diff --git a/03-documentation/measures.md b/03-documentation/measures.md
index efc8313..3e1d7f5 100644
--- a/03-documentation/measures.md
+++ b/03-documentation/measures.md
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ TODO:: separation of shares, inequality indices and ratios
 
 **relative** shows proportional difference between subgroups of pop -> focus on welfare in relation to others
 
-## Common ones
+## Direction
 
 ### Vertical
 
@@ -61,6 +61,3 @@ GGini; GTheil; GCOV
 
 * Foster-Greer-Thorbecke-class distribution (@Sotomayor2021)
 
-## Horizontal
-
-
diff --git a/scoping_review.qmd b/scoping_review.qmd
index 2164b88..395971c 100644
--- a/scoping_review.qmd
+++ b/scoping_review.qmd
@@ -323,6 +323,8 @@ These five dimensions of inequalities – income inequality, gender inequality,
 
 # The search protocol
 
+{{++ TODO: besides scoping, introduce systematic review considerations applicable: Cochrane, PRISMA ++}}
+
 This section will discuss the systematic scoping review methodology that is proposed to conduct the review of the literature on policy interventions that are expected to address inequalities in forms of work and labour market outcomes.
 Unlike purely systematic reviews which typically focus on specific policy questions and interventions, systematic scoping reviews focus on a wider spectrum of policies, where different study designs and research questions can be investigated.
 Since scoping reviews allow both broad and in-depth analyses, they are the most appropriate rigorous method to make a synthesis of the current evidence in this area [@Arksey2005].
@@ -478,11 +480,15 @@ Of these, {nr_relevant} have been identified as potentially relevant studies for
 """)
 ```
 
+{{++ FIXME: Update description for changing study pool ++}}
+
 The currently identified literature rises almost continuously in volume,
 with small decreases between 2001 and 2008, as well as more significant ones in 2012 and 2016,
 as can be seen in @fig-publications-per-year.
 Keeping in mind that these results are not yet screened for their full relevance to the topic at hand, so far only being *potentially* relevant in falling into the requirements of the search pattern, an increased results output does not necessarily mean a clearly rising amount of relevant literature.
 
+{{++ FIXME: give full year scale ++}}
+
  <!-- TODO Should this be sub-divided by region or subdivision later per-section? -->
 ```{python}
 #| label: fig-publications-per-year
@@ -541,6 +547,8 @@ This is because, as @fig-publications-per-year showed, the overall output was no
 In all of these cases, such outliers should provide clear points of interest during the screening process for possible re-evaluation of current term clusters for scoping.
 Should they point towards gaps (or over-optimization) of sepcific areas of interest during those time-frames or more generally, they may provide an impetus for tweaking the identification query terms to better align with the prevailing literature output.
 
+{{++ TODO: Add breakdown by thematic area++}}
+
 ```{python}
 #| label: fig-intervention-types
 #| fig-cap: Predominant type of intervention
@@ -794,6 +802,8 @@ Limitations of the study are the region-wide level of analysis which may obscure
 
 ## Diversity
 
+{{++ TODO: Subsume under individual other intervention types? ++}}
+
 ## Infrastructure/Climate Change
 
 @Kuriyama2021 look at the effects of Japan's move to decarbonise its energy sector on employment, especially rural employment.