Docusaurus's own versioning guide states the mechanism nearly every static-site doc tool copies: cutting a version copies the entire docs folder into a new versioned directory. The guide's own advice on when to do that is a single yes-or-no per release, checked against whether the release shipped features at all. A patch release gets no separate version because, in the guide's words, cutting one "will only just create unnecessary duplicated files." The decision is binary and release-wide. Nothing in that model asks whether any specific page actually changed.
This pack asks the smaller question instead, once per page. The worked example is Correlate IAM, an invented identity platform with 96 documentation pages across 5 supported versions. Checking each page against its own content one version back found that 62 of 96, 64.6 percent, never diverged across any of the four transitions. The other 34 diverged at least once. Counting the content-states those 34 pages actually need, 154, against forking all 96 pages for all 5 versions, 480, is a 67.9 percent cut in what needs maintaining separately.
Regulated and enterprise customers raise a second question: not which pages diverged, but what a page said on a past date, which Write the Docs' own principles name as a real requirement without a mechanism for it. A page with zero divergences still gets copyedited, and a snapshot dated to each version's release serves the exact wording an audit window asks for, regardless of the fork count above. Whether a release's changes were tracked before reaching a page is the release notes pack; whether a current page matches the product is the documentation audit.
Documentation Versioning Policy Template