ORIGINAL FICTIONAL MEMO · RECOMMENDATION ONLY
Pilot revision-linked review notes for one guide
To: Documentation coordinator · From: Editorial lead
Actual names and date: not supplied.
Decision requested
Recommend option B for one guide review, conditional on a named maintainer and confirmed access.
Keep the prior email files as source history. No actual authorization is recorded.
Compare the alternatives
Common criteria: comment-to-version traceability, agreed contribution route and maintenance responsibility.
Option A · improve the email process
Require the file label in subjects/comments. Little new setup; the coordinator still gathers separate replies and checks references.
Option B · pilot one shared register
Record comment, source-file version, reviewer and disposition reference together. A maintainer and actual access arrangement are required.
Why B, and what it costs in work
B makes the missing version reference an explicit field. It also adds a maintenance task. These notes supply no measured mistake reduction, time saving or team agreement.
Read the three fictional source notes
S01: Three review files labeled Draft-A, Draft-B and Draft-C. S02: Some comments omit the file label. S03: No register maintainer assigned.
Conditions and fallback
Confirm the maintainer and contribution/access arrangement first. If these cannot be met, use option A as the fallback.
If authorized, inspect one guide review and record actual findings before proposing wider use.
Actual decision record · unfilled
DecisionDecision owner / date / reference