HL7 Acknowledgements, Necessary to Archive?

In HL7 transactions, I understand it to be common practice for the sending party to be able to provide the control id from the HL7 Acknowledgement if a message is missed. Having the sending party produce control ids for sent messages proves successful HL7 acknowledgement from the receiving party, showing that the problem is on the receiving side.

This situation reminds me of examples from everyday life experiences .

Example One: Person comes in wanting cash refund for merchandise. Employee says, "Do you have your receipt?". A receipt would be 'proof of purchase'. If the person desiring a refund cannot provide 'proof of purchase'; then standard procedure is to cut your losses and issue a gift card.

Example Two: Renter at the apartment complex doesn't pay rent. Manager sends notice to renter to pay rent or move out. Manager takes renter to court seeking eviction. The judge asks whether the renter was given proper notice, that if they did not pay rent they would be forced to move out. The manager can't say I told the renter pay rent, they have to provide commonly accepted 'proof of notice'. The Manager presents a certified letter receipt to the judge as 'proof of notice'.

Just having the sending party 'resend messages' seems a lot like giving a gift card to the person without 'proof of purchase'; you cut your losses and move on without knowing what actually happened.

It is absolutely necessary to have the sending party produce control ids for sent messages to be sure the problem with missing messages is on the receiving side.