GLM 5.3 FlashX Legal: How Ashgrove patients find online-first booking

The decision: whether to keep online-first booking as it is, restore a morning phone booking line for every patient, or add a dedicated phone line and in-person help at reception only for patients who need them (over-75s, patients with a disability, and patients with limited English). The brief and the data →

Verdict: ✗ Not sound
Research score: 66 of 100
Analysis rating: 997
Head to head, this task: won 6 of 15

Why it is not sound

The survey

A double-barrelled question: Q8

The analysis

Got at least one set number wrong
Reported a material finding the data does not support
Made a recommendation that does not follow from the data
Missed a trap: Q2 satisfaction (50.8%) is asked only of the 549 who tried to book. 24.3% of all respondents needed an appointment but did not try to book (35.1% of those who did not try to book); those who did not try are left out of the satisfaction base, which flatters it.
Missed a trap: Last year's 71% came from a paper survey handed out in the waiting room before the change, to patients who had got an appointment; this year's 50.8% is from an online survey by text of those who tried to book. Different method and different people.
Missed a trap: The practice manager believes patients prefer the new system. Unweighted, the online form leads (46.2% against 40.7% for phone), but only 18-44s prefer it (58.4%); weighted to the age mix, preference is split (40.7% online, 45.0% phone, 6.7% in person).
Proposed a mistaken next step: Tell the partners that satisfaction with booking has fallen from 71% to this year's figure because of online-first
Proposed a mistaken next step: Restore a morning phone booking line for every patient on the strength of this survey alone

Findings the judges found unsupported

Satisfaction with booking has fallen substantially since the switch to online-first: from 71% satisfied in October 2025 to 50.8% among patients who tried to book in the last three months.The surveys cannot establish a fall in satisfaction, let alone attribute one to online-first. Different recruitment methods and populations introduce biases that cannot be dismissed by comparing the gap with a sampling margin of error.
The practice manager cannot tell the partners that 'patients prefer the new system'. Fewer than half of recent bookers are satisfied, and only 46.2% of all respondents prefer the online form; the single largest open-text demand is the return of phone booking for everyone.It says fewer than half of recent bookers are satisfied, but the reported unweighted figure is 50.8%. The lower age-weighted satisfaction figure is not supplied or identified here.
The fall in satisfaction is concentrated among older patients. Among those who tried to book, only 17.8% of 65-to-74s and 13.0% of 75-or-overs are satisfied, against 64.7% of 18-to-44s.The data show lower current satisfaction among older respondents, not that a fall in satisfaction is concentrated among them. There are no comparable previous age-specific results.
Patients who need an interpreter are an exception to the sex/age pattern: none of the 13 prefer online, 61.5% want to book in person at reception, and their open-text answers ask for a form in their own language or staff who speak it. They are almost invisible in the survey (1.5% of respondents vs their share of the list) and this finding rests on very few people.One of the 13 interpreter users prefers online booking: 7.7%, not none. Their population share is not provided, so under-representation relative to their share of the practice list cannot be established.
Nearly a quarter of all adult respondents (24.3%) needed an appointment in the last three months but did not try to book — unmet demand the booking change does not capture. Weighted to the registered-adult age mix this is about 4,160 people. The main reasons are expected waits for a reply (43.7%) and expecting not to get an appointment (28.8%), not inability to use the form.The claimed age-weighted population estimate of about 4,160 is incorrect. Age weighting gives approximately 25.7%, or about 4,390 adults if extrapolated. Such extrapolation also remains vulnerable to coverage and nonresponse bias.
Preference for phone booking is concentrated in older and disabled patients, but is also substantial in working-age patients: 29.9% of 18-to-44s and 49.0% of 45-to-64s would prefer to book by phone. Restricting a phone line to over-75s, disabled patients and interpreter users would miss most of the demand for it.The age-weighted preferences are approximately 45.0% phone and 40.7% online, not 36.6% phone and 46.2% online. The reported figures reverse the weighted ranking.
Online-first is working well for younger patients: 64.7% of 18-to-44s who tried to book are satisfied, 58.4% prefer the form, and many open-text answers say leave it alone. The problem is not the channel itself but the form's length/repetition and, above all, slow replies to online requests.The categorical claim that the problem is not the channel itself is unsupported. The survey and access-related comments indicate that the online channel itself is unsuitable for some patients, alongside problems with form design and reply speed.
The sample is not representative of the registered adult list: 18-to-44s are 52.1% of respondents but 44% of the list; 75+ are 3.7% of respondents but 11% of the list. Only patients with a mobile number could respond (58% of adults). Unweighted headline figures understate older patients' dissatisfaction and phone preference; the weighted figures in this report correct for age but not for mobile ownership.Although the direction of age bias is correctly identified, the assertion that the report's weighted figures correct for age is not borne out by its incorrect weighted preference and population estimates.
Q1 suggests a possible access gap rather than lower need among younger patients: 38.7% of 18-to-44s had not tried to book in three months, vs 14.8% of 65-to-74s. Combined with Q4, younger patients are less likely to have needed and sought a booking recently, so the high younger satisfaction partly reflects easier, more routine requests.Neither Q1 nor Q4 measures request complexity or whether appointments were routine. They cannot establish that younger patients' higher satisfaction reflects easier, more routine requests, or distinguish lower need from an access gap.

Scorecard

Numbers 7 of 11 right

Question		Its answer	True
Among respondents who tried to book in the last three months, what percentage were satisfied (fairly or very) with the booking process?	✓	50.8%	50.8%
Weighting each age band's percentage satisfied (fairly or very, among those who tried to book) by that band's share of registered adults, what is the overall percentage satisfied?	✗	52.4%	46.3%
What percentage of all respondents said there was a time in the last three months when they needed an appointment but did not try to book one?	✓	24.3%	24.3%
Weighted to the age mix of registered adults, what percentage would prefer to book by phone?	✗	36.6%	45%
What is the 95% margin of error, in percentage points, on the unweighted percentage satisfied among respondents who tried to book?	✓	4.2 points	4.18 points
Among respondents who tried to book, is the difference in the percentage satisfied (fairly or very) between female and male respondents statistically significant at the 95% level? (1 for yes, 0 for no)	✓	No	No
How many of the open-text answers ask to be able to book by phone, or for a phone booking line?	✗	79	97
How many of the open-text answers from respondents aged 65 or over ask to be able to book by phone, or for a phone booking line?	✓	13	13
Weighted to the age mix of registered adults, about how many of the practice's 17,100 registered adults would say there was a time in the last three months when they needed an appointment but did not try to book one?	✗	4,160	4,393
Among respondents aged 18 to 44, what percentage would prefer to book using the online request form?	✓	58.4%	58.4%
What percentage of the patients sent the text message completed the survey?	✓	9%	9%

Traps in the data 4 of 7 handled

✓Patients aged 65 or over are 24% of registered adults but 9.8% of respondents (text link, online only). They are less satisfied and prefer the phone, so weighting to the age mix lowers satisfaction among those who tried to book from 50.8% to 46.3% and raises the phone preference from 40.7% to 45.0%.
✗Q2 satisfaction (50.8%) is asked only of the 549 who tried to book. 24.3% of all respondents needed an appointment but did not try to book (35.1% of those who did not try to book); those who did not try are left out of the satisfaction base, which flatters it.
✗Last year's 71% came from a paper survey handed out in the waiting room before the change, to patients who had got an appointment; this year's 50.8% is from an online survey by text of those who tried to book. Different method and different people.
✗The practice manager believes patients prefer the new system. Unweighted, the online form leads (46.2% against 40.7% for phone), but only 18-44s prefer it (58.4%); weighted to the age mix, preference is split (40.7% online, 45.0% phone, 6.7% in person).
✓Only 13 respondents need an interpreter; 61.5% of them would prefer to book in person.
✓Among those who tried to book, women look less satisfied than men (47.5% against 55.3%, bases 303 and 237), but the difference is not statistically significant at 95%.
✓Only 886 of 9,840 patients texted completed (about 9%), and the 7,260 registered adults without a mobile number on record were never invited; patients who cannot or do not go online are the least likely to have answered.

The analysis

Recommendation

Do not keep online-first as it is, and do not restore a morning phone line for every patient. Adopt the third option, but wider than the three named groups: keep the online form as the default, add a staffed phone booking route that any patient may use (not only over-75s, disabled patients and interpreter users), and put in place in-person help at reception for those who need it. Three things make a narrower eligibility rule unworkable: (1) 29.9% of 18-to-44s and 49.0% of 45-to-64s prefer phone, and most phone requests in the open text come from under-65s; (2) 36.6% of all adults, weighted, prefer phone; (3) 24.3% of patients needed an appointment and did not try, citing expected waits and a sense they would not be seen — a signal of capped capacity, not just a channel problem. Alongside the channel change, two operational fixes are more urgent than the form itself: reply to online requests the same working day (the single most common complaint, including from satisfied younger users), and cut the form's length and repetition. Offer the form in community languages and an easy-read version; fix screen-reader labels, larger text and one-handed input; and train reception to book for patients who arrive in person. Continuity of GP was a smaller but real theme and should be monitored separately — it is not what this decision is about. A universal phone line will need resourcing: if even 15% of adult booking contacts move from form to phone, reception load rises sharply, so the phone offer must be staffed as a booking channel, not left to whoever can get through at 8am.

What would change it

The recommendation would change if: (a) practice operational data showed phone demand at a fully open line would exceed what reception can staff, in which case a targeted line plus a clear 'ask at reception if you need to book by phone' offer for everyone, not a closed eligibility list, would be the fallback; (b) a properly weighted follow-up (including patients without mobile numbers, by post or in-clinic) showed that under-45s' preference for phone was an artefact of this sample — currently 29.9% prefer phone even in the most online-friendly band; (c) same-day response times and a shorter form, once implemented, lifted satisfaction among online users to last year's 71% without any channel change — then online-first could be kept with targeted offline support only; or (d) capacity data showed the 24.3% who did not try were right — appointment supply, not booking channel, is the binding constraint, in which case no channel design will raise satisfaction until supply is addressed.

Findings

Satisfaction with booking has fallen substantially since the switch to online-first: from 71% satisfied in October 2025 to 50.8% among patients who tried to book in the last three months.

Medium confidenceBase 549

Q2 net satisfied 50.8% (n=549); last year's waiting-room survey 71% of 412. The two surveys used different modes (paper in the waiting room vs text-to-online), so part of the gap may be mode or sample composition, but the fall is far larger than the new survey's margin of error (±4.2 points).
The practice manager cannot tell the partners that 'patients prefer the new system'. Fewer than half of recent bookers are satisfied, and only 46.2% of all respondents prefer the online form; the single largest open-text demand is the return of phone booking for everyone.

High confidenceBase 886

Q2 net satisfied 50.8%; Q6 online 46.2%, phone 40.7%, in person 4.6%; 79 of 246 open-text answers ask for phone booking, including from patients who otherwise praise the form.
The fall in satisfaction is concentrated among older patients. Among those who tried to book, only 17.8% of 65-to-74s and 13.0% of 75-or-overs are satisfied, against 64.7% of 18-to-44s.

Medium confidenceBase 549

Q2 net satisfied: 18-44 64.7% (n=272), 45-64 44.0% (n=209), 65-74 17.8% (n=45), 75+ 13.0% (n=23). The 65+ bases are small, so the exact percentages are imprecise, but the direction and size of the gap are unambiguous.
There is no statistically significant difference in satisfaction between women and men who tried to book; the chair's question about a sex gap is answered: none is detectable.

Medium confidenceBase 540

Q2: women 47.5% satisfied (n=303), men 55.3% (n=237); gap 7.8 points against a per-group margin of error of about ±9 points. Overlapping intervals mean the difference could easily be chance.
Patients who need an interpreter are an exception to the sex/age pattern: none of the 13 prefer online, 61.5% want to book in person at reception, and their open-text answers ask for a form in their own language or staff who speak it. They are almost invisible in the survey (1.5% of respondents vs their share of the list) and this finding rests on very few people.

Low confidenceBase 13

Q6 interpreter yes (n=13): online 7.7%, phone 23.1%, in person 61.5%; A112 (Polish form), A756 (Urdu speaker). Interpreter 'yes' is 1.5% of 886 = 13 respondents.
Nearly a quarter of all adult respondents (24.3%) needed an appointment in the last three months but did not try to book — unmet demand the booking change does not capture. Weighted to the registered-adult age mix this is about 4,160 people. The main reasons are expected waits for a reply (43.7%) and expecting not to get an appointment (28.8%), not inability to use the form.

Medium confidenceBase 886

Q4 Yes 24.3% of 886; Q5 (n=215): wait too long 43.7%, would not get an appointment 28.8%, went elsewhere 22.8%, form difficult 16.7%, not confident online 9.3%. Older bands more likely to be put off (33.3% of 65-74 and 75+).
Preference for phone booking is concentrated in older and disabled patients, but is also substantial in working-age patients: 29.9% of 18-to-44s and 49.0% of 45-to-64s would prefer to book by phone. Restricting a phone line to over-75s, disabled patients and interpreter users would miss most of the demand for it.

High confidenceBase 886

Q6 phone: 18-44 29.9%, 45-64 49.0%, 65-74 63.0%, 75+ 72.7%, disability yes 50.0% vs no 39.5%. Weighted to the adult age mix, 36.6% prefer phone vs 46.2% online. Open-text phone requests come from every age band, including 18-44s (e.g. A039, A043, A103, A184, A200).
Online-first is working well for younger patients: 64.7% of 18-to-44s who tried to book are satisfied, 58.4% prefer the form, and many open-text answers say leave it alone. The problem is not the channel itself but the form's length/repetition and, above all, slow replies to online requests.

High confidenceBase 272

Q2 18-44 satisfied 64.7% (n=272); Q6 online 58.4% (n=462). Open text: repeated complaints that the form asks the same things several ways (A021, A036, A124, A114) and that replies take 36 hours to five days (A019, A107, A152, A204, A208, A214, A238, A321, A439, A540, A726, A805 and others).
Disabled patients who tried to book are less satisfied (40.0%) than those without a disability (52.3%), and 50.0% prefer phone vs 39.5%. Their open-text answers describe specific access barriers: screen-reader failure, tremor, one-handed use, fatigue, learning disability, sight loss. Several of these patients need a person to book with, not only an accessible form.

Medium confidenceBase 102

Q2 disability yes 40.0% (n=65) vs no 52.3% (n=484); the gap is not statistically significant at n=65 (margin about ±12 points) but the direction matches Q6 and the open text. Q6 disability yes (n=102): online 23.5%, phone 50.0%, in person 15.7%. Examples: A189, A193, A221, A237, A258, A262, A265, A334, A339, A375, A443, A512, A713.
The sample is not representative of the registered adult list: 18-to-44s are 52.1% of respondents but 44% of the list; 75+ are 3.7% of respondents but 11% of the list. Only patients with a mobile number could respond (58% of adults). Unweighted headline figures understate older patients' dissatisfaction and phone preference; the weighted figures in this report correct for age but not for mobile ownership.

High confidenceBase 886

Q7 sample: 18-44 52.1%, 45-64 38.0%, 65-74 6.1%, 75+ 3.7% (n=886). Population: 44%, 32%, 13%, 11%. Fielded to 9,840 of 17,100 adults.
Q1 suggests a possible access gap rather than lower need among younger patients: 38.7% of 18-to-44s had not tried to book in three months, vs 14.8% of 65-to-74s. Combined with Q4, younger patients are less likely to have needed and sought a booking recently, so the high younger satisfaction partly reflects easier, more routine requests.

Low confidenceBase 886

Q1 Yes: 18-44 58.9% (n=462), 45-64 62.0% (n=337), 65-74 83.3% (n=54), 75+ 69.7% (n=33). Q4 Yes: 22.1% / 24.9% / 33.3% / 33.3%.

Caveats

The sample is skewed young and female relative to the registered adult list (18-44: 52.1% of respondents vs 44% of adults; 75+: 3.7% vs 11%). Only patients with a mobile number on record could be invited (9,840 of 17,100). Unweighted figures understate older patients' dissatisfaction and phone preference; age-weighted figures are given where they matter, but no weighting can fully repair non-response.
Response rate is 9.0% of those texted (886 of 9,840). Patients motivated to complain, and patients who like the new system enough to praise it, are both over-represented; the silent majority of 9,000 non-responders is unknown.
The comparison with last year's 71% satisfied is not like-for-like: October 2025 was a paper waiting-room survey of 412, this is a text-to-online survey of 886. Mode, timing (pre- vs post-change) and who chooses to answer all differ. The fall is large enough to survive these differences, but the exact size of the fall is not precise.
Small bases for the groups at the centre of the decision: 65-74 who tried to book (n=45), 75+ who tried (n=23), interpreter users (n=13), and 75+ in the open text (11 put-off reasons). Percentages for these groups have wide margins of error and should be read as direction, not precise levels.
The survey was only sent to patients with a mobile number. Patients without one are likely to be older, less confident online, and more dependent on phone or in-person booking — the very people the decision is about. Their views are largely missing.
Q2 measures the last booking attempt only, and Q5 the most recent occasion of not trying; both are retrospective and subject to recall and mood. Q6 is a stated preference, not observed behaviour; some patients who prefer phone may still use the form successfully.
The 24.3% 'needed but did not try' figure includes patients who went elsewhere (pharmacy, 111) or whose problem resolved; it is not all unmet clinical need, and it is not all caused by the booking change.
Open-text answers were given by 246 of 886 respondents and are self-selected; they are used here to explain the numbers, not to count the population.

Next steps

decisionDecide on the hybrid model: retain online as default, open a staffed phone booking route to all patients, and offer in-person booking help at reception, with proactive invitation to over-75s, disabled patients and interpreter users.
experimentSet and publish a same-working-day response standard for online requests, with an acknowledgement on receipt, and staff to it.
experimentShorten the online form: remove repeated symptom questions, cut mandatory fields, offer a short version for routine requests; add community-language and easy-read versions; fix screen-reader labels, contrast, text size and one-handed input.
researchRun a follow-up survey and short interviews that reach patients without a mobile number (paper at the desk, practice letter, and interviews at the surgery), with quotas for over-75s and interpreter users, before locking the operating model.
researchAnalyse practice booking and outcome data for the same period: channel used, time to reply, appointment offered or not, DNAs, and A&E/111/pharmacy diversion; and count how many patients currently book by each route.
monitorTrack, monthly: satisfaction by age, disability and language need; share booking by phone vs online vs in person; time to reply; and patients who needed but did not request an appointment (ask at any contact).
decisionDo not treat the sex gap in satisfaction as a real effect; report it as no detectable difference to the PPG chair, with the numbers.
monitorNote continuity of GP as a separate, smaller theme (15 open-text answers) and raise it with the partners as a clinical-organisation issue, not a booking-channel issue.

Open-text themes it coded

Restore phone booking for all patients 77Form is too long, repetitive or confusing 25Too slow replies to online requests 45Accessibility of the form (sight, dexterity, fatigue, screen reader, easy read) 14Need help from a person at reception (in person) 6Interpreter / language support 3Continuity of care / same doctor 15Online form works well — leave it as it is 71No recent need / low user, cannot say 18Disability / health condition makes online booking hard 21

The survey it planned

4 screening questions and 12 questions, as the model wrote them.

S1
Ashgrove Medical Group would like your views on how patients book GP appointments. The survey takes about 5 minutes. Your answers are confidential and will be used to improve booking. You will not be named in any results. You may have a family member, friend or carer help you complete it. Do you agree to take part?
One answer
- Yes, I agree to take part
- No, I do not want to take part
Continues if Yes, I agree to take part
S2
How old are you?
One answer
- Under 18
- 18 to 44
- 45 to 64
- 65 to 74
- 75 or over
- Prefer not to say
Continues if 18 to 44; 45 to 64; 65 to 74; 75 or over; Prefer not to say
S3
Are you registered as a patient at Ashgrove Medical Group?
One answer
- Yes
- No
- I am not sure
Continues if Yes; I am not sure
S4
Have you already filled in this survey?
One answer
- No, this is my first time
- Yes, I have already completed it
Continues if No, this is my first time
Q1
Since 6 April 2026, have you asked Ashgrove Medical Group for a GP appointment? This includes using the online form, phoning, or asking at reception.
One answer
- Yes
- No, I needed an appointment but I did not try to book one
- No, I have not needed a GP appointment
Q2
Thinking about the most recent time you asked for a GP appointment, how did you do it?
One answer
- I filled in the practice's online request form (website or NHS App)
- I phoned the practice
- I went to reception in person
- A family member, friend or carer did it for me
- Another way
Routing Shown only if Q1 is: Yes
Q3
What happened as a result of that most recent request?
One answer
- I was offered an appointment at a time that suited me
- I was offered an appointment but the day, time or type of appointment did not suit me
- I was not offered an appointment
- I gave up before I finished my request
- The practice did not reply, or I am still waiting
- I cannot remember
Routing Shown only if Q1 is: Yes
Q4
Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with booking GP appointments at Ashgrove Medical Group?
Scale

Scale 1-5: Very dissatisfied to Very satisfied

Routing Shown only if Q1 is: Yes
Q5
You said you needed a GP appointment but did not try to book one. What stopped you? Choose all that apply.
Any that apply
- I find online forms too difficult
- I do not have a mobile phone, or I do not have internet
- I could not get through on the phone
- I did not think I would be seen quickly enough
- I did not think I would be able to see the GP I wanted
- I did not want to explain my problem on a form
- I was too unwell to book
- I was worried I would only be offered a phone or video appointment
- Something else
Routing Shown only if Q1 is: No, I needed an appointment but I did not try to book one
Q6
Please select 'Agree' so we know you are reading the questions.
One answer
- Agree
- Disagree
Q7
If you could choose any way to request a GP appointment, which would you prefer?
One answer
- Using the online request form
- Phoning the practice
- Going to reception in person
- Asking a family member, friend or carer to do it for me
- I have no preference
- I would rather not have to request appointments
Q8
Which of these, if any, would make it easier for you to book a GP appointment? Choose all that apply.
Any that apply
- A morning phone line that any patient can call to book
- A dedicated phone line and extra help at reception for patients who need it (for example if you are over 75, have a disability, or need an interpreter)
- More help at reception to book without going online
- A simpler or shorter online form
- Someone to show me how to use the online form
- A faster reply from the practice after I send a request
- Getting an appointment sooner after I request one
- Nothing, I find booking easy enough as it is
- Something else
Judges: double-barrelled
One option combines a dedicated phone line with extra reception help. Selecting it does not establish whether one or both would make booking easier.
The option 'A dedicated phone line and extra help at reception...' combines two different proposed solutions into a single option.
Q9
Overall, how easy or difficult do you find it to book a GP appointment at Ashgrove Medical Group?
Scale

Scale 1-5: Very difficult to Very easy

Routing Shown only if Q1 is: Yes; No, I needed an appointment but I did not try to book one
Q10
Do you have any condition or disability that makes it harder for you to book a GP appointment? For example, problems with hearing, sight, using a phone or computer, moving around, memory, or feeling anxious.
One answer
- Yes
- No
- Prefer not to say
Q11
Do you ever need help with English when you contact the GP? For example, an interpreter, British Sign Language, or help from family or friends to translate.
One answer
- Yes, I need an interpreter or BSL
- Yes, I get help from family or friends
- No, I do not need help with English
- Prefer not to say
Q12
If there is anything else you would like to tell us about booking GP appointments at Ashgrove Medical Group, please write it here. This question is optional.
Open text

Sample plan

Invite every registered adult aged 18 or over who has a mobile number on the Ashgrove Medical Group record (about 17,100 adults; expect roughly 14,500 to 15,500 usable numbers after removing SMS opt-outs, the deceased and research objections). Send one text with a unique survey link, then one reminder to non-responders after 4 to 5 days. Fieldwork about two weeks. Target about 900 completes. Apply soft age quotas using S2, with a modest boost to older patients because they are the focus of the decision and less likely to answer a text survey: 18 to 44: 200; 45 to 64: 210; 65 to 74: 240; 75 or over: 250. Do not hard-quota disability or interpreter need (unknown before fieldwork); monitor these as they come in. Precision: the partners asked for plus or minus 5 percentage points at 95% confidence in each of the four age bands. That needs about 385 completes per band, or about 1,540 in total, which is more than the 900 cap. At the quotas above, the 95% margin of error on a 50% figure is about plus or minus 6.9pp (18 to 44), 6.8pp (45 to 64), 6.3pp (65 to 74) and 6.2pp (75 or over), and about plus or minus 3.3pp overall. If the partners need plus or minus 5pp in every band, completes must rise to about 1,540, or they must accept the wider intervals. Weight overall results to the practice age and sex profile; report subgroup results unweighted with confidence intervals. Coverage gap: adults with no mobile on the record (more often aged 75 or over) are not invited; if the 75 or over quota is not met, report that gap next to the results rather than surveying uninvited patients. Cleaning: drop completes that fail Q6, that are under 40% of median interview length, or that show straight-lining on Q8. Questions are neutrally worded so the results can support or undercut online-first booking.