HETALOS / FIELD NOTE 03
Preserving the version under review

Anonymized historical founder-assisted investigation.
This note is a reconstructed case summary, not a customer policy or live Hetalos run.

THE QUESTION
The pending draft under review was omitted from the inspected tool response.
How could the rendered body be preserved without confusing it with a generic
template or claiming recovery of the original editable document?

WHAT WAS DONE
An authenticated browser preview/download returned rendered PDF bytes.
The file was preserved with its size and SHA-256 identity recorded.
The generic template remained a separate reference.
The original DOCX was not recovered.

WHAT THIS ESTABLISHED
The rendered version could be retained and referred to during the review.
The PDF, generic template and original DOCX had distinct roles and states.

WHAT IT DID NOT ESTABLISH
Preservation did not approve the policy or prove control operation.
It did not recover the original DOCX.
This historical tool-response gap is not a claim about current Vanta coverage.

A CHECKLIST FOR A SIMILAR WORKFLOW
1. Name the exact version being reviewed.
2. Record how that version was obtained and in which format.
3. Preserve file identity using an appropriate content hash and byte size.
4. Keep templates, rendered exports and editable originals distinct.
5. Ask any approving owner to decide on the exact retained body.
6. Track operational evidence separately from document preservation or approval.

Case context: /notes/policy-changes