What Happens to an Index When the Manuscript Changes?

You have reviewed the index, then the author moves two paragraphs, cuts an argument, and rewrites the conclusion. The page numbers need attention. So do the headings, even if the index marks still point to the same words.

Manuscript revision creates two separate questions: Where is the discussion now? And does it still support this entry? A system that keeps an anchor attached to text may help answer the first. It cannot settle the second merely by finding the passage.

Five changes, five review decisions

The following examples are original illustrations, not quotations from a published book. Imagine a manuscript about urban transport with the entry “congestion charging, public acceptance.” One paragraph discusses how residents responded to a trial scheme.

1. Repagination: the discussion stays put

A change in type size moves the paragraph from page 82 to page 85. The words and context remain unchanged. The heading may still be right, but the old page number is wrong. Recalculate or remap the locator against the layout being delivered, then check the resulting index. A manuscript page number does not establish the page number in a later typeset proof.

2. Relocation: the paragraph moves

The author moves the paragraph into another chapter without changing its wording. An index mark moved with the passage may retain a useful connection. Check that it actually moved, then reread the surrounding discussion. A paragraph once presented as evidence for public acceptance might now appear in a section criticizing how acceptance was measured. Its words survive; its role in the argument has changed.

3. Splitting: one paragraph becomes two

The author separates the survey results from the explanation of those results. A mark attached to the first paragraph may now lead only to the figures, while the useful discussion continues in the second. Check where the treatment begins and ends. Keep separate locators for separate discussions; use a range only when the intervening material provides continuous treatment. Finding the first sentence does not verify the full range.

4. Deletion: the support disappears

The author deletes the discussion of public acceptance but leaves a passing reference to the trial. Remove the affected locator unless the remaining passage independently supports it. Do not preserve it just because the term survives. If no useful treatment remains anywhere under the subheading, remove or revise that subheading and check any cross-references pointing to it.

5. Rewriting: the conclusion changes

An earlier conclusion supported the entry “congestion charging, reduction of inequality.” The revised conclusion says the evidence is insufficient to establish that effect. An anchor could still find the conclusion, yet the heading would promise a result the book no longer supports. Consider a heading such as “congestion charging, uncertain effects on inequality,” or remove the locator if the revised passage offers too little treatment. Review the complete heading and subheading together.

An anchor is a connection, not an approval

Text anchors and embedded index marks can help preserve connections during editing. They can also become missing, ambiguous, or attached to only part of a revised discussion. Repeated wording deserves particular care: a matching sentence elsewhere in the manuscript is not necessarily the original passage.

For Word indexes, Microsoft's Create and update an index explains how XE fields store entry information and how to update the generated index after editing or deleting those fields. Updating is a mechanical step. Deciding whether the entry still represents the discussion remains an editorial task.

Keep the manuscript and editable index in agreement

An embedded manuscript and a separate editable index serve different purposes. The manuscript connects entries to passages; the separate list makes headings, hierarchy, and cross-references easier to review together. They need one agreed correction process.

Suppose an editor changes “reduction of inequality” to “uncertain effects on inequality” in the separate list. If the embedded entry is unchanged, a later index update can reproduce the old heading. The correction is complete only when the agreed change reaches every deliverable that is meant to reflect it.

1. Identify the versions. Record the manuscript and index versions being reviewed. Keep earlier files distinguishable, and name the person responsible for incorporating corrections.
2. Review changes against passages. For each affected entry, record whether its support is unchanged, moved, changed, deleted, or uncertain. Include newly added discussions: they may need entries that the old index never contained.
3. Reconcile corrections. Use a shared correction list or controlled master index. Record the old heading, proposed heading, passage, and decision; update the embedded marks and separate list through the agreed process. Resolve unclear matches before treating them as corrected.
4. Refresh and compare. Generate or update the index for the current layout, then compare the manuscript index and separate list for headings, locators, ranges, and cross-references. Label corrections awaiting incorporation as pending.

Before handing over the revised index

• ✓ Do the locators refer to the intended manuscript or proof version?
• ✓ Does every changed heading still describe the passage it leads to?
• ✓ Have deleted and newly added discussions received indexing decisions?
• ✓ Have splits, ranges, and cross-reference targets been checked?
• ✓ Do the embedded manuscript and separate index reflect the same accepted corrections?

If meaning and context are unchanged, the work may be chiefly locator maintenance. If the argument, emphasis, or coverage changes, reopen the indexing decision. The goal is to preserve useful access through revision, with evidence that both the destination and the description remain right.