RE: Public readability of reports to scrutiny
Reading this thread and from personal experience I now conclude that the answer is that we should only publish short, concise summary versions of any scrutiny review. Thinking about who 99% of the target audience are, then that's all that is required. Anyone else can ask for the background information pack of evidence papers if they want it.
New, innovative or interesting ideas and evidence which emerge from a scrutiny review, even from long ones lasting several months, can always be summarised in just a handful of pages maximum. Yet some reviews read like PhD theses, stunning readers into silent submission. This is bad on so many levels despite that fact that such reports are undoubtedly 'comprehensive'.
One mammoth 80+ page example I saw was so comprehensive that it included a description of the inclement weather experienced by Members during a site visit. Now, what is that all about? Was the author imagining that readers' lives are so lacking in incident that that information is of interest or relevance?
Short reports get read more and, yes, they do generate more demands for further information and provoke more follow up discussion with scrutiny. But this is a very good thing because it helps us understand better who is reading them and what they are being used for. Engaging in this dialogue surely is time better spent than writing mega volumes, 99% of which are of no interest to anyone other than those who took part.