How a specification gets onto this site

Every figure is transcribed from the manufacturer’s current product page or PDF owner manual, and the document it was read from is named in the same row that prints the figure.

The value is recorded together with the sentence it was read from, so every later check runs against the manufacturer’s own words and not against a paraphrase of them.

A separate pass re-fetches the same URL, starts from the assumption that the first pass invented the value, and confirms the recorded sentence is literally on the page.

Where the manual and the product page disagree, we print both figures with both sources and reconcile neither.

An attribute the maker does not publish prints an em dash and names the document that was read and did not carry it. No figure is borrowed from a sibling model to fill the cell.

A claim that fails the second pass is not published and not deleted. It is written into the research ledger with the reason it failed, and every one of them is printed at the foot of this page.

The first 17 entries are verbatim from "DO NOT MILL ANY OF THE FOLLOWING" and check out exactly, including the preserved conditional on "Sprouted Grains or Beans (if not thoroughly dried)". But the last two entries are NOT on that list, while the ledger's own notes assert the lists are "transcribed verbatim from the owner manual pages headed...". (a) "Damp, wet or oily grains" comes from the Safety Instructions bullet "Do not mill damp, wet or oily grains" - imperative, so the force is right, the sourcing claim is not. (b) "Already-milled flour" is a CONDITIONAL rendered as an absolute prohibition: the manual says "CAUTION: WE DO NOT RECOMMEND MILLING FLOUR THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN MILLED. THIS MAY CAUSE PROBLEMS IN YOUR MILLING UNIT." A do-not-recommend/may-cause is not a do-not-mill. The parenthetical "(re-milling not recommended)" partly rescues it, but any downstream copy that reads the array as a prohibition list will publish an absolute the manufacturer never stated. Move both to a separate cautions field.

The help-centre article contains exactly six FAQs (large legumes, coarse output, lower stone, won't turn on, warranty, hopper won't attach) and its own table of contents lists only those six. The words 'clean', 'dry grains', 'oily' and 'clog' appear nowhere on it. This sentence appears to be fabricated or imported from an unnamed source.

The help-centre FAQ contains no grain list at all. Those four items are real but live on the PRODUCT PAGE, in a 'Mill any of the following / Mill any non-oily grains or legumes' block: Whole Grains (Kamut, Spelt, Barley, Farro, Rye, Soft Wheat, Hard Wheat, Triticale, Emmer, Einkorn), Gluten-Free Grains (Dried Sweet Corn, Oat Groats, White Rice, Brown Rice, Teff, Sorghum, Millet, Buckwheat, Quinoa, Amaranth), Gluten-Free Legumes (Lentils, Chickpeas, Garbanzo Beans, Baby Lima Beans, Mung Beans, Black Beans, Navy Beans, Split Peas, Pinto Beans, Soybeans). Chickpeas and Garbanzo Beans are two separate bullets, not one.

No grain list on the help centre, and the spelling 'Riticale' exists on none of the four sources. The product page prints 'Triticale', correctly. Triticale does not appear in the user-guide PDF at all.

Layout-preserving pdftotext of page 4 prints 'Kaniwa' with the tilde n - correctly spelled. 'Kaæiwa' is a text-extraction mojibake of the n-tilde that the researcher mistook for a printed typo and then explicitly promised not to 'correct silently'. The ledger enshrines an artifact as a source fact.

The words 'oat', 'oats' and 'rolled' appear nowhere in the help-centre article. 'Oat Groats' as a permitted grain IS confirmed - but on the PDF (page 4) and the product page, with no rolled-oat exclusion stated in any document fetched.

The PDF prints a real quantity: 'For any grains not listed, mill only 1/4 cup, then test the flour...'. The researcher's ellipsis is a dropped-glyph extraction artifact presented inside a 'quoted verbatim' string, which erases a usable spec. Also, the PDF prints the typo "holds it's shape"; the ledger silently normalises it to 'holds its shape' - the opposite of its stated no-silent-correction policy. The companion sentence 'Avoid grains and beans that have high oil or moisture content. Non-commercially dried products may cause build-up and damage your grain mill.' IS verbatim.

PDF page 2 was rendered to an image and inspected: the 'Flour Texture' section contains only a Warning, a large-legume Tip, and two circular dial graphics (COARSE - COUNTERCLOCKWISE / FINE - CLOCKWISE). No four-item chart, no 'sift' instruction. Those exact four labels are on the PRODUCT PAGE, in the 'Full Texture Control' block: 'All-Purpose Flour', 'Coarse Flour', 'Cracked Grain', 'Fine Flour *Sift for fine flour'. Right facts, wrong document.

All the quoted prose is verbatim (including 'incabable [sic]' and 'right away when you have included oilseeds in your milling'), and the chia-vs-oilseed tension is real. But 'Fifteen spice entries ... are flagged with a tick' is wrong: the Herbs & Spices table has fifteen ROWS and only TEN carry a √ — Anis whole, Fennel seeds, Cardamon pods, Coriander seeds, Cumin, Caraway seeds, Cloves, Star Anise, Tonka beans, Cinnamon flowers. Fenugreek, Rosemary, Allspice, Pepper and Cinnamon sticks are marked '–'. Row count was substituted for tick count. The rest of the notes field stands.

half unconfirmed. 'CORN: Grind fine for baking, coarse for cornmeal mush.' IS verbatim on the cited Tips page. 'dried corn only' is NOT: A search of the full Tips page text finds the string 'dried' nowhere on it. The restriction actually comes from an unlabelled source — a Q&A answer on the KGM product page: 'A: Hi Sofpao2, the Grain Mill Attachment will grind dried corn.' That is a positive statement about dried corn, not an exclusivity claim; 'only' is the researcher's addition. The claim is true in substance (the mill is for low-moisture grains) but it is cited to a page that does not say it.

inference presented as a prohibition. The quoted answer IS on the product page verbatim ('A: Hi Amy, The Grain Mill attachment is designed strictly for dry, low-oil grains.', in reply to 'Q: Can I use it for herbs?'). But no source anywhere says herbs must not be ground. KitchenAid answered a herb question with a scope statement; the researcher converted a soft non-endorsement into a hard prohibited-list entry. Also note this item sits inside an Which grains the manual permits object whose source link is the Product Help Tips page — and the word 'herb' does not appear on that page at all. The ledger's own note does disclose the Q&A provenance, which partly mitigates it.

'Stepless grind setting' and 'Infinitely adjustable' are on the page; 'there are no discrete click stops' is nowhere on any of the six sources. It is a reasonable inference from 'stepless', but it is the researcher's wording presented inside a block of otherwise-quoted material. Either drop it or mark it as inference.