Accept a document, then simulate an upstream amendment (changed content
hash) and re-crawl; confirm the document is flagged "changed since last
crawl" and appears in the review queue rather than silently replacing the
accepted content.
Confirm the prior accepted version is still retrievable after the new
version is accepted (e.g. via version history), with both versions'
accept/reject/comment/reviewer/timestamp intact.
Ask the advisor a question grounded in a regulation, note the version
cited; amend the regulation upstream and re-run the same question after
the new version is accepted; confirm the two answers can be
distinguished by version, and the original answer's audit record still
points to the version that was live when it was given.
Reject a "changed since last crawl" resurfacing (i.e. SME decides the new
version shouldn't replace the old one); confirm the audit trail records
this decision distinctly from a first-time rejection.
Confirm content-hash comparison correctly ignores non-substantive
differences (if any — e.g. whitespace/formatting-only changes from a
re-fetch) so the review queue isn't flooded with false "changed" flags;
if the current hash mechanism doesn't do this, log it as a gap rather
than assuming it's handled.