In Arizona we’re only required to have one per year for the 4-year cycle and it’s still a hot mess!  Let’s see if we can get PowerDMS to give agencies one license for each year - it’s the same amount of data being stored, keeps us truly organized, and makes it incredibly easy for our auditors to locate files!  It also ensures that we can utilize the status function for each individual year.  Just a thought :)

Though I’m not in the NYS system, but at my agency here in FL, we have many standards requiring multiple proofs. We’ve found the best way to do it is create a PowerDMS document in PDF format for each proof set. Using Edit on Desktop, we open the doc via Author into Acrobat, then add each subsequent proof received to the same doc using Acrobat’s “Organize Pages” tool. The differentiation occurs using the PowerDMS highlighting tool, and titling the highlight to correspond with the standard/bullet/element and the time sensitive aspect proven. Some standards, we even use a single document to provide multiple required proofs. Helpful hint - if you get your proofs from others as PDF attachments on emails, you can open your proof doc and drag the attachment directly onto the Organize Pages screen and drop it without having to save it to a file location then drag or upload it from there. Even works to create the initial PDMS doc with the first proof you receive!

Hope this helps!

For reference, CALEA agency here.

I had proposed in the ideas section that we get folders within an assessment. We need the one assessment to hold all of the assessment years so that it makes life easier for assessors/and mock assessors who are looking to confirm all years are there especially if NYS LEAP does continuous compliance where you have to show you always have those 5 years of proofing compliance.

But for now until my wishes come true with folders in an assessment my only suggestions would be to make sure you are following your programs best practice guide for labeling. and then make sure you are anchoring your proofs to the proper node (data line/bullet) so then you or anyone looking at your assessment can utilize the filter option. I know not really all that helpful but I totally get what you are saying. 

Side note I would also propose to your chair committee to get rid of the numerous proofs for one year. 

You have the ability to order your proofs (and move them) in a way that makes the most sense to your organization. We label our documents using this specific format...

“Proof.Year.4(1) 1File name]” then (2), (3), etc., for each additional proof we use for a particular standard. For year three it would be...” Proof.Year.3(1) aFile name]”.

We order our files from newest (Year 4) to oldest (Year 1).

I did not create this file naming system, but I feel like it works for us with CALEA. :)

In Oregon, we’re on a three accreditation cycle.  On several of the standards we’re required to provide proofs of compliance for each year.  We separated each year as it’s own proof.  Here’s an example of the headings and highlighting we used for our Property and Evidence Annual Inspections.  You could break out the bullet points within each year without it becoming too messy.

In Louisiana, our state facilities operate similar to how sgilmore1217 suggested. Each proof is titled appropriately and organized sequentially for ease of audit internally and externally. Example:

• Proof 1, FY24-25, <Document Title>

• Proof 1, FY23-24, <Document Title>