This thread reminded me of this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MrSbAjFWEo

It's a helicopter pilot recounting his experience with a "survival kit" plus lots of other gear and a spare 15 gallons of fuel.

Also couple of videos of him undergoing training by doing an overnight with his survival kit. Quickly learn what sucks and is missing.

https://www.youtube.com/c/bradleyfriesen/search?query=survival%20training

Claims need a defined context for meaning.
A good review presents the features of a tool with reasonably little opinion. Done right it provides usefull information.
Judging means evaluating the features in the context of the intended use. That requires a context to start with.
A Swiss Army Knife is a versatile good quality tool (remember what McGyver could accomplish with his SAK). When you need a heavy chopper, the SAK is not up to the job.

What if a claim was made as a blanket statement?

Jeanette Isabelle

That does not make a difference.
The blanket statement probably has an implicit context. Viewing it with a different context in mind is bound to lead to misunderstandings.
In my line of work we use user profiles and user stories for context - basically tasks a fictional user wants to accomplish with the product and properties the product must have. The fictional user has some properties too (skills, knowledge, physical condition and other boundary conditions). User stories may be mutually exclusive. User stories and user properties may not match.
As an example for the 72h kit:

• the user wants to eat at least 800 kcal per day for 3 days
• the user wants to store at least 64 ounces of water
• the user wants to boil at least 16 ounces water at a time
• the user wants to filter water
• the user wants to carry less than 20 lbs total
• the user wants to store the kit in a car
• ...

The person making the statement needs to make a real effort in being clear to the reader.


The only context I view a commercial product, be it a kit or a multi-tool, are its features. After all, that is how such products are both marketed and reviewed.

Jeanette Isabelle

I have no desire to get into this fight. It is going nowhere.

I can only offer my personal experience, for perspective. Take it for what you will, or ignore; I really don't care. I have no dog in this hunt.

In the many years I backpacked solo in the Rocky Mountains, I spent endless hours thinking out armchair lists and assembling gear. Weight was poison, but robust capabilities meant survival. I learned to keep a sheet of paper in my kit, and on these multi-day trips I would leave short, cryptic notes to my armchair self. What worked, and what didn't. It taught my armchair planning self humility: trust your field notes.

I have learned from experience to carry this philosophy forward. Kits that are not tested in the field have unseen failure modes. Hopefully, testing them will ensure they do not fail at a critical moment.

My 2c.

I agree.



No offence intendend but that is very likely not your context. Your context is your intended use of the product and your expectations. After all, that is what you evaluate the features against. It is very easy to forget that.