The Shared Drive

Risk 1: Duplicates with no version history. The same document may exist in several folders under slightly different names, and there is no way to tell which copy is authoritative. Moving or renaming files could orphan the version someone is relying on.

Risk 2: Concurrent editing. Two staff are working in "Current" this week. Reorganizing folders under them can break links, cause saves to fail, or make a file appear to vanish mid-edit.

Risk 3: "Don't delete anything" versus "make it easy to find." Cleaning up normally means removing duplicates and outdated copies. Ken is forbidden from deleting, so he must achieve findability without removal - for example by archiving rather than deleting, or by leaving duplicates in place and documenting which is canonical.

Risk 4: The audit deadline. The auditor needs a specific, structured set - applications matched to award letters by funder and year for four years. A general tidy-up may not produce that structure in two days.

Risk 5: No backup. With no version history, a mistaken move is hard to undo. Ken should copy the folder before touching it.

Before touching anything (first hour):

• Make a full copy of the "Grants" folder to a separate location as a safety net.
• Tell the two editing staff which folders he will and will not touch, and ask them to save and close files in any folder he plans to move.

Build the audit set first (day one):

• Create a new folder, "Audit_4yr," organized by funder, then year.
• For each funder and year, place the application and the matching award letter, using a consistent naming pattern such as Funder_Year_Application and Funder_Year_Award.
• Where duplicates exist, pick the most complete or most recent copy and note the choice in a simple log. Leave the other copies where they are - this respects "don't delete."

Tidy the rest cautiously (day two):

• Rename the three confusing folders to clear labels (e.g., "Archive_2019-2021," "Active," "Unsorted_Review") rather than deleting or merging them.
• Move only clearly inactive files, and only after the editing staff confirm they are done.
• Write a short index file listing what is where and which duplicates were flagged.

Hand off: give the auditor the "Audit_4yr" folder and a one-page note explaining the structure and any gaps.

Ken should not quietly leave it out, invent a replacement, or assume the grant was declined. He should flag it explicitly.

What to do:

• Place the application in the audit folder in its correct funder and year slot.
• Mark it clearly, for example by naming it Funder_Year_Application_MISSING_AWARD and adding a line to the index file: "Award letter not located on shared drive."
• Search reasonable alternatives before concluding it is missing: email archives, the finance office, the staff member who handled that funder, and any paper files.
• Tell the person coordinating the audit so they can decide how to proceed.

Why this is right:

• Accuracy. The auditor's job is to verify that awards match applications. A silent gap looks like an omission or, worse, like concealment. A labeled gap is honest and lets the auditor ask the right questions.
• Ken's limits. He has two days and no authority to declare a document nonexistent. His job is to surface the problem, not resolve it alone.
• Recoverability. If the letter turns up later, the flagged slot makes it easy to drop in.

The wrong move is to fill the gap with a guess or to hide it to make the folder look complete. That would undermine the audit and damage trust in the whole reorganization.