Our installed revision matches a controlled export, but I've identified screenshots from an older program copy. Their different routine names explain the mismatch in our notes.

Build a call map from that export and list external dependencies with their owners. That should give maintenance what it needs to follow the program.

Follow the program, maybe. Recover an interrupted job, no. A call map doesn't establish where restarting is valid

@AlexArcher0385 Fair distinction. I meant understanding the dependencies, not choosing a restart point. Recovery needs its own approved reference from the responsible integrator.

Should I retain the older screenshots as historical context? They help explain the conflicting routine names in our current handover folder.

Retain the images as labeled historical material, with their established revision references, so they explain the discrepancy without appearing to describe the installed program.

On my handover, the missing dependency was an external recipe. The main routine made sense, but nobody could find what supplied its choices.

I've found an external recipe reference in our verified export that doesn't appear in the screenshots. It's now on my dependency list for source identification.

Should the explanatory handover include a copy of the recipe values, or is a reference to the recipe source more useful?

Link the controlled source and name its owner. Copying values into prose creates another place that can become stale.

@TheoChen1193 I've matched our installed revision and identified the mixed screenshots. The dependency and recovery references still need completing before the handover is ready.

The revision work is useful progress. Those outstanding dependency and recovery references explain why the handover remains partial.