Workplace
Everybody acknowledged the policy. Nobody can say which one.
The document was edited twice since — a clause tightened, a section added — and the acknowledgement records point at a file that no longer says what it said. Which is discovered at the one moment it matters.
The decision
Publish a version. Never edit in place.
Changing a policy publishes a new version rather than altering the existing one. Acknowledgements are recorded against the version, append-only, one per person per version — with the wording they were shown.
So "what did they agree to, and when" has an answer that does not move when the policy does. Including for the people who have since left.
- Version 3published Jun118 acknowledgedcurrent — 12 still to acknowledge
- Version 2published Feb126 acknowledgedwhat 126 people actually agreed to
- Version 1published last year94 acknowledgedstill answerable
- Append-only is a database grant, not a promise —
The application can insert acknowledgement rows and read them. It holds no permission to update or delete one — so the register cannot be rewritten even by our own code, even by a bug. Most products mean "we have an audit table" and hope.
- Policies are aimed, not broadcast —
At everybody, or a department, a band, or a location — resolved against where somebody sits today, so a person who changed team stops seeing their old team's policy rather than carrying it forever.
- Not every policy demands a signature —
Some are there to be read. An informational policy sits in the library and never appears on anybody's outstanding list, which is what keeps that list meaningful.
- Acknowledgement captures the wording —
Not just the fact of it. An acknowledgement that points at a document you have since changed is not evidence of anything.
- Employees acknowledge in the portal —
Where they already are, rather than through an email chain somebody tracks in a spreadsheet.
- Who has not, is a list —
The useful output is not the percentage — it is the names, which is what lets somebody actually follow up.
Being exact
It records agreement. It does not establish enforceability.
Whether an acknowledgement is legally sufficient depends on the policy, the jurisdiction and how it was presented — none of which a product decides.
What this gives you is the thing that is otherwise missing when somebody asks: the version, the wording, the person, and the moment. Whether that is enough is a question for your counsel, and we would rather say so than let a compliance box imply an answer.
What people ask
Usually after an incident.
›What happens to old acknowledgements when we update a policy?
They stay, pointing at the version they were made against. The new version starts with nobody having acknowledged it, which is the honest position.
›Can we see who has not acknowledged the current version?
Yes, as a list of people rather than a completion percentage.
›Can an acknowledgement be removed?
No — and not because we decided not to build the button. The application has no permission to update or delete a row in that register at all.
›Can we target a policy at one department?
Yes — everybody, a department, a band or a location. Somebody outside the audience does not get told the policy exists.
›Does acknowledging make the policy enforceable?
That is a legal question about your policy and your jurisdiction, not a product feature. What you get is a defensible record of version, wording, person and time.
›What about people who have left?
Their acknowledgements remain against the versions they agreed to, which is precisely when this is most often needed.
Book a demo
Publish a second version.
The third step is the one that is missing everywhere else.
- Acknowledge version one as an employee
- Publish version two with a changed clause
- Open the original acknowledgement and read what it points at
- Pull the list of people yet to acknowledge