You review the facts and access. Nothing is published without your approval.
The method behind the HTML-versus-PDF decision briefAsk your agent to compare formats against the supplied requirements, keeping unsupported capabilities and compliance claims out.
Should I share my report as HTML or PDF?
Choose an HTML reading page when recipients need a browser-friendly explanation that can be revised at the same link. Choose a properly prepared PDF when a fixed-layout file, offline copy, print workflow or specified archive format is required. Check accessibility, access and recipient expectations in either case; sometimes the job needs both.
What to give your agent
The reader's device, connectivity, accessibility and delivery requirements.
Whether content must stay fixed or can change after sharing.
Print, file submission, archive or record-retention requirements confirmed by the owner.
The approved report source, intended audience and required editing or calculation tasks.
Ask whether the recipient needs a link or a file
A reader reviewing on a phone may value reflowing content. A recipient submitting a fixed file to an archive may need a specific document format. Confirm the requirement instead of assuming everyone prefers the same delivery. HTML is not automatically well designed, and a PDF is not automatically inaccessible.
Choose how editions should behave
A share/artifacts HTML page can be updated at its existing URL. That helps corrections but means the current link is not an immutable copy of an earlier edition. Keep separately approved snapshots when a historical record matters. A downloaded PDF remains that file; distributing a new edition does not replace copies already saved.
Review accessibility and layout in the actual output
For HTML, inspect headings, reading order, contrast, text resizing and phone layout. For PDF, use the appropriate document-authoring and accessibility checks, including structure and reading order. GOV.UK recommends HTML for web publishing; Adobe documents PDF's fixed-document, print and specialized archival uses. Neither removes the need to test your result.
Respect requirements outside the reading task
Keep editable calculations in a spreadsheet and signatures in an approved signing workflow. If PDF is required, create and verify it with an appropriate document tool; share/artifacts does not provide PDF export in this workflow. Browser printing is not a guarantee of print-production quality or archive compliance.
Create a static HTML format-decision brief from my recipient requirements and approved report context. Compare an HTML reading page with a PDF for browser reading, fixed layout, offline delivery, corrections, printing, accessibility and any stated archive requirements. Recommend by the actual job and state unknown requirements. Do not claim one format is universally better. Preserve source facts in any illustrative comparison. Ask only for missing essentials using existing authorized context. Use my saved artifact style if available. This task creates a reading decision brief only: do not generate or promise PDF export, archive certification, signatures, editable calculations or an application. No scripts or forms. Show the draft for review. Do not publish or change access without separate explicit approval.
Check before you shareAccuracy, clarity, and permission
Are recipient format and offline requirements confirmed rather than assumed?
Does the choice distinguish a current editable edition from a preserved historical copy?
Have accessibility and layout been checked in the actual chosen output?
Are PDF production, archive standards, signatures and calculations assigned to appropriate separate workflows?
When HTML fits
A decision brief that helps choose a delivery format before producing or distributing the final report.
When another format fits better
This comparison is not a PDF converter, accessibility certification or archive-compliance assessment. A hosted HTML link should not be assumed to work offline.
What we started withThe same facts, as a wiki page
Fictional team wiki
Cedar report delivery — format decision
Report facts
September 7, 2026. Report R1: 18 August requests closed out of 24 eligible under the same supplied definition, or 18 / 24 × 100 = 75%. No cause or comparison period is supplied.
Recipient requirements
The manager M1 wants phone reading and the current version after corrections, with internet available and no fixed-page or submission requirement. The archive coordinator A1 requires a fixed PDF kept offline. Exact archive standard, retention policy and acceptance checks need confirmation; generic PDF compliance and mandatory PDF/A are not established.
Format recommendation
Recommend an HTML reading page for the manager and a PDF made with an appropriate separate document tool for the archive coordinator. Both preserve R1, definitions and edition date. share/artifacts is not claimed to export PDF. Neither recipient needs signatures or editable calculations; the calculation source remains separate.
Edition handling and checks
A later HTML correction can update the current page at its link; a saved PDF remains the earlier file. Preserve required historical copies separately and identify the current edition. Test the actual outputs for accessibility and layout. This decision brief is not a PDF or certification of accessibility, print quality or archive compliance. Reading it creates no files, signatures, permissions or submissions.
Inspect the HTMLOne self-contained file
The example is sanitized and isolated from this site. No scripts, forms, or live data.
<!doctype html><html lang="en"><head><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"><title>Cedar report: one source, two delivery decisions</title><style>
*{box-sizing:border-box}html{color-scheme:light}body{margin:0;background:#f5f8fc;color:#182e46;font:17px/1.65 system-ui,sans-serif}main{max-width:1000px;margin:auto;padding:clamp(20px,5vw,64px)}h1,h2,h3,p{margin:0 0 18px}h1{font:500 clamp(32px,5vw,58px)/1.14 Georgia,serif;letter-spacing:-.025em;overflow-wrap:anywhere}h2{font:500 29px/1.3 Georgia,serif;overflow-wrap:anywhere}h3{font-size:19px;line-height:1.4}.label{font:700 12px/1.6 system-ui,sans-serif;letter-spacing:.08em;text-transform:uppercase}.intro{font-size:20px}.lead{background:#23486b;color:white;padding:24px;margin:28px 0}.lead p:last-child{margin:0}.grid{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(auto-fit,minmax(min(100%,230px),1fr));gap:20px;margin:24px 0}.card{background:white;border:1px solid #bbc5c4;padding:24px}.metric{font:500 38px/1.2 Georgia,serif;display:block;margin-bottom:12px}section{margin:36px 0}ul,ol{padding-left:22px}li{margin-bottom:12px}.note{font-size:14px}.warning{border-left:5px solid #956118;padding-left:20px}a{color:inherit;text-underline-offset:4px}a:focus-visible,summary:focus-visible{outline:3px solid #956118;outline-offset:4px}table{width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;font-size:15px}th,td{text-align:left;vertical-align:top;border-bottom:1px solid #bbc5c4;padding:12px 8px;overflow-wrap:anywhere}caption{text-align:left;font-weight:700;padding:12px 0}pre,code{white-space:pre-wrap;overflow-wrap:anywhere}footer{border-top:1px solid #bbc5c4;padding-top:24px;margin-top:40px;font-size:14px}@media(max-width:480px){th,td{padding:10px 4px;font-size:14px}}@media print{body{background:white}.card,.lead{break-inside:avoid}h2,h3{break-after:avoid}}
</style></head><body><main><header><p class="label">Cedar / Fictional format decision / September 7, 2026</p><h1>Same evidence. Two different delivery jobs.</h1><p class="intro">This is a decision brief—not a generated PDF or an archive submission.</p></header><section><h2>The facts both versions must retain</h2><div class="lead"><p class="label">August · R1</p><h3>18 of 24 eligible requests closed</h3><p>18 ÷ 24 × 100 = <strong>75% completion</strong>. Both counts cover August and use the same definition. No causal explanation or comparison period is supplied.</p></div></section><section><h2>Choose by the recipient's requirement</h2><div class="grid"><article class="card"><p class="label">Manager · M1</p><h3>Recommend an HTML reading page</h3><p>The manager reads on a phone, has internet access and wants the current version after corrections. No fixed-page or file-submission requirement is supplied.</p><p>Use a readable browser layout and verify the current link after each approved correction.</p></article><article class="card"><p class="label">Archive coordinator · A1</p><h3>Prepare a PDF in a separate document workflow</h3><p>The coordinator requires a fixed PDF file kept offline. Confirm the exact archive standard, retention policy and acceptance checks before production.</p><p class="warning">A generic PDF is not automatically archive-compliant. PDF/A is not specified by this source.</p></article></div><p class="note">Recommendations D1 follow the different requirements, not different report facts.</p></section><section><h2>What changes when the report is corrected?</h2><h3>Edition behavior to explain to recipients</h3><table><thead><tr><th scope="col">Current HTML link</th><th scope="col">Saved PDF file</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>A reviewed update can replace the current content at the same link.</td><td>A downloaded copy remains its earlier edition. Distributing a new file does not replace it.</td></tr><tr><td>Preserve historical snapshots separately when required.</td><td>Label the edition and follow the archive's confirmed requirements.</td></tr></tbody></table><p class="note">Source V1.</p></section><section><h2>Checks before producing either deliverable</h2><ul><li>Retain R1, the definitions and the edition date.</li><li>Test actual accessibility and layout in the chosen output.</li><li>Confirm missing archive requirements with the coordinator.</li><li>Keep the calculation source separately; no signatures or editable calculations are requested.</li></ul><p>share/artifacts PDF export is not part of this workflow. This brief does not certify accessibility, print quality or archive compliance, and does not create a PDF or submit a record.</p><p class="note">Sources E1, D1 and C1.</p></section><footer>Fictional worked example by share/artifacts. Names, dates, figures and records are invented for demonstration. Static snapshot; no live data or automatic updates.</footer></main></body></html>
The original worked scenarioThe source scenario, step by step
The same report, two recipient requirements
Fictional Cedar review: one manager reads on a phone; an archive coordinator requires a fixed PDF file.
The original notes
Report facts: 18 requests closed of 24 eligible in August, 75%. Manager wants phone reading and future corrections. Archive coordinator requires a fixed PDF file kept offline. No signatures or editable calculations requested.
Common facts
18 / 24 = 75%. Both deliverables must preserve period, definition and evidence.
Manager
An HTML reading page fits phone reading and reviewed corrections at one link.
Archive coordinator
Prepare a fixed PDF with an appropriate document tool, verifying the archive's exact requirements.
Boundary
The example is a decision brief, not a generated PDF or proof of archive compliance.
One source can support two delivery formats without pretending one format meets every requirement.
Questions, adaptations & sourcesGo deeper when you need to
Can a PDF have selectable text and links?
Yes. Do not confuse a scanned image PDF with every PDF. Check the actual file's text, links, structure and accessibility rather than assuming all files behave alike.
Can share/artifacts export my page as a PDF?
This workflow does not provide PDF export. If a PDF is required, use an appropriate document tool and verify the resulting file. A browser print dialog is not a promise of an accessible or archive-compliant PDF.
Can I deliver both formats?
Yes, using suitable tools for each. Keep the facts and edition dates consistent, explain which version is current, and preserve the required record separately. Do not imply that updating the HTML replaces downloaded files.