Word review compatibility evidence

Word review export coverage stays explicit in the workbook

This evidence note separates verified comment and revision output from review structures that remain partial, unknown, or unsupported.

What the Word review tests were designed to answer

A DOCX stores comment definitions, in-document references, optional thread metadata, and tracked revisions in separate OOXML structures. Finding one comment XML file does not prove that each row is anchored or that a reply relationship is reliable.

The acceptance checks therefore verify row identity, source context, thread relationships, revision type, workbook structure, and an explicit coverage record.

Comment anchoring

Can a definition be matched to referenced text and nearby main-document context without inventing a location?

Thread metadata

Can replies and resolved status be attached only when the extended relationship data is reliable?

Pending text changes

Can main-document insertions and deletions become separate rows with source metadata?

Honest exceptions

Can unsupported review markers remain visible without being flattened into misleading ordinary text changes?

Tested claims and current status

The released claims are tied to synthetic OOXML fixtures, native Word for Windows saved fixtures, parser tests, workbook tests, and browser download checks.

AreaStatusWhat the evidence shows
Main-document comments and anchorsValidatedFixtures verify definition-to-reference matching, selected text, surrounding context, and explicit handling of orphan or partial anchors.
Replies and resolved statusValidated when presentA native Word for Windows fixture exports one root comment and one reply without guessing unavailable thread metadata.
Pending text insertions and deletionsValidatedThe native fixture exports one insertion and one deletion as separate Tracked Changes rows.
Formatting, moved text, tables, and other revisionsCoverage warningDetected unsupported revision categories are counted and described instead of being presented as supported text-change rows.
Unknown or unsupported-only review structuresBlocked or explicitThe parser does not silently drop detected review data to create a false complete result.

What the Excel workbook is expected to contain

The workbook is one review handoff with three coordinated sheets. Row data and coverage data are kept together.

Comments

Comment IDs, parent relationships, status, author, date, referenced text, context, comment text, workflow fields, and row coverage.

Tracked Changes

Supported pending insertions and deletions with author, date, location, context, and review fields.

Export Notes

Input scope, detected counts, coverage warnings, supported boundaries, and product limits.

Review controls

Filters, frozen headers, safe cell values, and workflow columns support a real Excel handoff.

What this evidence does not prove

It does not reproduce Word pagination, visual layout, accepted or rejected history, formatting revisions, moved content, every table revision, headers, footers, footnotes, or comments in every possible document story.

Word for Windows is the validated client. Word for Mac and Word for Web documents are processed best-effort, and unavailable details remain Unknown or appear in coverage warnings.

Continue with the right next step.

Compare the workflow guide with the evidence behind its limits.