Final deliverables show what was handed over. A working project history can show the brief, changes, feedback and approvals that led to that output. Compare both at the same project scope. The most important connection is often the version a decision referred to, rather than the folder in which all the files were stored.
Map a fictional project change
Project PR-80 began with brief B-1. Draft D-1 received feedback F-3, a scope decision S-2 approved a narrower deliverable and draft D-2 became final output O-1. This is a fictional structure to inspect, not a claim that your project system exports every step.
Keep the original draft and its identity if it survives. Renaming the final file revised does not establish the earlier content or which feedback caused the change.
| Group | Reference to inspect | What it explains |
|---|---|---|
| Brief | PR-80 and brief version | Initial scope |
| Draft | D-1/D-2 and PR-80 | Work at each stage |
| Feedback | Draft or review reference | Requested change |
| Decision | S-2 and affected scope | Agreed direction |
| Approval | Version or output reference | What was accepted |
| Final output | O-1 and PR-80 | Delivered work |
Separate comments from decisions
A reviewer can suggest a change without the team agreeing to it. A decision record should be identified by its actual wording or status, not inferred from the presence of a comment. If the project simply moved forward without a recorded approval, describe the surviving comments and final output.
Likewise, a file’s modified timestamp can establish a change in the file but not the business reason behind it. Keep content history and decision rationale as separate inventory questions.
Inspect the scope boundary
Projects can contain work for several clients, departments or contracts. Use a specific project or statement-of-work reference rather than assuming a shared drive folder represents one clean scope. If the folder mixes work, list the proposed subset and the references used to identify it.
Choose a project with rework
Trace a second review, rejected draft or changed requirement. That reveals whether version references remain meaningful across email, file storage and project tracking. Note where a conversation refers to a filename that was later reused.
- Project and brief identities
- Saved draft or revision references
- Feedback linked to the reviewed version
- Recorded scope decision or approval
- Final output and completion date
- Observed history and unresolved file links
Keep acceptance scope explicit
An approval can cover a draft direction without accepting the finished deliverable. Record the object and stage named in the approval. If a client accepted only one part of a larger project, preserve that limited scope rather than labelling the entire project accepted.
Use the evidence matrix to choose a question
Mercor names client decks, statements of work and project files. Those examples support a project-collection conversation. A detailed revision-and-approval trail is your proposed scope, to be described and reviewed rather than assumed accepted.
Sources: Mercor
Questions about this comparison
Does a final file preserve earlier versions?
No. Check version availability separately and describe the format in which earlier content survives.
Can a comment be treated as approval?
Only if the recorded content or workflow actually establishes approval. Suggestions and decisions are different events.
What if a project has several statements of work?
Keep each statement-of-work identity and show which deliverables or changes belong to it.
Sources
- Mercor program pageMercor · Checked 2026-10-06