Research question
The value of an implementation record depends on the decisions it can inform. Event dates, reporting dates and interpretation dates may differ and should not be conflated.
Source and findings
FRAME asks when modifications occurred and why they were made, providing a structure for interpreting change over time. Wiltsey Stirman, Baumann & Miller (2019), FRAME
Interpretation
Evidence is useful during implementation when it answers a decision need. More frequent reporting alone is not a demonstration of better learning.
Evidence timing and decision relevance
A weekly update may describe an event from several months earlier. Conversely, an observation received immediately may still be uncertain. An analysis should distinguish when an event occurred, when it was recorded and when its interpretation changed. These dates support reconstruction of the sequence without assuming that a newer document contains better evidence.
The relevant frequency of review depends on the decision. A fast-moving implementation barrier may need prompt attention, whereas a longer-term outcome may require a different observation period. Increasing update frequency without a clear decision purpose can add work. These are practice considerations derived from the importance of timing and context; they are not a quantified claim that real-time reporting improves program performance.
Limits of the evidence
Documentation timing does not itself establish that a team used evidence or that an adaptation improved results.