Separate blockers, warnings and context
A useful quality check does not label every unusual property as an error. Blockers prevent a trustworthy output, warnings require attention and contextual findings may be acceptable when documented. Review notes should add audit context rather than hide a finding.
- Duplicate or invalid variable names
- Observed values without labels
- Missing-value conventions
- Constants and possible identifiers/open text
- Weight and multiple-response references
- Encoding and pending edits
Check the complete dataset
Quality scanning should not depend on the current UI filter. A rare unlabelled code or identifier may sit outside the visible rows. SAV Inspector's check evaluates the complete loaded dataset and links findings back to the relevant variable or editor.
Verify the file you actually deliver
After editing, write the complete SAV or ZSAV and immediately reopen it through the production reader. Compare cases, dictionary and supported file metadata, then record format, size, time and a SHA-256 hash where available.
This round-trip is evidence that the produced bytes can be read back consistently. It is not a promise that every proprietary extension is supported by every SPSS version.
- Open the untouched source
Record file properties and keep the original available for comparison.
- Run the complete check
Review blockers first, then warnings and contextual findings.
- Resolve or document
Follow findings to the affected variable and attach a concise review note when context matters.
- Round-trip the output
Write, reopen, compare and retain the report and hash with the delivered file.
Frequently asked questions
Does a successful open mean the SAV is correct?
No. It only shows that the reader can parse it. Dictionary quality, references, missing rules and handover fitness still require review.
Are identifiers always errors?
No. They may be required for joins, but they deserve explicit review because they affect confidentiality and downstream use.
What does a SHA-256 hash prove?
It identifies the exact file bytes and detects accidental changes. It does not prove that the contents are statistically or semantically correct.
Can the report contain the full data?
The quality report should focus on findings and metadata. Avoid copying sensitive case data into a broadly shared report.