“Final_FINAL_v7” Is a Liability. Versioning Must Be Defensible.
Multiple 'final' files look like governance failure; we enforce one source-of-truth, meaningful names, and a superseded archive with logs.
“Final_FINAL_v7” is a confession
We sent three versions of the same file: “Final_FINAL_v7,” “Final_v7_revised,” and “Final_use_this_one.” It feels like a harmless habit. It is not. When I see multiple “finals,” I assume there was a disagreement, and the room is carrying the residue of that fight. Disagreement is normal. Uncontrolled disagreement is risk.
Version chaos creates two exposures. First, numbers stop tying out because different exhibits were built off different baselines. Second, reviewers start hunting for the “real” version. That hunt becomes an excuse to request emails, workpapers, and internal commentary. If legal has one contract and finance has another, I treat it as a governance failure. If dates shift across files, I consider backdating.
The corrective protocol is strict: one source-of-truth per exhibit, ISO dates, explicit status labels, and a superseded archive. If a document changes, we log the change and we retire the old one. No exceptions for decks, spreadsheets, or exports.
The Amateur Move: Treating versioning as a personal habit
The Defense: A single source-of-truth rule, enforced naming, and a superseded archive
What reviewers infer from version clutter
People underestimate how quickly file names become testimony.
When I see “Final_FINAL_v7,” I do not think, “They are busy.” I think, “They cannot tell me which document controls.” That is the difference between execution and governance. Governance failures are contagious: if we cannot govern a spreadsheet, why should anyone trust our revenue recognition, our approvals, or our cap table?
Version clutter also creates a strategic opening for the other side. If two files disagree, the buyer does not have to accuse us of anything. They just have to ask for more: “Please provide the history,” “Please provide the underlying exports,” “Please provide correspondence.” Each request looks reasonable. The cumulative effect is exposure.
The three rules of defensible versioning
We can make this boring, which is the goal.
- One exhibit, one truth. For every topic in the room, there is exactly one “current” document that controls. Everything else is explicitly superseded.
- Names must carry meaning. If the filename cannot tell a stranger what it is, when it applies, and whether it controls, it fails admission.
- Change must be logged. If a number changes, we record what changed, why it changed, and what it ties out to now.
These rules sound strict because they are. Diligence punishes ambiguity.
A naming protocol that auditors respect
We use a format that is readable and sortable:
[exhibit-id]_[topic]_[period]_[yyyymmdd]_[status].[ext]FAQs
Do auditors care about filenames?
Yes. Filenames reveal control or chaos, and chaos triggers expanded requests.
Should we delete old versions?
No. Keep them in a superseded archive with explicit labels and an Index link to the controlling version.
What status labels should we use?
A closed list: current, executed, superseded, working. Free-text status becomes evidence against us.