Fixes a mismatch between 10.8 and 10.9 SQL Server requirements

[cwrh-netwrix]

10.8 docs had received an update with notes about SQL Server and PBIRS 2025, but those notes were absent from the 10.9 version of the same doc. This edit updates the 10.9 docs to include those same notes.

[github-actions]

Documentation PR Review

Editorial Review

docs/auditor/10.9/requirements/sqlserver.md

• Structure — Lines 19–22 and 26: The new intro note and the new SQL Server 2025 table cell state the same fact three times over (plus a third time at line 122). The note says "SQL Server 2025 Express Edition does not include Power BI Report Server (PBIRS) or any built-in reporting services. If reporting functionality is required, use Standard or Enterprise Edition with SQL Server 2025, or remain on SQL Server Express 2022 or earlier" — and the table cell repeats that nearly verbatim. The note then ends with "See the SQL Server 2025 row in the table below for details," but the row adds only one new fact (the SSRS 2022 caveat). Suggested fix: keep the short warning in the table cell and move the full explanation to a single place. For example, reduce the cell to "- Standard or Enterprise Edition
  - Express Edition (no reporting services — see the note below the table)" and keep one consolidated note.

• Structure — Lines 19–22: The note is inserted between "The following table lists supported SQL Server versions and editions." and the table itself, separating the table from the sentence that introduces it. The file already places its version caveats after the table (line 34, "NOTE: SQL express is only supported for small environments."). Suggested fix: move the new note below the table, next to the existing Express Edition note, so the two Express caveats sit together and the table follows its introduction directly.

• Clarity — Line 26: The cell is a five-sentence paragraph, while every other row in the table is a short list of editions with links. A reader scanning the Edition column for "what can I install?" has to read a paragraph to find the answer. Suggested fix: keep the cell parallel to the other rows ("- Standard or Enterprise Edition - Express Edition (reporting services not available)") and put the explanation in prose outside the table.

• Clarity — Lines 19–22 and 26: "Power BI Report Server (PBIRS)" is a new term for this document — every other row and every other section refers to "Reporting Services" or "Advanced Services." The reader is not told how PBIRS relates to the Reporting Services this page requires for report generation (line 11), so it isn't clear whether PBIRS is the SQL Server 2025 replacement for SSRS or a separate product. Suggested fix: add one sentence explaining the relationship, for example: "In SQL Server 2025, Power BI Report Server (PBIRS) replaces SQL Server Reporting Services as the reporting component, and it isn't bundled with Express Edition." Also spell out the acronym only on first use — it is currently expanded at line 19 and again at line 26.

• Clarity — Line 26: "SSRS" appears without being spelled out. The cell writes "SQL Server Reporting Services 2022" in the link text and then switches to "SSRS 2022" in the next sentence without connecting the two. Suggested fix: write "SQL Server Reporting Services (SSRS) 2022" at the link, then use "SSRS" afterward.

• Completeness — Lines 19–22 vs. line 26: The two passages give the reader conflicting guidance. The note says the reader can "remain on SQL Server Express 2022 or earlier," which reads as a supported fallback; the table cell then says pairing SSRS 2022 with SQL Server 2025 Express "is not an officially supported configuration and may break." It is also ambiguous whether "remain on SQL Server Express 2022 or earlier" means keeping the whole SQL Server instance at 2022, or keeping only the reporting component at 2022 while the database engine moves to 2025. Suggested fix: state the two supported paths explicitly — "For reporting with SQL Server 2025, use Standard or Enterprise Edition. To keep using Express Edition with reporting, stay on SQL Server 2022 Express with SQL Server Reporting Services 2022 — including the database engine." Then state the unsupported combination once.

• Completeness — Lines 15–17: The sentence now recommends Express Edition for evaluation, PoC, or small environments "when using SQL Server 2022 or earlier," which leaves the reader who wants Express with SQL Server 2025 for a small environment without an answer in that sentence. Express is supported on 2025 — just without reporting — but the reader has to reach the table cell to learn that. Suggested fix: "Due to limited database size, Netwrix recommends Express Edition only for evaluation, PoC, or small environments. On SQL Server 2022 and earlier, Express Edition with Reporting Services also supports report generation; on SQL Server 2025, it doesn't. For production environments, consider using Standard or Enterprise Edition."

• Clarity — Lines 121–123: The new sentence contradicts the bullet it is appended to. The bullet reads "Supported editions are Enterprise, Standard, and Express with Advanced Services (it includes Reporting Services)" and is immediately followed by "Note: SQL Server 2025 Express Edition does not include any reporting services." The reader has to reconcile two opposite claims in one bullet. Suggested fix: qualify the bullet itself — "Supported editions are Enterprise, Standard, and Express with Advanced Services (Express with Advanced Services includes Reporting Services on SQL Server 2022 and earlier only)" — and make the SQL Server 2025 exception its own bullet.

• Consistency — Line 122: The new note uses **Note:** inline within a bullet, while the rest of the file uses **NOTE:** on its own line (lines 34, 43, 280, 288). Suggested fix: match the file's existing convention and put the note on its own line as **NOTE:**.

Summary

9 editorial suggestions across 1 file. Vale and Dale issues are auto-fixed separately.

---

What to do next:

Comment @claude on this PR followed by your instructions to get help:

• @claude fix all issues — fix all editorial issues
• @claude help improve the flow of this document — get writing assistance
• @claude explain the voice issues — understand why something was flagged

You can ask Claude anything about the review or about Netwrix writing standards.

Automated fixes are only available for branches in this repository, not forks.

[github-actions]

Auto-Fix Summary

36 issues fixed, 7 skipped across 1 files

Category	Fixes
Contractions	3
NoteThat (rewrite)	1
Dale: misplaced-modifiers	2
Dale: passive-voice	19
Dale: positional-references	1
Dale: undefined-acronyms	1
Dale: wordiness	9

Skipped (needs manual review)	Reason

| docs/auditor/10.9/requirements/sqlserver.md:98 — Dale: undefined-acronyms | DDC (in 'DDC Provider') is a product-specific acronym that is never expanded in this file; the correct expansion couldn't be verified, so defining it could introduce an inaccuracy |
| docs/auditor/10.9/requirements/sqlserver.md:58 — Dale: passive-voice | 'Supported versions are SQL Server 2012 and later' uses 'supported' as a predicate adjective in a list-style statement; rewriting is stylistic rather than a clear passive-voice violation |
| docs/auditor/10.9/requirements/sqlserver.md:119 — Dale: passive-voice | 'Supported editions are Enterprise, Standard, and Express with Advanced Services' is a parallel list item matching the surrounding bullets; rewriting would break the pattern |
| docs/auditor/10.9/requirements/sqlserver.md:125 — Dale: wordiness | 'For example, this section provides instructions on how to:' reads as an incomplete or garbled lead-in; the intended meaning is unclear, so a rewrite risks changing it |
| docs/auditor/10.9/requirements/sqlserver.md:152 — Dale: passive-voice | 'The product databases are designed for reporting and searching' describes intended design; active alternatives ('serve', 'support') shift the meaning |
| docs/auditor/10.9/requirements/sqlserver.md:227 — Dale: wordiness | 'you can have SQL Server cluster of 2 servers, and 2 Oracle servers' has article and comma problems, but the intended inventory (one cluster plus two Oracle servers vs. other readings) is ambiguous |
| docs/auditor/10.9/requirements/sqlserver.md:85 — Dale: misplaced-modifiers | 'To store data from the data sources included in the monitoring plan, the Monitoring Plan Wizard creates an Audit Database' attaches the purpose phrase to the wizard; the sentence is understandable and a rewrite could misstate which component stores the data |

Ask @claude on this PR if you'd like an explanation of any fix.