The research question
An invoice is saved as paid-final.pdf after a colleague organizes a folder. A document CRM may notice the word and suggest checking the invoice, but the filename does not establish that a transfer occurred. It might describe an intended status, a copied naming convention or an incorrect manual label. The file’s content may not contain any payment information at all. Provenance research distinguishes contributing data from its source locations. In a document-derived CRM, both help a reviewer understand how a conclusion was formed and inspect the particular evidence on which it depends.
A concrete design choice
The proposed workflow separates the observed filename from a candidate payment claim. Confirmation requires an appropriate payment source and a relationship to the invoice, with amount, currency and relevant time available for review. If that source is missing, the invoice can remain associated with an unresolved question rather than being marked settled. The same distinction applies to a CRM status imported from another system: it establishes what that system recorded, not automatically the underlying event. A reviewer should see the evidence type and decide whether it is sufficient for the intended use.
What would demonstrate usefulness
Evaluate renamed files, a genuine payment record and an invoice with an ambiguous reference. The system should preserve every observation while confirming only the supported relationship. Review whether users can explain why a suggested status remains tentative, and whether later evidence resolves the question without erasing the original naming clue.