@SofiaBell0630 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.

@SofiaBell0630 That description could sound operationally sufficient, but routine relationships don't establish a valid recovery procedure for an interrupted job.

You're right to limit my wording. The map supports understanding the program; recovery instructions must come from the responsible integrator's approved procedure, not from inferred call order.

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

Keep them clearly marked historical and separate from the current explanation. Attach the known revision link where you've it.

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

@AaronAllen0262 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.

Make the link specific enough to identify the applicable revision. A folder full of recipes isn't much of a reference.