Replacing TOC fields with other fields

This is a tricky one!

I created a template for a client of mine with quite a lot of users. The template uses TOC fields 1-6 for numbered heading and 7-8 for any Appendix Cover sheets added. (The actual appendix pages get added manually to the document at a later time).

In 95% of the users'machines this works correctly. All TOCs get updated. However, in the remaining 5% the TOC fields 7-8 do not update when they should.

The client accepts that it may be something to do with their systems because in our four development machines using a mixture of Windows and Word versions they all work correctly plus the 95% of their users.

So, the client has come back to me and has said that they want to continue having Appendix Cover sheets with the title of APPENDIX A (B, C, and so on as they get added to the document) followed by a sub-title e.g. 'How to make chocolate-chip cookies' or whatever.
At present these are formatted as TOC 7 and 8 respectively, so when the fields get updated on the TOC page the reader sees:
APPENDIX A
How to make chocolate-chip cookies
...and so on throughout the appendix cover sheets as they get added.

It's time therefore to ditch the TOC 7-8 formatting and fields and replace them with something else. I then thought of other fields which could do the same job (sort of...) and read up on what Greg Maxey and Graham Mayor have so comprehensively written about.

At this point my brain goes into a spin followed by a headache as to the choices I could apply and the method of going about it.

There is an 'Ah, yes, but...'. This is where the writer has made a spelling mistake in the sub-title of the Appendix Cover sheet and has spelled 'cookies' with three 'o'-s. After making the correction they need to update the fields (F9) and the new list of Appendices gets updated in the TOC page.

Has somebody got a big aspirin, please, which could settle my brain and point me in the direction of a solution?

Thanks for any help.

Roderick

Anything you might replace a TOC field with is going to be a whole lot more work to set up, and harder to maintain because it's less flexible (e.g. no automatic updates to reflect changes in headings, the addition/deletion of entries, and so on). I suggest you find out what's going on with the 5% of machines. Maybe it's user error...

Thanks for your input, Paul.

I agree with you entirely and have previously passed the same sentiments to them but they seem reluctant to take that line of approach.

I just wanted to see what the thoughts of people with far more experience in the subject than I have might have to comment.

Your help is appreciated.

Roderick