Analysis of how cryonics firms report their cases

I'm concerned about how all cryonics firms report their cases.. Here's an excerpt from an alcor report by Fred Chamberlain in 2000

Alcor Central Activities;
Standby Team Travel/Logistics
At Alcor Central, Hugh Hixon
and Bruce Cohen set up the operat-
ing room and prepared for filtering
of perfusate. Two local surgeons,
Jose Kanshepolski M.D. and
Nancy McEachern D.V., were on-
call. Other ACT team members
were contacted to participate in the
cryoprotective perfusion.
The standby team (total of
four) regrouped at O’Hare Interna-
tional Airport, at about 2:00 a.m.
Central Daylight Time and de-
parted. Equipment taken with us
included the PIB/SCD (Portable
Ice Bath & Spray Cooling Device)
Kit, Medications Kit, ATP (Air
Transportable Perfusion) System,
MHP (organ preservation fluid; 20
liters), and a Thumper (automatic
chest compression device depen-
dent on hospital wall oxygen or
local acquisition of high pressure
oxygen cylinders).

[+]

By now, we ought to be able to discern typical reports-- so we can compare parameters across the board. Every report seems to have its' own characteristic traits however-- and certianly the latest SA report on C81 is different in that way. How can an itinerant reader like me compare and contrast the various parameters involved? Are the people on the team becoming less likely to be public? From my own point of view, I'm not enjoying the style of reporting going on. The Cryonics magazine for example makes their graphs far too tiny to read. And there is no attempt made at educating the new reader on the significance of the various parameters in the case.


Case reporting (1)
Cases-- 2007 (1)