Choose representative pages for review
Include the types of material staff need: ordinary text, tables, diagrams, footnotes and handwritten annotations where relevant. Do not inspect only the clearest opening page. A fictional archive might contain a typed manual followed by faint scanned appendices that hold the actual answer to staff questions. Record which pages and document types were reviewed. If the sample is limited, state that limit. A successful check on one clean document should not become approval of an entire archive with different scan quality.
Compare the extraction with the visible page
Ask a reviewer to check names, identifiers, dates, units and other details important to the intended questions. Keep the original page available beside the extracted content through the approved process. Look for missing words, joined lines and text read in the wrong order. Do not replace uncertain text with a plausible guess. Mark it for correction or exclusion from the relevant answer scope. The review should focus on whether the meaning needed by staff survives extraction, not merely whether the output contains many recognisable words.
Preserve table and page context
Check whether table values remain associated with the correct headings and whether notes still qualify the content they refer to. An isolated value without its row or column label can be difficult to interpret. Include section headings and page references where needed for review. If a passage continues across pages, test that the relevant context is available together. Do not assume a diagram can be replaced by a text fragment that names only a few labels. Ask the document owner what is necessary to interpret it correctly.
Create a clear correction queue
Record the document, page, problem and responsible reviewer for material that needs attention. Distinguish an unreadable source from a poor extraction of a readable page. The remedies may differ: locating a better copy, correcting reviewed text or limiting how the material is used. Preserve the original alongside any approved correction. Do not let a corrected extract become an undocumented replacement for the source. Keep unresolved pages visible so a partially reviewed document is not described as fully ready for every possible question.
Test questions that depend on the scan
Use questions whose answers require the reviewed pages, including one table-based question and one involving a qualification or footnote where applicable. Compare the answer with the original material and ask an appropriate person to judge it. A search result finding the right filename is not enough if the answer misreads the content. Include a question the scan cannot support and check that the system does not invent a response. Record the exact page evidence behind failures so the team can repair the right part of the preparation process.
Approve a defined use, not a blanket guarantee
Document which material and question types passed review, which remain excluded and who approved the scope. Recheck affected examples when a better scan or revised extraction replaces the earlier input. Keep staff able to open the original page when they need to verify an answer. Review reports of unreadable or misleading results and route them to the preparation owner. Readiness means the material has been checked for its intended use; it does not guarantee that every future question or every page will be interpreted correctly.