Freeze the affected decision
Describe the discrepancy: which filenames, review notes or reference labels disagree? Identify the output whose use is uncertain. Preserve the packages while the responsible team reconciles the record; do not overwrite one version simply because another appears newer.
Ask whether the difference reflects a new instruction, a changed input or only a renamed copy. Timestamps help reconstruct a sequence but do not establish approval. The current brief and its recorded review state should identify what governs the next step.
Build a short revision ledger
| Entry | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Input state | Named scans/references and the instruction they accompanied. |
| Design state | Native package and review view from the same revision. |
| Output state | Exported files and intended role in the receiving workflow. |
| Approval state | Who reviewed what and any remaining holds. |
| Replacement state | Explicit current package and named superseded files. |
The ledger can be a few lines. Its purpose is to make disagreements visible, not to recreate every file-system event. Keep labels consistent between the ledger, message thread and release manifest.
Reconcile before revising
Illustrative problem: a reviewer marks a feature in revision B while the designer has already returned C based on a new approved reference. First confirm whether the request still applies to C. Otherwise a well-intended edit could reverse a later instruction.
If a superseded export has entered another team’s queue, tell the responsible receiver which file is affected and request acknowledgement. The receiver determines what review or production action is required. This guide does not prescribe a clinical remedy or assume that anything was manufactured.
Prevent the same ambiguity next time
Use one current package pointer with a release manifest. Retire earlier deliverables explicitly and label intermediate review states. Avoid filenames such as “final-final” that do not express the relation to the brief.
When a revision changes only the evidence view, say that geometry did not change if that is established. When geometry changes, issue a new design revision and list affected outputs. The distinction helps the receiver decide which checks must be repeated.
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.