What changed from Interact
Most of ClearVue will feel unfamiliar in the ordinary way any new system does — new screens, new menus, a layout you have to learn. That kind of difference is not what this page is about, and it is not the expensive kind.
This page is about the other kind: a concept that exists in both systems, under the same or a similar name, that behaves differently. That is more costly than something being simply new, because a new thing gets checked before anyone relies on it, and a familiar-sounding thing does not.
Document status vs. document and revision
Section titled “Document status vs. document and revision”Interact tracked each document’s state with a single flag. The migration reads that flag and lands every document in ClearVue as one of three states — Draft, Active or Archived. See Document and revision states for what each of those means day to day.
ClearVue then tracks something Interact never modelled: the document and its current version are two separate things, each with its own state. Every migrated document arrives as one current version with no history behind it — nothing in the migration carries forward a prior “version 2, version 3…” from Interact, because the export does not carry that history to begin with.
Open: Did MPI’s Interact deployment show users a version or revision indicator for a document? If so, it is worth knowing what that looked like, even though nothing about it transfers as data — it is exactly the kind of thing someone will ask about in week one.
Approval routing does not migrate — and it is genuinely new territory
Section titled “Approval routing does not migrate — and it is genuinely new territory”The migration does not carry forward who approved a document, what order they signed in, or what happened when an approver was unavailable. None of that exists in what Interact exports, so none of it exists in ClearVue after the load. A migrated document carries at most one fact from this whole area: an approved-on date, and only where the migration could establish one at all — see Where your documents went for exactly what that date is and is not.
Going forward, approval is a structured, timestamped chain that ClearVue routes for you, with delegation for when an approver is out. That is not a port of anything from Interact — it is new, and it will be configured for MPI from scratch rather than inherited.
Open: Did Interact have a formal, multi-step approval routing at all, or was sign-off informal — email, a physical signature sheet, a verbal okay? This changes how new ClearVue’s approval routing will feel to MPI’s approvers specifically, and it is worth settling before go-live rather than discovering it from a support ticket.
Effective date
Section titled “Effective date”ClearVue tracks two separate dates on a document’s current version: when it was approved, and when it started to apply (the effective date). They can differ, and Document and revision states explains why that distinction matters day to day.
For a migrated document, both dates are carried over from whatever Interact’s export held for that record — the migration does not independently re-verify either one. Where the export could not establish an approval date with confidence, ClearVue leaves it blank rather than guessing: an imported approval date is a claim about the past, and a migration must never invent one it cannot support.
Open: Does Interact have a distinct “effective date” concept at all, separate from any approval or creation date — or is ClearVue’s effective date being derived from something else (a file’s last-modified date is one candidate the conversion design allows for)? This is the one piece of this page most likely to be wrong without an Interact-side confirmation, because the written specifications describe how the migration handles the field, not what it meant inside Interact.
Terminology drift
Section titled “Terminology drift”A few words carry across with a different meaning attached.
| Term | In Interact (as read from the conversion design) | In ClearVue |
|---|---|---|
| Document status | One flag on the record | Two independent states — see the section above |
| “Current” version | Not modelled as a separate concept from the document itself | A property of the revision, not the document — Document and revision states |
| Change reason | Not present in the export | A field on each revision, labelled with an ISO 9001 clause reference that is narrower than it looks — see the note in Document and revision states |
| Document number | The number you already search by | Carries across unchanged in the ordinary case — see Where your documents went for the one open edge case |
Open: Beyond what’s in this table, are there other MPI-specific terms — internal shorthand, department nicknames for a document category, anything used verbally that would not show up in the conversion specs — that should be captured before go-live? The specs describe the data model, not the vocabulary MPI staff actually use out loud.
Concepts with no Interact equivalent
Section titled “Concepts with no Interact equivalent”Said plainly, rather than explained as if they were an obscure feature of something familiar:
- Two independent lifecycles for one document (document container + revision content) — new. See Document and revision states.
- Structured, routed, timestamped approval — new. Nothing in the migration configures it; MPI sets it up fresh.
- Read-and-acknowledge tracking — new. ClearVue records who has read and signed off on a document, per revision, under My Acknowledgments. No acknowledgment or sign-off history migrates from Interact — there is nothing to attach it to, since user accounts were never part of the migration either. Every migrated document starts this tracking from zero on the day it loads.
- Proactive overdue alerts (Signals) — new. Nothing in Interact surfaced an overdue approval or a lapsing document before it became a problem; see What Signals will tell you (forthcoming) for what replaces “someone walked over and asked.”