Guides
Part of How to run a working factory visits case study method for 2027 teams
How to keep factory visit case study records that hold up
Factory visit case study records guide for 2027 helps U.S. teams keep source ledgers, approvals, versions, media credits, exclusions, and completion notes.
Case-study records should allow an editor to trace a public statement to its source and approval. Keep the record set small, organized, and separate from controlled facility systems.
What to take away
- Maintain a source ledger before publication.
- Save approved public versions and media credits.
- Record exclusions so later writers do not treat a gap as a fact.
Keep these records together
| Record | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Scope note | Defines the case question and exclusions |
| Source ledger | Connects claims to dated evidence |
| Approval note | Shows who cleared the visitor-facing text |
| Version file | Identifies the accepted final copy |
| Media credit | Preserves the asset source and license |
GAO's success-stories response discusses weaknesses in documentation supporting claimed benefits. The visitor-program lesson is direct: preserve written support for each important claim and reduce the claim when support is incomplete.
Five records to keep together
- Scope notecase question and exclusions
- Source ledgerclaims to dated evidence
- Approval notewho cleared visitor-facing text
- Version fileaccepted final copy
- Media creditasset source and license
Record exclusions
Write down what the case did not review: individual outcomes, technical conditions, confidential records, or unmeasured results. This protects the case from later editing that turns a stated limit into an implied claim.
Keep a claim-to-source map
For each published factual statement, record the source file, date, owner, and approval status. This does not need to be complicated. A spreadsheet with a claim summary and file location is often enough. It becomes valuable when an editor updates the article next year or a reader asks how a statement was verified.
Keep the map with the approved article version, not in a personal folder. When a source is withdrawn, corrected, or no longer approved for publication, the program owner can identify which sentence must change. That is much safer than searching through a finished article after context has been lost.
At closeout, note any follow-up: a scheduled update, a pending source, or a lesson to carry into the next case. A closed case should be easy to reopen responsibly when facts change.
Preserve records from digital sources
Add the title, publisher, date viewed, and exact claim supported whenever the case uses a web page. The National Archives web-records guidance explains that web content can be a federal record and must be managed through its life cycle. A local case file does not need a federal system, but it should still give the next editor enough context to assess a moved or revised page.
Keep sensitive source material separate
Do not put raw visitor comments, contact details, or operational notes in the publishing folder. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health privacy page explains the importance of protecting identifiable information in work involving people. In a visitor program, use approved summaries and retain any restricted material only in the location designated by the organization.
Make the final version identifiable
Give the published case a version date and preserve the approval record beside it. The National Archives digitization FAQ discusses metadata and quality control as part of managing digital material. For a case study, a version number and short change note show which text was approved and prevent an old draft from being mistaken for the public record.
Build a file another editor can use
Name folders and files by article title, version date, and material type. Put the public draft, source ledger, image file, credit text, and approval note where the next editor can see the relationship. Do not place unapproved interview notes or restricted site details in the same folder as the publishing materials. A clean division reduces the chance that an internal detail is copied into a public draft.
At handoff, ask the new owner to open each source, identify the current version, and read the change log. This turns the record set from a storage task into an editorial safeguard. It also exposes missing permissions or broken links before a routine update becomes a rushed reconstruction.
Set the next review date before closing the file. The date creates a visible responsibility and gives the team a moment to confirm whether the case is still complete, accurate, and appropriate for public use.
Common questions
Does the source ledger have to be published?
No. It is an editorial record and may contain details that do not belong in the article.
What makes a final version clear?
Use a dated filename, accepted status, and the approval source.
Where should controlled details go?
Keep them in the facility's proper system, not in the case-study working file.
