Keep extracted results separate from engineering approval

Name the decision the spreadsheet can support

Keep approval separate so the register is a usable evidence input rather than an implied conclusion.

Our public material-register example shows a synthetic report beside downloadable output. Use it to inspect how values and source references travel together. The self-service ParseMill trial is for invoice PDFs; supplier test reports and engineering review need a separate fit discussion.

Start the handoff by naming the intended use of the register. A procurement comparison, an engineering assessment and a source archive can require different evidence. The person reviewing transcription should not appear to have approved uses they were never asked or qualified to assess.

Use a three-part cover sheet

Record the source documents and revisions, extraction scope, completed transcription checks and unresolved defects. Then state the evidence-completeness decision and the technical assessment separately. W3C: PROV Data Model distinguishes activities and responsible agents; use that structure to identify who performed each review and which inputs they considered.

A name in the extraction-review column should not automatically populate the approval column. Each decision needs its own status, date and scope. Where the organization requires formal authorization, follow that existing process rather than substituting a new worksheet checkbox for it.

Follow one register through three reviews

Synthetic example: register MR8 contains 24 rows copied from report R8 revision 2. The receiving team uses these separate decisions.

Even if the unit is corrected and all 24 rows are faithfully transcribed, the absent appendix and unperformed engineering assessment remain separate issues. No arithmetic combination of the three status cells should turn them into an automatic approval.

Avoid claims the evidence cannot carry

NIST: Metrological traceability explains that traceability does not automatically establish fitness for purpose. The same practical caution applies when handling an extracted register: source fidelity and technical suitability answer different questions. Keep the basis and limits of each actual assessment visible.

Do not add a green Approved label to the entire workbook because the extraction passed its checks. A technical reviewer may approve only a stated use, configuration or subset of records. Preserve that scope, the applicable requirement version and any conditions. If the source changes later, identify which decisions need reassessment instead of inheriting all approvals.

Test the handoff with an unresolved case

Give a colleague the synthetic cover sheet and ask what can be used, what remains blocked and who owns each next step. They should identify the unresolved unit, missing appendix and pending assessment independently. If they interpret the checked transcription as blanket permission, revise the labels and placement before using the form.

Use the public material-register example to inspect a source-to-output handoff, then bring this cover sheet to a broader workflow discussion. Any pilot should agree its extraction scope and review responsibilities. Engineering approval remains the separate decision made by the responsible reviewer.