AKICILJ: reading a committee's mind, again

This sentence is nonsense as written, but I have to work with it (it's in a state science standard, one of the sort that seems to have been written by a committee that did not include a competent editor or any final review process). I have a couple of guesses as to what they might have been groping for, but any suggestions are welcome:

"Summarize data to show the cause and effect relationship between qualitative and quantitative observations (using standard, metric, and non-standard units of measurement)."

---

ETA: On the off chance it will help anything, here's the entire paragraph, which is part of the "inquiry strand" from the Mississippi eighth grade science standard:

"1c Summarize Data
The learner will be able to c. Summarize data to show the cause and effect relationship between qualitative and quantitative observations (using standard, metric, and non-standard units of measurement). (DOK 3)
Tools (e.g., English rulers [to the nearest one-sixteenth of an inch], metric rulers [to the nearest millimeter], thermometers, scales, hand lenses, microscopes, balances, clocks, calculators, anemometers, rain gauges, barometers, hygrometers, telescopes, compasses, spring scales, pH indicators, stopwatches, graduated cylinders, medicine droppers) Types of data (e.g., linear measures, mass, volume, temperature, area, perimeter) Resources (e.g., Internet, electronic encyclopedias, journals, community resources, etc.)."

"DOK" in this field means "depth of knowledge level," on a range from simple memorization of facts to understanding and using concepts. I think it runs 1-4, with 1 the simplest; the idea of the DOK3 is that it's not sufficient for them to be able to say "the meter is a unit of length" if they can't actually measure things, or know when to use meters, and when to use liters or grams or degrees.

breathing test results

Well, I have the results of the pulmonary function test.

I called my GP's office yesterday afternoon, and told them that I needed a prescription to have it redone, and if they couldn't send it (and the receptionist seemed to think that this was impossible, and that the hospital that had lost track of the first one would happily call them to get another) someone would call me.

This morning, I found voicemail from my doctor's office from later that day, saying that they didn't want to write me a prescription to have the test redone because they had the results. Yes, phrased about that way. However, I am told that the test results were normal.

I am also told (or my voicemail is) that the hospital mailed the doctor the results. I am left to guess whether they would ever have notified me, if I hadn't kept calling to ask for a replacement prescription. The timing is a little too coincidental otherwise, and there was no suggestion of "the hospital that said it couldn't find the tests when we asked for them has sent them to us," as I would expect if they had turned up in that day's mail, rather than having been sitting, ignored for some days after I had called repeatedly asking for them. I realize that doctors wait to be called for test results. But this doctor's office had made it fairly clear that they had my messages, and knew I wanted these results: it's just not clear whether that applies when it means they have to actually give me them, rather than just convince me not to call daily.

I am contemplating changing doctors, but the questions include whether another would be better at this sort of thing, and whether near my office is actually a good idea: handy for routine things, not so good if I'm sick enough to stay home from work and want to see a doctor.

And I need to call a cardiologist, that being the next stage here given that the lungs have tested normal, as expected.

ETA: I just called my health insurance company's robot system, and found that they processed two claims for 12/15, one processed weeks ago (that'll be the X-ray) and one processed yesterday, so it seems pretty clear that the hospital dropped the ball here, not the GP. Nonetheless, my current doctor's office is also not exactly convenient for me; the question is, in part, whether it is less inconvenient than East 19th Street (or some other midtown or even Washington Heights location) would be. But the question feels somewhat less urgent.