I have not seen this topic brought up since I've been around here (but it is also possible that I somehow missed it). Typically, when I have an important written document that I want to share, I make myself a copy before I relinquish the work to the recipient. I may give them the 'copy' or I may give them the 'original'; it hardly matters with modern copying technology (sometimes I get them mixed-up). The 'copy' and the 'original' should both be exactly the same in content, although they make differ superficially in other ways (the color or texture of the paper, for example). Actually, I may reproduce several copies for distribution if I wanted all the recipients to read the same content. In many circumstances, I would consider, treat, and accept all these documents as 'originals' (clearly, I'm no lawyer). And sometimes when I write something specifically for some one, I later realize that the information might also benefit some one else, especially if I make just a few small edits to customize it for the person, but without changing the bulk of information. If I don't have the 'original' handy, I might work from the last draft, or my memory if its very recent. It may be as little as changing the salutation; or it may require the deletion of some confidential detail; or I might catch a typo and fix it. Although each document is minutely unique, in the end, I feel that I have sent all parties the same message. I have presented some unremarkable actions common to documents: that important ones are often copied before they distributed, and that the writer might authorize some small changes between 'copies', and occasionally something slightly unintended might get published. There is much discussion on this board around which original language text is closest to the original, and that where ancient manuscripts are different one or the other must be corrupted. Should we entertain the possibility of multiple "originals" in some cases?