Usually the practice has been that we're given the draft report, and then we discuss it and see what we think is missing and want added. I think it's a much faster way of doing it, rather than having the researcher just ask us what we want in it. I don't want to waste the time of a meeting. It's usually done that way: we get a draft report and then see what's not in it that we think should be in it.
On May 11th, 2009. See this statement in context.