An add-on can support a role handoff without becoming the source of truth, provided the authoritative record remains in a separately designated system. The cited documentation supports two relevant mechanics: extracted fields and tables from a form-processing model can be used in later flow actions, and a flow can wait for approvers’ responses before completing its run.
That makes an add-on usable as a workflow bridge. It can pass information to the next role and pause for human review while another system retains the canonical record. However, these capabilities alone do not prove that the add-on will avoid becoming a secondary—or conflicting—source of truth.
How to check the workflow fit
A team should examine four boundaries before adopting the pattern:
-
Data handoff. Confirm which extracted fields the receiving action needs and where each field originates. The form-processing documentation establishes that extracted fields and tables can be used in later actions; it does not assign ownership of the underlying record.
-
Human approval. Confirm that the workflow can wait for the approver’s response before the run completes. This supports a deliberate role handoff rather than automatically advancing work.
-
Record ownership. Identify the system that remains authoritative. The add-on should not become the place where a more current or complete version of that record exists merely because it processes fields or coordinates approvals.
-
Write-back and exceptions. Verify whether approval results and status changes return to the authoritative system. The team must also establish how incomplete responses, duplicate runs, retries, and failed write-backs are handled; the cited capabilities do not answer those questions.
What must still be confirmed
The documentation establishes what the workflow components can do, not how a particular organisation should govern them. Before implementation, the team still needs to confirm:
- which system is the source of truth;
- what the add-on may read, store, modify, and overwrite;
- who is permitted to approve each handoff;
- where approval history and audit evidence are retained;
- how failures, retries, and conflicting updates are resolved.
The practical answer is therefore yes, as a bounded workflow bridge. An add-on can pass extracted information and wait for an approver without holding the authoritative record, but that separation depends on explicit data ownership, access controls, and write-back rules—not on the add-on capabilities alone.