I've been trying to ensure that my documentation content and structure incorporates all the required elements needed to document my research. I've read over the following, including the referenced examples, but am getting confused by the differences in approach.
1) Elizabeth Shown Mills, "QuickLesson 20: Research Reports for Research Success," Evidence Explained: Historical Analysis, Citation & Source Usage (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/quicklesson-20-research-reports-research-success : posted 23 May 2015).
2) Elizabeth Shown Mills, “Essential Research Reports: 3 Samples,” Historic Pathways (https://www.historicpathways.com : accessed 1 September 2019).
The first appears to illustrate the construction of a Research Plan that metamorphoses into a Research Report, as research and analysis content is added. I understand the workflow. But, I am confused by the associated examples. Most seem to show sets of sub-elements in the overall report as separate documents. I can't remember having seen an end-to-end (single document) example of this style of report. That would help me quite a bit.
The second seems to approach the subject in a more "traditional" technical writing style. By that I mean, a separate plan that lays out what is intended to be done and a report that documents reasoning and conclusions. I tend to understand this approach, due to my engineering background. Engineers usually keep Plans and Reports separate.
Are these just two equally valid approaches or is the later article your current recommendation on the subject. I should note that other sites seem to follow the first approach. With those explanations, I have the same issue.