Start with the actual workflow
Identify the component, material and receiving process before recording an instruction source. A familiar manufacturer name or a document for a similar part is not enough to establish applicability. Ask the responsible team to confirm the exact scope.
Use current official documentation through the authorized manufacturer or receiving-team route. Record the source and review decision; do not copy a parameter from an unrelated example into a case simply because the numerical value looks plausible. This page does not supply any clinical or manufacturing values.
Maintain a reference log
| Field | What the team records |
|---|---|
| Workflow scope | Exact supported component/material/process |
| Document identity | Title, identifier and revision when available |
| Source | Official location or authorized receiving copy |
| Applicability decision | Who confirmed it governs this task |
| Relevant question | Which design or production decision it informs |
| Review trigger | Changed part, process or instruction revision |
| Case use | Current case/revision reference, without public identifiers |
Distinguish a source from an approval
The log records where an instruction came from and who confirmed its use. It does not certify that the entire case complies. Keep the specific design review and production release in their own records.
Illustrative example: the team has a document for component family A, while the case record names component B. Mark applicability unresolved and request the correct source. Do not assume that a family resemblance establishes compatibility.
Handle changed instructions visibly
When the responsible team identifies a new revision, record what supersedes the previous source and which active work needs review. Retain the earlier record for traceability. Avoid rewriting history so every past case appears to have used the latest document.
A source-check date means the document was checked on that date; it is not proof that all instructions were revalidated. If a document is unavailable or ambiguous, hold the affected decision and ask the responsible manufacturer or receiving team for clarification.
Make the log usable during review
Keep the entry short enough that a reviewer can find the governing source, scope and unresolved question quickly. Link to the authorized document rather than accumulating unlabelled screenshots. Record case exceptions separately from standing workflow requirements.
Louie should validate this framework against actual supported workflows and permission-cleared examples. Until then it is editorial guidance, not an assertion of Pristine’s internal compliance system, manufacturer affiliation or certified process.
Prepared by Pristine Dental Design · October 6, 2026. Guidance for professional case communication and review. Actual prescriptions, manufacturer requirements and receiving-team approvals govern design and production.