My turn to get shot down too!
Recording standards for watching briefs should be the same as for any other piece of archaeological work - even for negative watching briefs. Features, deposits and intervensions should be accurately located (tied into OS grid and levelled with respect to Ordnance Datum). Depending on the scale of the project involved the developer may have already set up TBMs/survey points and it is often possible to use these for recording purposes. Its always useful to check how/where these survey points were derived from - sometimes for example level data on engineering drawings can be completely arbitrary but may appear by chance to relate to OS levels. On smaller sites such information may not be available, in which case you might need to call in a second pair of hands to transfer a TBM to site. There are shortcuts, but I firmly believe that you need to understand how something should be done properly, why its being done and in what order tasks should be carried out in order to know the difference between a short-cut and simply cutting corners.
I'm not necessarily suggesting this applies to the OPs situation, but many companies seem to treat watching briefs as a 'training field' for staff to get experience of running their own projects. There seems to be an attitude of watching briefs are 'easy' and are a good place for someone to gain experience before moving on to evaluations and other supposingly more complicated pieces of work. I'm not sure why this should be - to my mind a watching brief is something that needs an experienced archaeologist, someone who has the expertise to recognise (often ephemeral) archaeological features in non-archaeological conditions; someone who has the experience to know whether the flints they've seen at the bottom of a narrow trench are just a load of random natural flints or a past land-surface with in situ remnants of flint working and to be able to make quick and often unpopular decisions based on this knowledge without a second-opinion; and someone who has the expertise needed to decide quickly whether they need to stop construction works (not popular) and examine a feature in more detail and not just stand-by as archaeology is machined away. I've seen first hand examples of inexperienced archaeologists missing archaeology in a watching brief or simply standing by and watching it getting machined away because they didn't feel confident enough to tell the contractors to stop.
I also feel that watching briefs demand more knowledge/experience in construction terminology and methodology than is necessarily the case on an evaluation for example. Again I've seen watching brief reports where its stated (to paraphrase) - no archaeology was observed because the construction methods employed meant that archaeological observation was not possible :face-thinks: - well why not raise this whilst the watching brief was being undertaken and act - if the construction methods employed didn't allow for archaeological observation then something needs to be done before important archaeology is missed (speak to the local currator and tell them asap that the watching brief isn't working and agree a way forward).
I'm not sure if you're doing the watching brief as a self employed archaeologist or as part of a company, but if you're unsure about what's involved is there an opportunity to shadow someone who is experienced in undertaking such work? To be brutal - if your not sure what a watching brief involves then perhaps your not ready to undertake such work on your own?
Recording standards for watching briefs should be the same as for any other piece of archaeological work - even for negative watching briefs. Features, deposits and intervensions should be accurately located (tied into OS grid and levelled with respect to Ordnance Datum). Depending on the scale of the project involved the developer may have already set up TBMs/survey points and it is often possible to use these for recording purposes. Its always useful to check how/where these survey points were derived from - sometimes for example level data on engineering drawings can be completely arbitrary but may appear by chance to relate to OS levels. On smaller sites such information may not be available, in which case you might need to call in a second pair of hands to transfer a TBM to site. There are shortcuts, but I firmly believe that you need to understand how something should be done properly, why its being done and in what order tasks should be carried out in order to know the difference between a short-cut and simply cutting corners.
I'm not necessarily suggesting this applies to the OPs situation, but many companies seem to treat watching briefs as a 'training field' for staff to get experience of running their own projects. There seems to be an attitude of watching briefs are 'easy' and are a good place for someone to gain experience before moving on to evaluations and other supposingly more complicated pieces of work. I'm not sure why this should be - to my mind a watching brief is something that needs an experienced archaeologist, someone who has the expertise to recognise (often ephemeral) archaeological features in non-archaeological conditions; someone who has the experience to know whether the flints they've seen at the bottom of a narrow trench are just a load of random natural flints or a past land-surface with in situ remnants of flint working and to be able to make quick and often unpopular decisions based on this knowledge without a second-opinion; and someone who has the expertise needed to decide quickly whether they need to stop construction works (not popular) and examine a feature in more detail and not just stand-by as archaeology is machined away. I've seen first hand examples of inexperienced archaeologists missing archaeology in a watching brief or simply standing by and watching it getting machined away because they didn't feel confident enough to tell the contractors to stop.
I also feel that watching briefs demand more knowledge/experience in construction terminology and methodology than is necessarily the case on an evaluation for example. Again I've seen watching brief reports where its stated (to paraphrase) - no archaeology was observed because the construction methods employed meant that archaeological observation was not possible :face-thinks: - well why not raise this whilst the watching brief was being undertaken and act - if the construction methods employed didn't allow for archaeological observation then something needs to be done before important archaeology is missed (speak to the local currator and tell them asap that the watching brief isn't working and agree a way forward).
I'm not sure if you're doing the watching brief as a self employed archaeologist or as part of a company, but if you're unsure about what's involved is there an opportunity to shadow someone who is experienced in undertaking such work? To be brutal - if your not sure what a watching brief involves then perhaps your not ready to undertake such work on your own?