I'll describe the basic content of our first paper (currently in draft) as background. More time will be spent discussing 3 challenges that we have faced in creation, along with an opportunity for feedback from others. 1. Data. An initial decision was to try and locate an observational data set, one was rich enough to support both simple and complex questions, and which could be freely shared outside the group. Maja Pohar was able to contribute a data set that follows 742 subjects with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) along with 1 matched control, selected from the same practice by each physician contributer. Terry T was able to contribute a second data set on 3854 patients with non-alcoholic liver disease (NAFLD), each with 4 age/sex matched controls. The final paper uses these along with several smaller data sets. Issues: a. The smaller data sets are in some ways not realisitic (no missings, few variables), but can be easier for targeted demonstration. They are not all observational. Should we stick with the "serious" data? b. Are these useful to others c. Where will they be formally hosted. 2. The first paper concerns hazard models. With respect to writing style, how much relative effort to devote to rigorous definitions statistical properties and motivation vs other motivation checklist examples dicussion (weaknesses, alternatives) breadth and detail 3. Minor technical. An example is the consensus decision that "check the PH assumption" should be on the checklist, and then finding in reviewing the example that there are quite varied (and strong) opinions on what is the best way to perform such a check. More generally, how 'perfect' do the examples have to be, with respect to say methods that work reasonably well in practice but are subject to challenge? (Presentation 30 min. + Discussion 15 min.)