Postmortem • Page 35 • Three live treatments

Which Review Format Survives Real-World Forms?

Same two legal-name errors. Different delivery mechanics. The test favors reliability over annotation cleverness.

Approach A

Inline Native PDF Markup

CURRENT
Inline native PDF annotations
Fast to understand, fragile to generate.
Works: familiar redline, editable comments. Breaks: coordinate tuning, line collisions, duplicate popups, viewer differences. It caused most of the thread’s rework.
Approach B

Numbered Pins + Action Rail

RECOMMENDED
Numbered pins with correction rail
1 • Legal name
Replace with ForgeFX LLC.
Reason shown once.
2 • Repeat
Same replacement.
No duplicate rationale.
Best balance: obvious, reviewable, hard to misrender.
Works: original stays legible; pins tolerate imperfect coordinates; action text never crosses form lines; each issue can be accepted/rejected. Tradeoff: reviewer reads a short rail.
Approach C

Evidence Crops + Checklist

MOST ROBUST
Untouched source page
Top legal-name crop
FIELD 1ForgeFX Simulations, LLc
→ ForgeFX LLC
Bottom legal-name crop
FIELD 2ForgeFX Simulations, LLC
→ ForgeFX LLC
Bulletproof audit; weaker document navigation.
Works: no annotation collisions, enlarged evidence, clean checklist. Tradeoff: Sara must locate or apply each change in the source document.
Recommendation: Approach B for normal reviews; Approach C as the automatic fallback when field geometry is uncertain.Never write replacement text directly over a form line during review.