A cell coordinate without context can point to the wrong meaning
A coordinate is meaningful within a particular workbook observation. After structural edits, D18 may still be a valid address while pointing to an entirely different business fact. The project should therefore preserve what was actually seen rather than reconstructing historical evidence from the current sheet. For a proposed reattachment, row labels, headings, formulas, and nearby identifiers can provide clues, but conflicting clues should lead to review. The test should include a simple inserted row and a more ambiguous copy of the original table elsewhere in the workbook. The first may permit a confident suggested match; the second should expose alternatives. Reviewers should be able to reject a proposed reattachment without losing the old requirement's evidence. That separation makes the system useful during document evolution without pretending that cell movement and business continuity are always equivalent.
Working through the example
A delivery limit comes from cell D18 in a workbook. A later inserted row moves the limit, while the same coordinate now contains an unrelated quantity. Capture the workbook version, sheet, cell address, value, and relevant headings when creating the candidate. Treat a new location match as a separate observation.
A discriminating check
Insert a row and check that the historical requirement still refers to its original observed value. Reattaching a requirement to a changed spreadsheet can be ambiguous and should remain reviewable. Pre-requirements traceability and citation evaluation motivate inspectable support for individual commitments. The versioned evidence record described here is the project’s proposed adaptation of those research concerns.