Symmetry Playbook
Controlled Documents & SOPs
One way of working, with evidence, not assumptions.
The problem
The SOP exists. Which version, who approved it, and who has acknowledged it are three questions your wiki cannot answer.
What you get
- A structured repository: spaces and nested folders with role, organization, and named-user visibility
- Controlled documents (SOPs, policies, job aids, references) with rich-text authoring
- A real lifecycle: draft, in review, approved, retired, with named approvers and author-cannot-approve enforced
- Locked approved versions with version labels: editing an approved document opens a new draft while readers keep seeing the approved version, and printed copies carry an “uncontrolled when printed” watermark
- Scheduled review dates with an overdue queue and a document-currency metric
- Read-and-acknowledge campaigns targeted at roles, organizations, or named users, with progress tracking, evidence exports (CSV and PDF), and a nag list of non-acknowledgers
- Feedback threads: comments, suggested updates, and “report outdated” with an owner-facing queue
- Template builder: SOW and task-order templates with described placeholders that generate pre-filled drafts
- Controlled test procedures: a library of structured QA work instructions with versioned steps, approvals, CSV export, and links to their automated equivalents
Connected by design
Guard references Playbook policies as compliance artifacts. Edge embeds SOPs in training. Horizon ties procedures to roadmap phases. When the procedure changes, the acknowledgement campaign and the compliance gate both point at the new version, with names and dates on record.
Proof point
Revision history, acknowledgement evidence, and controlled-copy watermarks give you the records an AS9100 or ISO auditor asks for.
See it on your program
See an acknowledgement campaign report who has not signed off, by name.