locations, it describes the product as a "panel", in others as a "tile". The document does not explain the difference, and seems unaware that the terms are defined differently in an ASTM standard.
- The document contains redundancies. It states, in two locations, the requirement that the ceiling panel (or tile) should be Class A. Similarly, it repeats that the panel (or tile) is not to be used in non-fire resistance rated construction. A good rule of technical writing is to state a requirement in only a single location.
- It references an obsolete FM Listing number even though it states the current listing number in parenthesis. The obsolete listing is so old, it does not even appear on the FM website.