"Jane was only one point out of range. Not sixes to sevens, but 6.8 to 6.9. The quake has been reevaluated."

Yes, that's true. But I was referring to the fact that when the quake first occured it was rated a 7.5, yet still proposed as a hit. Then further on, I was continued to talk about "what if" it was indeed a 7.5, would it still be claimed, and from the responses it seems that it would have. So then I asked why even bother specifying magnitude ranges on quakes.

To be clear, if a prediction specifies a magnitude range of 5.5-6.2 but the quake is a 7.5, is it right to claim it as a hit? I say no. Especially with that much of an error.

Brian