# Decision memo — one-guide review pilot

Original fictional teaching document. Recommendation only; no actual authorization.

To: Documentation coordinator (role)
From: Editorial lead (role)
Actual names and date:
Subject: Pilot revision-linked review notes for one guide

## Requested decision and recommendation
Recommend option B for one guide review, conditional on a named maintainer and confirmed access. Keep prior email files as source history. Actual decision and date remain unfilled.

## Supplied fictional source notes
S01: Three review files are labeled Draft-A, Draft-B and Draft-C.
S02: Some comments omit the file label.
S03: No register maintainer has been assigned.

## Alternatives against the same criteria
Criteria: comment-to-version traceability; agreed contribution route; maintenance responsibility.
A: Retain email; require file labels in subjects/comments. Little new setup, but replies remain separate and need gathering/reference checks.
B: Pilot one shared register with comment, source-file version, reviewer and disposition reference. References are together; someone must maintain them and access must be confirmed.

## Reason and trade-off
B makes the missing version reference an explicit field in the proposed review record. It adds a maintenance task. The notes establish no measured mistake reduction, time saving or team agreement.

## Conditions, fallback and next steps
Before any pilot, identify the maintainer and confirm the actual contribution/access arrangement. If these cannot be met, use A as the fallback. If authorized, inspect one guide review and record what the team actually finds before proposing expansion.

Actual decision:
Decision owner/date/reference: