Track a revised supplier test report without losing prior evidence

Preserve both the old and new report identities

Keep the version relationship visible so the reviewer can find the affected work without rebuilding the entire register.

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.

Keep the prior source and export according to the organization’s retention rules. They explain what recipients previously received and support an impact review when a correction affects downstream work.

Build a revision-chain record

The fixture includes both a correction and an added observation. A value-only comparison would miss the added row. Keep changes to units, methods, conditions and footnotes in the impact list too, because unchanged numbers can still acquire different meaning.

W3C: Data on the Web Best Practices recommends version indicators and history. Apply that structure to the source report as well as the resulting register.

Review and communicate the replacement

1. Verify the new report’s identity, revision and issuer-stated replacement relationship. Record any ambiguity before changing the current-source status.
2. Compare observations and context against the prior version. List added, removed and changed records with stable keys and source evidence.
3. Create and review the replacement export, including evidence links and affected derived calculations. Mark the old working export as superseded without destroying its history.
4. Identify authorized recipients and downstream uses of the old export. Prepare a focused correction notice naming the replacement and required rechecks.

W3C: Provenance model primer describes revisions and derivations between entities. A clear chain shows which source version supports each exported result.

Avoid incomplete updates

Updating S4’s number without updating its source reference can leave the new value linked to the old report. Reusing an earlier signoff can also imply review of an added row that was never inspected. Review both data and evidence for the affected scope.

If the issuer withdraws a report without a replacement, record that status and hold affected uses. Do not fabricate a current value by selecting whichever prior version seems most convenient for the downstream calculation.

Check the revision is usable

For the fixture, recipients can identify revision 2 as the stated replacement, find the S4 correction and see the newly reviewed S9 observation. Register v3 links to the new evidence, while the prior chain remains available to authorized reviewers.

If revised supplier reports are your recurring bottleneck, discuss the old-to-new comparison and handoff requirements before a wider pilot. The review should account for changed values, added observations and recipient follow-up. These requirements extend beyond the invoice workspace.