Approvals and signatures, properly recorded.

The correspondence workflow in practice.

For example, one staff member may prepare a response that another must review before dispatch. The system should identify the approved version, not simply display a generic “signed” label. If the document changes afterwards, the original approval needs to remain attributable to the version that was actually reviewed.

Different electronic signature techniques provide different evidence and assurance. Epistles should describe the method being used rather than implying that every digital mark automatically qualifies as a high-assurance or legally sufficient signature.

When an organisation adopts an approval workflow, the experience should reflect its real responsibilities. A letter prepared by a junior team member might require review by a manager, then final sign-off by an authorised officer. The application should show who is currently responsible and should prevent the final document from being dispatched before the relevant approval requirements are satisfied. An administrator may need to change the approval chain over time, but that change should not rewrite the history of letters already approved under the previous rule.

For recipients, a signing experience must be readable and clear about what is being agreed. Consent, authentication and any additional identity verification have to match the risk and legal context. Sending a link to a document does not automatically make the response a high-assurance digital signature. Epistles should describe the type of signature evidence it supports and make it available for later authorised review without exposing sensitive documents publicly.