if the ALJ finds, and the record supports the finding, that the nonexertional impairment does not diminish the claimant’s residual functional capacity to perform the full range of activities listed in the Guidelines. Id. 5 . Both obesity and pain are examples of non-exertional impairments that might significantly restrict a claimant’s ability to perform the full range of sedentary work. See, e.g., Lucy, 113 F.3d at 908 (obesity); Reynolds v. Chater, 82 F.3d 254, 258 (8th Cir.1996) (pain). 6 . Conn v. Secretary, 51 F.3d 607, 610 (6th Cir.1995) (finding that ALJ may rely solely on a VE’s testimony even if it directly contradicts DOT); Logan v. Shalala, 882 F.Supp. 755, 764 (C.D.Ill.1995) (finding DOT’S requirements not controlling); Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1436 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); but see Porch v. Chater, 115 F.3d 567, 572
holding the record must demonstrate that the alj considered all of the evidence and the alj must discuss  the evidence supporting his decision  the uncontroverted evidence he chooses not to rely upon and significantly probative evidence he rejects holding that an alj is entitled to rely on vocational experts testimony that is based on assumptions that are supported by evidence in the record holding discrepancies should be resolved in favor of the dot particularly when the alj simply appears to have made a mistake by relying on the ve testimony over an inconsistent description in the dot holding alj may rely on ve contradicting dot but only insofar as the record contains persuasive evidence to support the deviation holding that while the information in the dot is not dispositive the alj may take administrative notice of reliable job information available from various governmental and other publications such as the dot