Institutional responses to difficulties in undergraduate research depend partly on how student experience becomes visible in qualitative accounts. This study asks which institutional decisions can be supported by displayed student quotations and which remain beyond their evidential reach. A document audit examined the findings of a qualitative investigation involving 45 final-year medical and dental students at a public university in Pakistan. Fourteen quotation blocks were registered by page, thematic location, programme, gender label, and principal institutional referent. Descriptive enumeration was combined with explicit coding, missing-label bounds, a nonexclusive coding check, and deletion of each block in turn. Thirteen blocks carried programme and gender labels; none carried a unique participant identifier. Attributed blocks occupied 11 of 16 programme–gender–theme combinations. Allocating the unlabelled block could increase this count to 12. Seven decision areas were identified: scheduling, assessment, recognition, practical training, equipment, literature access, and faculty availability. Six remained represented under every single-block deletion; literature access depended on one block. These counts describe publication content and do not estimate student-level prevalence, inequality, or intervention effects. The accounts justify specifying questions for curriculum committees, research supervisors, laboratory services, and library staff, while providing insufficient grounds to rank expenditure or predict educational improvement. Transparent attribution and bounded interpretation can therefore make qualitative evidence more useful for institutional deliberation without converting selected quotations into population estimates.
