How the problem develops
A coordinator prepares a service brief from an attachment called final-v3, while the project owner has revised the shared file. Both copies look legitimate. The problem starts before document generation: nobody can identify the approved source reliably.
What to check first
- Find where the current approved version is recorded and who can publish a replacement.
- Check whether generated outputs retain the source version or just its filename.
A better process
- Choose one controlled location for approved templates and source documents.
- Separate draft, approved and retired versions with a named approval owner.
- Record the source version in generated output so a later correction can be traced.
What a system can do
Select an approved template, populate known fields and create a versioned draft with its source reference.
Where people stay in control
The system should stop when approval is absent or sources conflict. It must not pick the newest-looking filename as authority.
Benefits and tradeoffs
The useful outcome
Teams can reproduce what was sent and identify which outputs need correction after a source change.
The tradeoff
Version control requires publishing discipline. A perfect generation workflow still fails if people bypass the approved source.
Test before going live
Retire a template, revise a source and retry an old job. Confirm the output either uses the approved version or clearly stops for review.