Thus, since we don't already verify all headings in most of our copy, the addition of a new 042 is not likely to contribute to streamlining of our workflow. Otherwise, we will not lock the record in the first place and just edit it for our local use. A qualified yes in the sense that we wouldn't mandate that all pre-AACR2 copy be handled this way. We would add the code to records selectively. If we lock, we will upgrade the description to AACR2.
Descriptive verification according to older codes is generally a lost art.
Overall we think that use of a 042 code as described by the PCC 042 Task Group is a good idea. As indicated in our comments above, we don't think that the code would comprise a significant part of our copy cataloging workflow and recon projects. Several catalogers pointed out that OCLC used to identify specific headings under authority control with a control subfield w in the fields of the specific headings. The presence of a code in 042 does NOT guarantee that the headings will always match the authority file, since libraries are not required to do or to report BFM to OCLC when they change an authority record. If a library is going to go to the trouble of verifying and establishing authorities for names, we think that they should also verify and correct subjects if needed.