1. Manufacturers (Steve Gass, Bosch, others)

“Bosch estimates that this process should take a minute.” This is Bosch on how long it takes for the customer to start there system again if it is falsely tripped. This is a casual claim as it is just saying the usual amount of time it will take a regular person to change the cartridge and get the saw ready to go again. This makes it easier than replacing some of the machine or a large amount of it which can be tedious and expensive

2. Customers

“SawStop has recorded 2,000 “finger saves”—customer reports of accidents likely to have caused disfiguring injuries with conventional saws.” This is a factual claim as it says that 2,000 fingers have possibly been saved because of the saw. This comes from actual costumers that advocate from actual experience.

3. Industry Spokespeople

“the market for popular, lightweight saws, which cost as little as $100, would be destroyed by the added expense of SawStop”. This is an evaluative claim because this is not factual but rather based on judgment. We do not know if this market would really be destroyed or just adapt but it is judged based off pricing of this system that it could be destroyed.

4. Consumer Safety Advocates

“A Table Saw Blade Guard Survey recently completed by CPSC to determine modular guard system usage and preferences concluded 71% of users preferred using the modular blade guard compared to the traditional blade guard or no guard at all” This can be looked at as a comparative claim. This is because it is being used as a source to advocate that customers would want a safer saw with the blade stopping technology as they already tend to want safer saws when purchasing.

5. Injured Plaintiffs

“resulting in more than 33,000 emergency room visits and 4,000 amputations. At an average cost of $35,000 each, these accidents lead to more than $2.3 billion in societal costs annually” This is a factual and numerical claim as it says how  many people have been dismembered by table top saws and also how much money it costs medically each year.

6. Personal Injury Lawyers

“Now these manufacturers are facing dozens of lawsuits brought forth by people whose injuries could have been prevented had SawStop or similar safety mechanisms been in place.” This is a casual claim as it says that if these safety features were in place these people would not have lost limbs and also would not be suing these companies. If the safety precautions were put in place people would not be injured as severely.

7. Government Officials

“CPSC asserted that SawStop’s patents were holding them back — potentially forcing them to pay royalties or engage in expensive patent litigation to introduce their system.” This is a casual claim saying that because of the patents or having to pay royalties it makes it expensive for companies to try to make this change.

8. News Reporters

“The SawStop story is about an industry’s ability to resist a major safety advance that could have prevented countless disfiguring injuries” This is a casual claim as it says that it could prevent countless dismemberments, but the industry’s involved done want to do it because of a lack of money that could be made.