@jbailey agree with your post. For the longest time we only used CR/CNs to release things. We use same process both for initial release vs rev/FFF changes where part number changes. The thought process was that user's only need to learn one process. The process of releasing is also a review and approve process. Why should initial release be any different than follow on changes? In fact, you would want the highest level of review on that initial release since all your design issues exist at that time. We have the same CCB involved in those releases.
Where CR/CN did not make sense was for lower level documents that are less critical to the design. Those were traditional adhoc signed, for the longest time manually and there were looser requirements on who signs off. For those, we adopted a Promotion Request process where the users picks the approvers, admins validate that approvers are sufficient and they are sent tasks to conduct review/approval. There is some confusion as to which process to use but its not a huge issue.
In both cases, we make use of discussion forum to track comments, replies and confirmation that issues are resolved for an audit trail.
