State Street Requested this Enhancement
Enhancement description
A user assigned as a Reviewer should remain a Reviewer throughout the workflow, even if they substantially edit, delete, or completely replace the Author’s response. Editing the response should not cause Responsive to reclassify the Reviewer as the Author or expose Author-only completion actions.
Current behavior / problem
If a Reviewer deletes the existing answer and enters a replacement, the question can revert to an unanswered state and the Reviewer is effectively required to mark it Answered. This causes the Reviewer to be represented as both the responder / Author and Reviewer, creating confusion in workflow status and weakening the audit trail.
Required product behavior
- A user assigned only as Reviewer should retain the Reviewer role even after materially editing or fully replacing the response.
- A Reviewer should complete the work using the Reviewed action, not an Author-specific Answered action.
- The system should preserve the original Author attribution and separately record the Reviewer’s edit / replacement activity.
- Audit history should clearly show who authored the original response, who edited or replaced it, and who performed the review / approval action.
- Editing or replacing an answer must not silently change the user’s workflow role.
- If the system must technically transition question status while content is replaced, that transition should not change role attribution or require the Reviewer to impersonate the Author workflow.
Business impact
State Street uses the audit trail to demonstrate who authored, reviewed, modified, and approved responses. Reclassifying a Reviewer as an Author creates a governance problem because the historical record can imply that the same user both authored and reviewed the answer. It also complicates SME training because legitimate Reviewer behavior—editing or replacing a response—causes unexpected workflow actions and status changes.
