What is recommended to ensure clarity in naming versions?

Using consistent naming for versions is essential in maintaining clarity and organization within a planning process. Consistency helps all team members easily understand and identify different versions at a glance, reducing confusion that can arise from varied naming conventions. By applying a uniform approach to naming, it ensures that everyone is on the same page regarding what each version represents, whether it’s a specific phase, a tracking period, or a particular revision. This practice not only enhances communication but also supports a streamlined workflow, making it easier to reference historical data or to compare different versions of a plan.

The other options, while they might contribute to version management in some capacity, do not directly address the importance of clarity in naming. Locking completed versions is more about data security and preventing unwanted changes than enhancing clarity. Keeping versions concise is good for brevity, but if the naming lacks consistency, it can still lead to misunderstandings. Setting a timeline relative to the plan start date focuses on versioning strategy rather than the clarity of names themselves. Thus, consistent naming stands out as the best practice for clarity in managing versions.