Companion pair · Flow 2 of 2: This is the rejected path with 3 recovery options shown. Flow 1 (Verixa_Phase1_SOP_Template_Approved_Flow.html) showed the approved path. Both flows share the same template-selection starting point — diverge at the reviewer decision.
Scenario. Lakshmi authors a new document — daily centrifuge pre-use checklist. She picks the Test Method (TM) template by mistake (intending Work Instruction). Fills the form following TM structure (Sample Prep · Equipment · Procedure · Calculations · Acceptance). Submits for review. Priya recognises this is operationally a Work Instruction, not a Test Method — fundamental template mismatch — and rejects. Three recovery options shown: (A) Start new draft with correct template, (B) Start new draft with same template but corrected scope, (C) Abandon and use existing alternative.
✗ Picked — for QC analytical procedures, not equipment readiness
Behind the scenes · template confusion
Both templates have "Equipment" and "Procedure" sections; Lakshmi conflates them. Test Method is for analytical testing (assay, content uniformity, dissolution) with sample preparation + calculations + acceptance criteria. Work Instruction is for operational tasks (pre-use checks, line clearance). The platform doesn't block — author owns the choice.
3
Fill
Fill metadata · system mints ID with TM prefix
Document type
Test Method
Module
Manufacturing
Title
"Daily Centrifuge Pre-Use Checklist"
Document ID
TM-MFG-018 (TM prefix · indicates Test Method)
Practice
GMP
Behind the scenes · prefix mismatch already visible
TM- prefix is wrong for a checklist; should be WI-. This is the first observable signal something's off. A vigilant author might catch this. Lakshmi doesn't.
4
Fill
Tries to fill TM sections · structure doesn't fit
Sample Prep
"N/A — no sample" (template forced this field)
Calculations
"N/A — no calculations" (template forced this field)
"Pass/Fail per step" — doesn't fit checklist model
Behind the scenes
Author is fighting the template — populating sections with "N/A" because the WI use case doesn't have sample prep or calculations. The document is salvageable as content but structurally wrong for the purpose.
5
Click
Save Draft + Submit for Review
✅ "TM-MFG-018 v1 submitted to Priya + Vikram. State: under_review."
Hand-off▶ Priya + Vikram notified · Priya opens first
Title says "Daily Pre-Use Checklist" but document has TM prefix and Test Method structure (Sample Prep, Calculations). Half the fields are "N/A." This is operationally a Work Instruction; wrong template entirely.
7
Decide
Request Changes OR Reject?
Priya considers:
Request Changes would mean asking Lakshmi to rewrite huge sections within the same TM template. Doesn't fix the prefix or structural mismatch.
Reject is the right call — template is fundamentally wrong; needs to start over with WI template.
Behind the scenes · Reject is for fundamental issues
Template mismatch is fundamental (not fixable via comments) because: (1) prefix changes change the ID, (2) section structure can't be converted in-place (Phase-1; Phase-2 may add template-conversion), (3) downstream training cadence differs by document type. Cleaner to start fresh.
8
Click
Click Reject
Different button from Request Changes — distinct, deliberate.
9
Fill
Rejection modal — reason + recommendation
Reject TM-MFG-018 v1
Rejection reason *
"Wrong template selected. Document is a daily pre-use checklist (operational task) — should use Work Instruction template, not Test Method. Sample Prep / Calculations / Acceptance sections are 'N/A' which indicates the structure doesn't fit."
Recommendation *
"Start new draft. Pick Work Instruction template. Content from §3 (Procedure) can be reused as §3 (Steps) in WI."
Severity of issue
Structural (cannot fix via comments)
Signing as
Priya · document_reviewer
Password
••••••••••
MFA
724918
10
Sign
Sign Reject WP-4
State: under_review → rejected
❌ "TM-MFG-018 v1 rejected by Priya. Vikram's pending review auto-canceled. Lakshmi notified with rejection reason + recommendation."
Behind the scenes · cascading effects of reject
Single rejection terminates the draft — no need to wait for other reviewers (Vikram's slot auto-canceled with notification "Review canceled — rejected by Priya"). Document stays in audit forever (immutable, soft-delete only) — TM-MFG-018 ID is now used and won't be reused. Audit: DOCUMENT_REJECTED + DOCUMENT_REVIEW_CANCELED. Lakshmi gets notification with full rejection context.
Hand-off▶ Lakshmi receives rejection · now has 3 recovery paths to consider
L
Lakshmi — Three recovery paths
document_author
Part 3 · Recovery
11
See
Receives rejection notification with reason + recommendation
❌ "TM-MFG-018 v1 rejected. Reason: wrong template (Test Method, should be Work Instruction). Recommendation: start new draft with WI template. Content from §3 can be reused."
12
Decide
Three recovery options to choose from
Recovery A · Start new draft with correct template (Recommended)
When to use: reviewer's recommendation is sound; content is salvageable; you want to get this released.
Click + New Document again
Pick Work Instruction template (the correct one)
System mints new ID: WI-MFG-019 (next sequential; TM-MFG-018 is permanently used)
Paste content from rejected TM-MFG-018 §3 Procedure into new WI §3 Steps
Fill remaining WI sections (Tools, Expected Outcome, Troubleshooting)
Save Draft + Submit for Review
Review proceeds through normal happy path (Flow 1 of 2 from here on)
Recovery B · Start new draft with same template + corrected scope
When to use: reviewer's recommendation is wrong / you disagree; the original template choice was right but content needs restructuring.
Click + New Document again
Pick same template (Test Method, in this case)
System mints new ID: TM-MFG-019
Rewrite content so it actually fits Test Method structure
Submit for review — explain in submit notes why TM template is appropriate
Risk: may get rejected again if reviewer disagrees with structural choice
If second rejection — discuss with QA Lead before third attempt (iteration cap fires at 3+ rejections on similar content)
Recovery C · Abandon
When to use: the document genuinely isn't needed; existing alternative covers the use case.
Do nothing — rejected document stays in rejected state as audit record
Use existing alternative document (if one exists)
If no alternative — discuss with manager whether the gap is real and needs filling
Rejected document is searchable in the Documents register for future reference ("we tried this, here's what was wrong, here's why we didn't pursue")
Note: if the gap is real and you don't fill it, that's an open quality risk; document the decision rationale
Behind the scenes · what's preserved
Rejected document TM-MFG-018:
Persists forever in audit (immutable; soft-delete only)
ID is permanently used — TM-MFG-018 is now a rejected record; sequential numbering moves to TM-MFG-019 or WI-MFG-019
Searchable in Documents register with state filter
Contributes to author's rejection-rate metric (visible to QA Lead; high rate may indicate training need)
Rejection rationale visible to anyone with read access — provides organisational learning
13
Click
Lakshmi picks Recovery A · clicks + New Document
Reviewer's recommendation is sound — wrong template caused the problem. Easiest fix is to start fresh with the right template.
14
Decide
Picks Work Instruction template (this time correctly)
15
Fill
Fill metadata · system mints WI-MFG-019
Document ID
WI-MFG-019 (WI prefix · TM-MFG-018 used by rejected record)
Type
Work Instruction
Title
"Daily Centrifuge Pre-Use Checklist"
Linked to (audit ref)
TM-MFG-018 v1 (rejected) — optional reference, not required
16
Click
Fill body using WI structure · paste salvaged content · Save + Submit
✅ "WI-MFG-019 v1 submitted. Routed to Priya + Vikram for review."