Macro fields in Precedents

I'd like to create a couple of signoff fields. I noticed that the out of the box signoff fields are all macro fields. Is there any documentation available on creating/amending user-defined macro fields?

Under the Support/Downloads- Admin\Technical Documents there is a document labeled Precedent Management - this has a chapter on Macro Fields.

I have that document and I've looked at that section but unless I'm looking in the wrong place there's no detail included (it's just one short paragraph). Is there any other guidance available?

I'd like to know just the basics:

Where are the macros the fields relate to stored?
Is it possible to view/copy the existing macros to create new ones? What is the step by step procedure to create a macro field?

You won't be able to change or add to the macro fields. Because of the build you will be on I would suggest you use the new scripted precedent fields to construct your own.If you post a couple of examples I can give you the required script and you should be able to work out the rest for yourself.

Macro Fields are in built inside of the Matter Centre OMSApp module, they are hardcoded. There are a lot of other ways of inserting fields into the application the option Peter stated is the most current and flexible way albeit costly processing wise so be wary if the information is relatively static then there are other ways.

The format of those blocks is determined by house style and strictly enforced. While the house style hasn't changed for a few years, it could change in the future. If it does change, it would be a time consuming headache to go back to all the precedents and reformat them one by one. That's why I'm thinking it would be a lot easier to maintain those signoffs as macro fields - format once, use many times.
Can I store macros in any addin template and call them from a macro field?
Of if there's another way of achieving “format once, use many times” than macro fields I'd be happy to use that.

There is a lot to cover here, firstly the Letterhead template only needs to be adjusted once, we have subtext precedents that are imported saving multiple precedent updates for such things as letters.
Fields wise we can and have some of these achievable through ~ based fields to evaluate the current user working for, IE if the Secretary sets the Works For setting this can be used to insert DDI and other similar fields of the Fee Earner. This is standard and should have been covered within training. I would advise logging a support call and arranging to discuss this matter further. Forums are not agressively monitored and this topic is a little more consulting and setup to cover on here.

Additionally there are a lot of Macro based fields to do with sign off that don't put Sign Off name and other things like this to allow you to have Yours Sin(Faith) without a footer of the Surname/Company field and then you can use fields to insert the Fee Earner Name and DDI. Create a template with a sample of how you would like this to look and layout using the name of the fields or data you would like to support and they will change and send back to you.

Thanks Mike. I know how to insert fields, that was indeed covered in training.
The issue I need to address is multiline formatting of standard text blocks that include multiple fields, standardising that formatting across thousands of precedents (really, thousands!) - that's why I want to use macro fields to “format once, use often”.
I've looked at the existing signoff macro fields and unfortunately they don't follow MOP's house style and so I can't use them - that's why I need to create new ones.
I will of course bring this up with a consultant but I don't think I'm the only user who would benefit from being able to create user defined macro fields. I'd like to put in an enhancement request to make it easier for developers to create their own macro fields, would that be something you could take onboard?

I think this would be best solved with a call, we have a considerable depth of field and word coverage and you maybe trying to fight the system in a way that it is intended to work. I will arrange to get Peter or a colleague to call you to chat through your specific scenario's and cover this more specifically. We have thousands of users with many thousands of precedents and our system is very powerful and adaptable so feel pretty comfortable that your scenario is covered.
Please post back if you don't hear or would like to raise things further if your call wasn't explanatory or didn't cover your specific issue. Thanks