Keep a legal-template inventory current

Why use this

1. A legal team may have several copies of a template across repositories, each with different names or modification dates. The newest file is not necessarily the approved version, and an inventory can quietly fall out of step with the documents it describes.

2. This job could make version differences and approval uncertainty visible in a reviewable inventory. Counsel and document owners can then decide which entry should be authoritative without the agent interpreting a filename as legal approval.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Reconcile document identities, version labels and approval evidence while distinguishing content change from metadata changes.

Simpler alternative

Use a controlled document register when all templates live in one governed repository.

Unsuitable when

The task would choose legal wording, replace approved templates or infer approval from recency alone.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Template inventory

   Owner

   Legal operations owner

   Minimum scope

   Authorized entries with identifiers, versions and owner fields

   Quality check

   Distinguish approved, draft and archived status

2. Name

   Repository snapshots

   Owner

   Authorized document owners

   Minimum scope

   Relevant file metadata and scoped comparison evidence

   Quality check

   Check access, duplicate copies and approval records

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Review copied metadata and a proposed change list; no repository edits, legal drafting or permission changes.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Current repository visibility, version history, document comparison and runtime compatibility are unknown.

External actions requiring approval

1. Updating shared inventories, replacing templates, sharing confidential documents or notifying users requires approval.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Proposed inventory reconciliation with changed versions, conflicting status and owner-verification requests.

Critical checks

1. Use stable IDs; preserve approval evidence; separate modified date from effective version; retain unresolved duplicate lineage.

Missing output evidence

This overlay adds no new output inspection, execution or validation; consult the referenced canonical source outcome limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   A draft has the latest timestamp

   Why it matters

   The inventory may promote unapproved language

   Proposed response

   Keep its draft status and ask the owner.

2. Signal

   A copied file loses version history

   Why it matters

   Similar names hide uncertain provenance

   Proposed response

   Link known originals and mark lineage unresolved.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Define authoritative owners and version/status conventions.

Ongoing review

1. Counsel reviews substantive changes and approves inventory corrections.

Unknowns

1. Repository coverage, metadata quality, review effort and tool costs are unknown.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Invent four template entries: approved version, newer draft, copied file and renamed unchanged document; propose reconciliation rows.

Acceptance checks

1. Preserve approval status; flag lineage; avoid substantive legal conclusions; write nothing shared.

Stop conditions

1. Stop if approval authority is unclear or documents require unauthorized disclosure.

Limits

1. A synchronized inventory cannot establish legal suitability, enforceability or authorization to use a particular template.