Four Reviewers, One Policy, One Signature
Four reviewers return revisions to an 80-page travel policy. Two used Track Changes from the same base file. One edited a copy with tracking switched off. The fourth returned a scan of handwritten markup. A contracts manager must produce one consolidated document showing who changed what, reject everything from one reviewer who has since left the organisation, and then issue a final version that cannot be altered afterwards. A house macro that stamps reviewer initials into the header currently triggers a security warning on every colleague's machine, and that macro has to keep working after the policy is signed off.
1. Assign the right command to each of the four returns, state the order, and say what cannot be automated.
Read the worked answer
Match the tool to the state of the file:
- The two tracked copies → Review > Compare > Combine. Combine is built for merging multiple sets of revisions from the same base into one document while preserving each reviewer's authorship, which is exactly what 'show who changed what' requires. Repeat once per copy.
- The untracked copy → Compare (legal blackline) against the pristine base. Compare cannot know intent; it marks every difference as an insertion or deletion. Use the Label unmarked changes with box so those changes are attributed to a named reviewer rather than to 'Compare', otherwise the audit trail is misleading.
- The scan → nothing automated. Someone must read the handwritten markup and apply it as tracked changes, entering each item under that reviewer's name. Saying this plainly is the professional answer; OCR will not reliably preserve intention on a marked-up print.
Order: Combine the two tracked copies into one consolidation first, then Compare the untracked copy into that consolidation, then apply the scan manually. Keep a copy of each original return - Combine and Compare produce a new document, and you will need the originals if a reviewer disputes an attribution.
2. How do you remove only the departed reviewer's changes safely, and what is the trap in the obvious approach?
Read the worked answer
Filter the display first, then act on what is shown:
- Review > Show Markup > Specific People - clear all checkboxes except the departed reviewer.
- Review > Reject > Reject All Changes Shown. The word Shown is the whole point: this applies only to the markup currently displayed. Reject All Changes in Document would discard every reviewer's work.
- Switch Show Markup back to All Reviewers and confirm the other three reviewers' changes and comments are intact.
- Filter comments separately by that reviewer and delete them; rejecting a change does not delete the reviewer's comments attached to other paragraphs.
Traps:
- Show Markup checkboxes only affect display, but Reject All Changes Shown respects them - this is why the pair is safe and the unfiltered command is not.
- If a later reviewer edited a paragraph the leaver had already changed, rejecting the leaver's change can leave text that reads oddly against the surviving edit. Scan their changes before bulk-rejecting rather than after.
3. The macro warns on every machine, and the signed-off policy must not be alterable. How do you resolve both without breaking one while fixing the other?
Read the worked answer
These are two different deliverables and trying to make one file do both is the mistake.
The macro. A warning on every machine means the file is untrusted - typically because it arrived from email or a network share. Fix it properly: keep the file as .docm, add a code-signing certificate to the VBA project (Developer > Visual Basic > Tools > Digital Signature), and set Trust Center macro settings to Disable all macros except digitally signed macros. Signing the VBA project is what lets the macro run while unsigned macros stay blocked. A trusted location does the same job inside the office and nothing outside it.
The final. Accept or reject all remaining revisions, delete all comments, then finalise: Restrict Editing > No changes (Read only) plus File > Info > Protect Document > Add a Digital Signature. Note the ordering problem - a digital signature is invalidated by any subsequent change, including a metadata edit, so sign last, and do not sign a file that still holds pending revisions or comments. Issue the signed .docx or a PDF as the record copy and keep the .docm as the working master; signing the master would lock out the very macro workflow the team needs.