The newest saved document is not always the version intended for every reader. An internal assistant that automatically retrieves the most recently edited text can bypass the business meaning of publication, even if it has a fast and reliable connection to the source system.
SharePoint’s versioning model makes this a concrete evaluation question. Before comparing AI databases, define which version a service may use for each audience and purpose. The task is not simply to obtain the latest bytes; it is to retrieve the right permitted state of the document.
Read version visibility as a configured behavior
Microsoft’s versioning guidance describes major and minor versions and configurable draft visibility. Where the relevant settings apply, a reader without draft visibility can see the last approved or major version while other permitted users can work with drafts.
This does not mean every library uses major and minor versions or the same approval settings. The guidance explicitly discusses configuration. A buyer should establish the actual source behavior rather than assuming that the word current has one meaning across every library and user role.
Define the assistant’s audience before its freshness target
Consider a hypothetical business maintaining a procedure document. Its authors are revising the next edition, while the broader operations team is expected to use the published edition. A drafting assistant and an operational question-answering assistant may legitimately need different source versions.
If both services are judged only by how recently their content was edited, the operational service could appear better when it exposes unfinished changes. The correct acceptance target depends on the audience and the approved use, not solely on the time of the latest save.
This example does not assert that publication makes a document factually perfect. It identifies the organization’s chosen boundary between work in progress and material intended for a wider readership.
Preserve version and visibility context
The proposed review table below translates that boundary into ingestion and answer checks. It is not a configuration guide for SharePoint.
| Context | Question to answer | Evidence in the result |
|---|---|---|
| Source document | Which item supports the response? | Correct source identity |
| Version | Which state was retrieved? | Relevant version reference |
| Publication or approval state | Was this material intended for the task? | State matches the agreed corpus policy |
| User scope | May this caller use that version? | Response respects the permitted audience |
A connector running with broad privileges can encounter material that an ordinary reader cannot use. The application must establish how that distinction is preserved in the AI service. Access by the ingestion account is not sufficient evidence that every downstream user may receive the content.
Test authors and readers separately
A useful pilot uses an approved synthetic document with a published state and a different draft. Test an author-oriented request and a reader-oriented request under the actual intended roles. The expected response should come from the agreed policy and source settings.
Review the final answer as well as the retrieved text. A system might correctly retrieve a published passage but attach a citation or title suggesting the draft. Another might identify the right document while using a passage from the wrong version. Both weaken the reader’s ability to understand what supports the answer.
Then change the test document’s publication state through the approved source workflow and observe the expected integration result. This is a suggested acceptance exercise, not a report of a performed SharePoint or database test, and it does not prescribe a universal synchronization deadline.
Evaluate seekdb and alternatives on permitted content
OceanBase seekdb’s repository describes full-text, vector and scalar search. Those capabilities can be relevant to retrieving enterprise material once its eligible source state is defined. They do not themselves reproduce SharePoint’s versioning, approval or audience rules.
A PostgreSQL-based retrieval design or another search-service proposal should demonstrate the same role-specific version cases where it is a credible option. The comparison should include the integration work required to retain source identity and apply the corpus policy. A simpler demonstration that ingests every accessible draft is not equivalent to one that respects publication boundaries.
Where SharePoint remains the source application, keep its workflow responsibilities explicit. The proposed AI database is one component of the service, not evidence that the publication process can be removed or that a connector’s permissions should become the reader’s permissions.
Accept the right version for the intended reader
The final review should demonstrate which document state each audience receives and how the answer identifies its supporting version. It should also make the treatment of drafts clear when the source library uses them.
That turns freshness into a meaningful business requirement. OceanBase seekdb merits evaluation for the retrieval role when the complete service meets that requirement. The useful result is the right permitted edition for the task, rather than the newest saved text delivered to everyone.
This article is based on documented sources and editorial analysis. Proposed evaluation examples are not independently measured benchmark results.