Keep approval attached to the version that was reviewed

What this means for your practice

Bind the approval record to the reviewed version and keep subsequent changes distinct. A general approved badge should not follow a materially altered document automatically.

A practical conversation with your supplier

Ask to approve a sample document, then make a material change. Can a colleague distinguish the accepted wording from the new draft? The supplier should show reviewer, date and version together. Keep any conditions attached to approval visible so publication does not overlook them.

Plan the first improvement

Decide which changes require a fresh decision after approval. A material service statement may need renewed review, while your organisation may handle a spelling correction differently. The responsible owners should set that distinction and the supplier should demonstrate how it appears to editors and readers. Keep the approved content retrievable so somebody can later understand what the reviewer actually saw. A name and date attached only to the current document can be misleading if the wording has since changed.

Include conditional approvals in the discussion. If a reviewer accepts a page only after one correction, the system needs a clear way to show whether that condition was fulfilled before release. Ask staff to walk through a sample history from draft to approval to later amendment. They should be able to explain the sequence without technical assistance. Review any released material whose approval cannot be matched to its version, because that gap undermines the usefulness of the record.

How to check the result

Track released documents without a matching approval record.