The extra names on the list

Text A: an original contemporary report-style practice extract.

The river survey team expected sixteen volunteers, but thirty-four people arrived at the meeting point. Before giving any instructions, the coordinator recorded each person’s name and asked who had taken part in a survey before. New volunteers were paired with experienced ones, and the riverbank was divided into shorter sections so that the teams would not crowd together.

The safety briefing was delivered twice. While one half listened, the others prepared labels for the records. Only trained volunteers entered the shallow water; everyone else observed from the bank or wrote down findings. The survey began late and covered fewer sections than planned. Afterwards, the coordinator introduced advance booking and a reserve list for future surveys.

Text B: an original contemporary practice extract.

The neighbourhood archive had prepared for twelve people at its indexing afternoon, but twenty-five arrived. The organiser asked everyone to sign in and indicate whether they had used the archive before. Regular volunteers then worked alongside newcomers, and the visitors were divided between two rooms to create more space.

The organiser repeated the introduction for each group. Those waiting for it checked printed lists of names and dates. Only regular volunteers handled the fragile original documents, while the newcomers entered information from copies. The session continued beyond its planned finishing time, although fewer boxes were indexed than the organiser had hoped. The archive later introduced a booking limit and a waiting list.

Both texts describe the responses to more people attending than expected.

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