Document version approval: check the exact reference

What does a document version approval check decide?

A document version approval check asks whether supplied evidence refers to the exact version intended for handoff. It does not ask whether a document with this title was approved at some earlier time. The distinction matters when a studio has an approved draft A, then changes the material and intends to hand off B.

This is a fictional, manual evidence exercise. Each state has a supplied immutable identifier, D1-A or D1-B. Immutability belongs to the exercise contract: we are not claiming that a filename, application field, digital signature or real platform identifier provides that property. When the text changes, the new state must not be silently relabelled as the old one.

Your finished note will preserve the intended version, the version named by the approval record, the supplied authority boundary, the comparison and a precise unresolved question. It will not send the document, approve work or certify its contents. AI means artificial intelligence; no model is needed to invent or assess missing approval evidence here.

The artificial intelligence guide provides broader context, but a generated answer cannot substitute for the reference that the source record actually supplies. Keep identity authentication, legal signatures, content accuracy and permission to share outside this exercise. Even matching version evidence would not establish those separate conclusions.

Which A and B inputs must remain separate?

The document identity is D1. Its earlier state is D1-A, and the changed state intended for handoff is D1-B. The supplied supersession relation says that B replaces A. Supersession records a relationship between states; it is not an approval record and does not transfer approval by itself.

Approval reference AP1 explicitly names D1-A and approver R1. The fictional authority statement says that R1 may supply approval evidence for D1's explicitly referenced version only. Do not expand this statement to other documents, future changes or a real employee's organizational role. The authority boundary is given for the exercise rather than inferred from a person's name.

Preserve AP1 as well as its referenced version. Another reader needs to see which record produced the result, not just an unexplained approved label. Document identity D1 and version identity D1-B occupy different fields. Sharing the document identity does not make A and B interchangeable evidence targets.

The employee expense review checks a fixed claim's amount and matching approval evidence. This exercise instead asks whether evidence for an earlier state covers the changed state now intended for handoff. Removing currency from a generic matching table would not create a useful new decision. The A-to-B change and its non-inherited reference are central to this note.

Why does AP1 produce OTHER_VERSION for B?

First copy the intended handoff version exactly: D1-B. Next copy the version named by AP1 into a separate field: D1-A. Do not shorten both entries to D1, collapse them into latest document, or derive a new comparison rule from their similar spelling. The supplied identifiers are the comparison inputs.

The references differ. AP1 names A while the intended handoff is B, so the evidence result is OTHER_VERSION. This result does not say that R1 lacks authority. R1's supplied boundary is known; the problem is that this particular record does not name the intended state. Keep the reason beside the label so someone cannot mistake it for an authority failure.

The supplied B-supersedes-A relation does not repair that mismatch. Write it separately and mark it not approval. A change may seem small, but the exercise supplies no rule that carries approval across small edits. A familiar title, a later date or a final filename also does not rewrite AP1's referenced version.

Do not conclude that B has never been approved anywhere. The narrower supported statement is that AP1, the record presented here, is evidence for another version. Whether a separate B-specific record exists is a question for the source owner. The document citation review checks claims against source passages; source support for a sentence is not evidence that an approver referenced the version containing it.

When should the result remain UNKNOWN-HOLD?

Keep three evidence outcomes distinct. Known references that differ produce OTHER_VERSION. A record naming the intended version, with a supplied authority boundary covering that document and reference, can be described only as matching evidence supplied. That description does not independently prove that an approver acted or authorize a handoff.

If the referenced version or the authority boundary is unknown, preserve UNKNOWN-HOLD. HOLD means the evidence decision remains unresolved. An unknown authority statement is neither proof of authorization nor proof of its absence. Ask for the missing field rather than guessing from seniority, job title or a previous approval.

Useful clarification wording is: Which immutable version does AP1 explicitly reference? What authority boundary has been supplied for R1 and D1? Does a separate record name D1-B? These questions request evidence; they do not ask someone to retroactively change AP1's wording to make the existing result convenient.

In the central case the reference and authority are known, so changing OTHER_VERSION to UNKNOWN would hide a specific mismatch. Conversely, deleting A's record is unnecessary: AP1 can remain historical evidence for A while being unsuitable for B. The PDF analysis guide begins with selecting the correct source version. Our additional task is to compare a separate approval reference against the version now intended for handoff, without issuing a sharing instruction.

What narrow support do the Microsoft sources provide?

Microsoft Learn's SharePoint and Power Automate article, dated 2022, describes ETag in the context of the specific version pending content approval. It distinguishes that metadata from the item's general identifier. The retained page contains an authorization banner alongside substantive article text; both facts are disclosed rather than treating the banner as proof that no article was readable.

This is not current interface guidance. No flow is created, no approval endpoint is called and no SharePoint settings are changed. In particular, the exercise's immutable identifiers are stipulated inputs, not a universal claim that an ETag behaves like D1-A across products or updates. The documentation provides a platform-specific reason to distinguish item identity from version evidence.

Microsoft Support explains version history and approval-dependent visibility. Under specified settings, readers may see a last approved version rather than a newer pending state. That supports keeping changed and approved states conceptually separate within that context; it does not establish a universal approval or visibility rule for every document system.

These are two documents from the same Microsoft authority, not independent corroboration by two institutions. The exercise's matching rule is explicitly supplied, not derived as a legal standard. A naming and URL plan may help people locate material, but an address, filename or recent timestamp is not a substitute for a version-specific approval reference. Nothing in this note authenticates an actual signatory or grants distribution rights.

How can the evidence note be saved and reopened?

On Windows, open Start, search for Notepad and launch the application. Create a new blank document headed D1 version evidence V1. Copy the document identity, both immutable version IDs, AP1, its referenced version, R1's supplied boundary and the supersession relation. Identify D1-B separately as the intended handoff state.

Write the comparison explicitly: intended D1-B; AP1 references D1-A. Record OTHER_VERSION and the reason that AP1 names A while no separate B-specific record has been supplied in this exercise. Ask the source owner whether evidence explicitly naming B exists within the supplied authority boundary. Do not manufacture an answer merely to finish the note.

Preserve three claim decisions and their supporting fields. Reject B replaces A, therefore AP1 automatically covers B. Mark the final filename proves approval claim unsupported by these inputs. Reject matching evidence means permission to share, because sharing rights are outside the check. A reasoned decision is more useful than a status label with no trace back to its inputs.

Press Ctrl+S, choose Documents, enter version-evidence-V1.txt and select Save. Close Notepad. Open Documents in File Explorer and double-click version-evidence-V1.txt. Confirm that D1-B remains the intended version while AP1 still names D1-A, and that the unknown questions and no-permission conclusion remain present. Reopening checks saved wording only; it is not a platform approval or observed usability test.

A proposed fifteen-minute cognitive budget assigns four minutes to inputs, four to reference and authority boundaries, four to decisions and questions, and three to saving and reopening. This is planning rather than measured participant performance. Stop with a small, reproducible note; do not expand it into legal review, document transmission, a new approval workflow or an unsupported claim about the contents of B.