Document control · Lesson 5 · Approx. 7 minutes including practice
Review comments and closure
Assign each comment an identifier, owner, response and closure status. Consolidate conflicting reviewer instructions before editing. Closed should mean the agreed action is complete and checked, not merely that someone replied.
Step 1: Receive comments
A documentation workflow, not an equipment operating sequence. Animation starts only when you choose Play.
Close comments with evidence
A review comment should be specific enough for a preparer to act on and for a checker to verify. Capture the document, revision, location, comment text, originator and required action. Distinguish a question from an instruction and a technical change from a presentation correction. Use open, response proposed, awaiting clarification and closed as meaningful states. A response saying done is not closure evidence if the revised record cannot be located or does not address the agreed point.
Prepare and check the work
Consolidate comments before making broad edits. Where two reviewers request incompatible values or methods, refer the conflict to the nominated technical authority. Do not choose whichever instruction arrived last. Link the accepted decision to the revised page or feature and retain the response from the reviewer. Before issue, reconcile every comment and explicitly record any agreed deferred item. A deferred comment should identify its owner, reason and effect on release rather than disappearing from the list.
Worked example · demonstration only
One reviewer requests millimetres and another requests inches for the same drawing. Record the conflict, identify the governing project convention and obtain the authorised decision. Apply it consistently across values, notes and exports, then have the result checked. Closing both comments with different changes would create a new problem.
Guided practice and review evidence
Use only a demonstration dataset for this exercise: Turn five comments into a response register with an evidence column. Before starting, write down the question the finished record should answer and identify the source information you would need on a real job. Keep a separate list of missing inputs. Prepare a first draft, then compare it with the topic-specific checks above. Ask another person to follow your references without explaining them verbally. Record where they hesitate, what information they cannot locate and any different interpretation. Keep a brief review log with four columns: observation, proposed action, responsible reviewer and closure evidence. Revise the example and repeat the information-finding check. Your evidence of completion is the revised demonstration record plus that log, not simply time spent reading. Do not upload client information to the academy or practise on operating equipment.
What good completion looks like
A useful result can be understood by someone who did not prepare it. They can identify its purpose, applicable item, source and review status, and they can distinguish confirmed information from unresolved questions. Pay particular attention to this failure mode: If two reviewers specify different dimensions, request the technical authority’s decision. Check the output in the format the recipient will use. A native file, spreadsheet and exported PDF can expose different problems. Keep the source revision and the issued output linked, and record any limitations of the handover. On a real project, follow the customer's authorised checking and approval arrangements before the information is used. The knowledge check below tests understanding of this lesson; it does not assess practical competence or authorise regulated work.
Practical workflow
- Establish the source: identify the approved input, document revision and person responsible for its technical content. Record missing information as an open question.
- Prepare a small representative example before applying the approach to a whole project. Check identifiers, units, references and the intended reader’s needs.
- Ask the nominated reviewer to check technical meaning. Capture the response, resolve comments and issue only under the agreed document-control process.
Review checklist
- Can another reader identify the source and applicable revision?
- Are assumptions and unresolved decisions clearly recorded?
- Is there evidence of the required review before issue?
Educational material and demonstration examples. Not accredited training, practical competency assessment or authority to perform regulated work. Use current approved sources and your responsible technical authority on real projects.