Selection of the case history number was based on what was considered to be the site scale model most relevant to that case history, i.e. it becomes the leading case history: each case history invariably had several other, i.e. associated, site scale models that could also be related to it.
It is opportune to emphasise again that in the figures the models are portrayed simply for clarity. Each model will inevitably require considerably more detail to be added to it and the engineering geologists are encouraged to do this from their experience and from relevant literature studies. The check lists produced should therefore be much more comprehensive than the model. For example, Fell, et al. (1992), their Section 3.2.7, gives a check list of questions for intrusive and flow volcanic rocks, and a separate check list of questions for pyroclastic rocks in Section 3.3.3. The discussions they give with the development of their check list are very helpful in understanding the function and derivation of such lists.