When saving is automatic, making work safe and making it public happen in the same silent moment — whatever state the work is in, that is what others read. Keeping a working copy separate from the published version, with a deliberate action moving one into the other, gives the actor a way to say the work is ready for others. That is a real decision, distinct from whether the work is stored, and it needs a step of its own.
The boundary covers the whole artefact: readers see the last published version, however far the draft has moved on. Staging can also happen per change — suggestions held for review inside a live document — and choosing between whole-artefact and per-change staging is a granularity decision with its own trade-offs.
To-do
- Survey instances beyond CMS workflows: app releases, environment promotion, scheduled publishing, social drafts.
- The whole-artefact vs. per-change staging axis needs working out once a review-boundary pattern exists; the forces that move a design along it — trust in the editor, how recoverable mistakes are, how easily the result can be checked — are shared.
Consequences
- the version others read stays put while the actor works, so unfinished work is never mistaken for the finished thing
- publishing is a deliberate act, which gives review, versioning, and notification a natural point to attach to
- the artefact now exists in two versions, and the actor has to manage the gap: forgetting to publish leaves readers on an outdated version
Related patterns
Complements
- Change review — the proposal holds in a draft state while the review decides what publishes
- Detached artefact — the detached artefact is the surface draft and published states attach to
- Regeneration — cheap draft modes make re-rolls affordable before committing to the full run
Preceded by
- Saving — saving no longer says anything about whether work is ready for others, so publishing becomes a separate, deliberate act