# data[].attributes.body
It seems that the best approach is to discuss engagement and responsible practices where these help to demonstrate the reach and significance of the impact, and not if they don't. However, the ambiguous position of engagement in the guidance – encouraged, but not an assessment criterion – is already producing some uncertainty among researchers, and thus extra work for PS staff who support them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Submission system (not a question but a concern)

# data[].attributes.subject
Submission system (not a question but a concern)

# data[].attributes.body
Entering text into the submission system is likely to create additional burden on HEIs compared to uploading a PDF – it creates an additional data entry task.

# data[].attributes.body
It would be good to get clearer guidance on what counts as an external source of corroboration, particularly where impacts involve e.g. joint appointments, embedded partners, or spinouts. And linked to that, how will panels view evaluative studies used as evidence (e.g. service evaluations, feasibility studies)? When might they be considered too close to the research team to be external?

# data[].attributes.body
I think that more clarity is needed on the use of tables, especially if the number of tables is unlimited, and they don't count towards the word count. This will lead to uncertainty about what's going to be seen by assessors as reasonable/acceptable.

# data[].attributes.body
Will the 'limited period' now being afforded to research published after an individual has left an institution (2 years/ 5 years for long-form) also now apply to research referenced in ICS?

# data[].attributes.body
For HEIs that are likely to be submitting interdisciplinary impact case studies (spanning multiple UoAs), how can we be sure/ what assurances do we have that the underpinning research will be accepted (by individual UoAs) if it is interdisciplinary in nature? Will this require cross-referral?

# data[].attributes.headline
Evidence gathering - a few questions around data protection, details of E&I in ICS narratives and use of AI

# data[].attributes.subject
Evidence gathering - a few questions around data protection, details of E&I in ICS narratives and use of AI

# data[].attributes.body
Will the REF team update their external-facing information notice on data protection for HEI sources to corroborate?

Will engagement activities if written into the details of the impact section of an ICS need to be approached with a RRI lens?

Inclusion of engagement activities in ICS may affect how we approach evidence gathering, will this affect how the panel approaches evidence review/considers sources to corroborate?

Can we expect any statements/positions on use of AI with regards to evidence gathering e.g. mining of social media content, developing testimonials?

# data[].attributes.body
Are case studies where the only underpinning research is from Teaching only staff eligible?

# data[].attributes.headline
In what scenario would you recommend putting an individual as a source of evidence? 

# data[].attributes.subject
In what scenario would you recommend putting an individual as a source of evidence? 

# data[].attributes.body
Feels to me like this could be a huge risk in case they don't respond if the panel contact them to corroborate any claims. If you could get your own testimonial from them and submit that, is that not always the safest approach?

# data[].attributes.headline
Any thoughts on compounding evidence? i.e. including multiple sets of data, or even multiple statements of support, in one document. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Any thoughts on compounding evidence? i.e. including multiple sets of data, or even multiple statements of support, in one document. 

# data[].attributes.body
Is anyone else exploring the use of the impact module within Sympletic to develop and store case studies? We are trying to make a decision on whether to trial it and interested to hear if others have tried.

# data[].attributes.headline
The reversal (from ICS + E&I narrative) to just ICS does mean a need to review/revise our impact support strategy, which had been broad/low-pressure - to much more targeted/high-pressure - on academics undertaking impact activity, being awarded impact funding etc.

# data[].attributes.subject
The reversal (from ICS + E&I narrative) to just ICS does mean a need to review/revise our impact support strategy, which had been broad/low-pressure - to much more targeted/high-pressure - on academics undertaking impact activity, being awarded impact funding etc.

# data[].attributes.headline
Submission of a single ICS to multiple units

# data[].attributes.subject
Submission of a single ICS to multiple units

# data[].attributes.body
The guidance states this is possible where each unit made a contribution. It is not clear if a case study underpinned by one researcher/one team is eligible for two units (where there is research fit in each unit).