Document comparison: human review points
Give reviewers specific decisions to make. Start with two approved document versions and plan a cited change summary.
Available remotely for local and international enquiries. Platform choice and final scope depend on your requirements.
The project in view
- Start with
- two approved document versions.
- Proposed result
- a cited change summary.
- A decision to resolve
- formatting changes obscuring a substantive edit.
This is a planning example. It does not describe a completed client engagement.
Human review points for this project
- Assign a reviewer who understands two approved document versions.
- Present a cited change summary beside its source so corrections can be checked.
- Require an explicit decision on formatting changes obscuring a substantive edit; keep the decision in the review record.
Questions to answer together
- Which result must be approved before it is used?
- What source evidence should the reviewer see?
- How is a rejected result corrected and checked again?
What to have at the end
A review matrix with decision owners, evidence and a correction route.
Record the decision on formatting changes obscuring a substantive edit alongside the source material. If it is still unresolved, identify who can answer it and what work depends on the answer.
Prepare your enquiry
Use this as a starting point. Add your current process, available examples and constraints before sharing.
Send your completed brief to hello@iansamonte.com or visit the main page to discuss your project.