On 04/08/2022 09:43, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 02/08/2022 09:58, Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote: >> Based on this established terminology I can think of a few good candidates: >> >> condition outcomes covered n/m >> outcomes covered n/m >> >> What do you think? > > Both are fine, but I would prefer "condition outcomes covered n/m". >
I'll update the patch. Maybe we should review the other outputs too? Something like: condition N missing outcome (true false)
