The review procedure is pretty clear with no real changes proposed.
“Go through the instructions in the chapter. Follow the instructions exactly as they are written, so you can see if anything is different between the instructions and the software or if any essential steps are missing or unclear”
I’d suggest the tracking sheet needs to explicitly identify the parts of a review that have been completed because with comments like “I only read through it” the process is clearly not being followed and the quality varies greatly.
Regarding proposed changes:
- Use numbered lists so items can be more easily referenced compared to unnumbered lists (which are often referenced by numerical order anyway)
- “Reviewing - Means that you are checking the work of the person who updated a user guide chapter, to see if there is any missing information or errors.” seems far too narrow since existing errors will never be corrected and it is unlikely to identify changes that affect other areas of the guide.