The name someone preferred

Text A: an original contemporary practice extract.

At the neighbourhood awards rehearsal, I introduced a volunteer using the full name printed on the nomination form. She asked me to use the shorter name by which everyone at the project knew her. I had assumed that expanding it would make the occasion more respectful. She said it would make the introduction sound as though it belonged to somebody else.

I changed my speaking notes and checked the pronunciation with her. The certificate retained the name she had supplied for it, which was different from the name she wanted spoken. There was no need to force both into one arrangement. Before the ceremony, I asked the other recipients how they wished to be introduced rather than deciding that formality could answer the question for them.

Text B: an original contemporary practice extract.

The rowing club’s new newsletter used the name recorded on an older membership list for one of its coaches. The coach wrote back asking for the name he now used at sessions. The editor had thought that copying the list was the safest way to avoid making an informal guess. It had instead allowed an old record to decide the current introduction.

The next issue carried the requested name, and the editor corrected the working contact list after checking it with the coach. Competition paperwork was handled separately using the details the coach supplied for that purpose. The editor also added a question about preferred published names to new contributors’ forms. Accuracy required asking the person, rather than trusting that one existing list suited every use.

Both texts describe the responses to the requested names.

What similarities do the responses to the requested names share in these extracts? Use evidence from both texts to support your answer.