I need to make a recommendation quickly early next week as a matter of fact. My business has been working on a process to take a document used as a record in one business activity and resue that same document as part of a subeseguent follow-up activity. The subesquent business acitvity could be either an amendment of the original or something entirely new.
The concept that I inherited is that the original document would be undeclared, ascribed to the subsequent buinsess activity and redeclared. I think this is flawed.
First, the document needs to retain it's referential and retention integrity to any or all preceeding business actitivities.
Second, the document is not versioned, it's appended to one or more referenced business activities as part of a collection of documents related to that business activity. The collection will contain a mix of new and reused documents.
First, since the document is not versioned nor is the activity part of a evolution of an activity, supercession is not appropriate nor easily delivered. The act of undeclaring it removes it from preceding records folders and could therefore be interpreted as an intentional denial of records and the metadata itself would change in affect creating discovery and spoliation issues.
Second, while I am normally adverse to the used of duplicates or splits, I believe in this case that a copy of the original document should be created and assigned to the new activity. This could than be an electronic function analogous to paper and use of duplicates in Federal Rule 1003.