A publications manager needs to know whether converted content can be maintained, not just whether it looks right. An engineering or PLM lead needs to know how source changes reach the publication. Our proposed pilot tests both concerns before production scope is agreed. It separates source repair from conversion and makes technical acceptance part of the work.
The sample exposes the work that production will repeat
We propose selecting an ordinary procedure alongside difficult content and a procedure with a known revision. The people who will maintain the result help judge whether these examples represent the collection. A sample chosen only for clean source files can hide the work that later controls delivery.
Difficult content might contain conditional steps or dense part callouts. It might reuse illustrations across tasks or combine material from different authoring systems. These conditions belong in the sample inventory so that each mapping decision has a visible reason.
Keep editable source beside its reference output. Treat the PDF as evidence of the intended reading experience, not proof that the authoring structure is available. We record missing files and unresolved identifiers as source gaps, with an agreed owner for reconstruction and review.
The mapping records decisions that a script cannot settle
Our proposed mapping names the target treatment for each source content type. It distinguishes content that transfers directly from content that needs restructuring or technical interpretation. The review covers:
- Procedure boundaries and step order.
- Warnings and cautions associated with the relevant actions.
- Illustrations and their part callouts.
- References and repeated content.
- Applicability conditions and their intended display.
For an S1000D deliverable, we propose recording the contracted issue alongside the program rules supplied for the pilot. The official-linked data-dictionary site lists dictionaries for different issues; that listing does not establish which issue a contract requires or which issue a tool supports. S1000D Data Dictionaries
We also separate media decisions from text conversion. Existing illustrations may already serve the task. Available geometry may need preparation before it is useful. The scope therefore identifies retained media and proposed interactive treatment separately, without assuming that every illustration should become an animation.
Acceptance includes a revision rather than only an initial publication
We propose agreeing the acceptance cases before conversion starts. A visual review answers whether the publication reads correctly. It does not, by itself, answer whether the delivered project can be edited and republished by the receiving team.
The pilot review would check that the project opens in the agreed target environment. It would trace selected callouts to their intended items and inspect references in the published output. Validation evidence would name the checks performed and record how findings were resolved or left open for acceptance.
Applicability needs a publication check as well as a data check. The s1kd-aspp documentation distinguishes authored applicability logic from the display of changing applicability in page-oriented output. We use that distinction to frame sample cases that inspect what the reader actually sees. s1kd-aspp documentation
Next, apply a representative source change and regenerate the output. The reviewer follows how the author finds the affected content and checks the revised result. We keep the mapping open until this exercise is complete: a convincing initial publication can conceal relationships that fail during maintenance.
The handoff supports a production decision
For the proposed pilot, we define the handoff as an evidence package rather than an output file alone. It contains:
- A source inventory with gaps and ownership recorded.
- A reviewed mapping with exceptions explained.
- The converted sample project and agreed publication output.
- Acceptance records and revision evidence.
- Open decisions with named decision owners.
We propose recording effort separately for preparation and conversion. Illustration work, validation and review also remain visible. Grouping the remaining collection by similar source conditions then gives a better basis for production planning than extending the easiest sample across the whole collection.
The closeout records who corrects source defects and who accepts technical interpretation. It also distinguishes S1000D deliverables from any separately scoped DITA or HTML assets. File formats belong in the acceptance agreement, not in an assumption made after conversion.
A useful scoping discussion starts with source and acceptance ownership
Dakota is listed in Cortona3D's authorized reseller directory for the United States and Canada. That is a partner credential, not evidence that a particular source collection will convert automatically. The pilot method here is our proposed delivery approach. Cortona3D reseller directory
For scoping, the useful inputs are:
- Editable source with its reference PDF.
- The intended RapidAuthor version and publication output.
- The contracted S1000D issue and available program rules, if applicable.
- Difficult content and a recent revision.
- Available geometry and the technical acceptance owner.
Bring a real sample and the person who accepts delivery to a scoping workshop.
Sources
- S1000D Data Dictionaries — S1000D data-dictionary site / ASD and member defence ministries, 2026-07-16
- s1kd-aspp applicability statement preprocessor — kibook/s1kd-tools on GitHub, date not stated
- Authorized reseller directory — Cortona3D, date not stated