Document coverage is the single largest determinant of how fast a catalog can be completed, and it is almost always the constraint teams underestimate.
Collect in Order of Leverage
Not all documents are worth the same. A family brochure covering twelve model variants does more work than twelve individual datasheets, and a current specification sheet does more than a superseded service manual.
| Document type | Leverage | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Family or range brochure | Highest | Covers many models at once with comparable specification tables. |
| Specification sheet | High | Dense, structured, and written to be quoted. |
| Instructions for use | Medium | Authoritative but verbose; strong for compatibility and requirements. |
| Service manual | Medium | Excellent technical depth, often for a specific revision only. |
| Reseller summary | Low | Convenient but frequently contains transcription errors. |
Never Upload Documents Containing Patient Information
Record the Revision
Manufacturers revise specifications, and a specification from a superseded revision is one of the most common sources of a published error that nobody can explain afterwards.
Capturing the document date and revision when it is uploaded costs seconds. Reconstructing which revision a claim came from, two years later, is often impossible. That is the situation evidence lineage exists to prevent.
Partial Coverage Is a Valid Starting Point
Waiting for complete document coverage before beginning is the most common way this work stalls. A catalog where 40% of products have supporting documents can publish that 40% with full traceability while the rest is chased.
The practical sequence is to sort products by commercial priority, collect documents for the top segment, publish it, and let the visible gap report drive the next round of collection. Coverage improves fastest when it is pulled by publishing rather than pushed by an archiving project.