Using the add-in Xrev Transmit, you can name your pdf files as your first picture, but within Revit it is the Sheet Number only.

Most people have adopted the National CAD Standard of using <Discipline Designator>-<Sheet Number> (ex. A-901, S-101, etc..). Perhaps you could combine the Role and Number into one to help distinguish your sheets?

Sorry, what you should get in reply to your first post is: Welcome to the forum! :thumbsup:

Don't mind Michael, he's just too quick to help!

Looks like BS1192 to me. Yes?

So (as above) since you're using Revit's <Sheet Number> for your doc.ref. <Number> field, rather than the whole string (correctly, IMO, :thumbsup - you are "limited" by "only" having that in your browser. By default.

You've a few ways of getting close to what you wish to achieve, but there are compromises, and having tried them all, will summarise my thoughts at the end.

1.
Browser Sorting.
You could add additional tiers of sorting to your Sheets in the Project Browser, stepping (for example) <Area>\<Level>\<Number>, where you would see:

>Sheets
>>A0
>>>00
>>>>1001
>>>01
>>>GF
>>A1
>>>00
>>>>1011
>>>01
>>>GF
>>B0
>>B1
>>XX

...etc...

Note I've elected to omit <Project No.>, <Issuer>, <Type> & <Role> since - unless you're multi-disc, and/or using 'SH' for <Type> on "sheets-with-schedules", etc



2.
Concatenate the values into a custom SP
Using a round-trip method (see: Dynamo & other Schedule-based addins) then use that value in a(nother) custom-sort of your Sheet Project Browser.

Consider though, that unless you omitted the 'repetitive' fields as before, navigation (by eye) of such a block of field codes is difficult - and the BS1192 field-order structure does not lend itself to a legible hierarchy in alphanumeric order. You would probably still, even with an SP for the concatenated field (entire), want an SP to take a truncated set of BS1192 field-codes to be used as a custom sort. i.e.

>Sheets
>A0-00-1001
>A0-01-1101
>A0-02-1201
>A1-00-1011
>A1-01-1111
>A1-02-1211


3.
Side step the problem.
One imagines your desire to show the full BS1192 string is to employ their values in some way of auto-sort. If I am permitted to continue my presumption, then one must also realise BS1192 is not all that it's cracked up to be.

Consider for instance a core part of any AECO documentation set, packages. Since a document may be included in many packages, it is (practically) impossible to have a one-to-many value populate a single field - so BS1192 can be excused for omitting such. However packages offer the human operator a sound means of navigation.

Consider also the <Type> field. With BS1192 aimed squarely at all documentation, the <Type> field was, sorry is, meant for other document forms, ie. "SH", "SP", etc. Sadly, all of our work is effectively reduced to "DR" - even though I have seen some employ "EL" and "PL" - but I believe it forbidden.

But being able to differentiate/group quickly "Elevations", "Sections" & "Plans" is a nice thing - and why many 'home-grown' (drawing) number systems employ such a field. And there's one last one, that I can't think of a universal term for. Think "Drawing Type Type", i.e. General Arrangement Plan, Fire Strategy Plan, Setting Out Plan, etc... where does BS1192 capture that really useful nugget of knowledge? Nowhere. So what to do? SPs. And a(nother) custom Sheet Project Browser:

>Sheets
>>General Arrangement
>>>Level-00
>>>>A0-00-1001
>>>>A1-00-1011
>>>Level-01
>>>>A0-01-1101
>>>>A1-01-1111
>>>Level-02
>>>>A0-02-1201
>>>>A1-02-1211


with 1.
{i lost a paragraph here! )

with 2.
As you can see, that 'order' jumps you through the levels of an <Area> (or <Volume> as it's otherwise known) first, before strafing across to the next (presuming a geographical volume division rather than a vertical one). Clearly this is undesirable if you are wishing to 'traverse' a plan, of a single purpose, (i.e. General Arrangement) across one level at a time - then jump up the level - dismissing, in a way, the <Area/Volume> altogether - since <Area/Volume> really only informs geographical location of study and/or simple sheet-setting, which is a fairly antiquated way of approaching things. You could of course go <Level>\<Area>\<Number>\... but you're still not really tapping into any kind grouped (human-readable) structure.

with 3.
The branches do get deep - but they look a lot worse here with only 6No. example sheets. Projects here easily exceed 100 times that, so the branches thin out :hide: and, well I've waffled long enough.... WOW....




EDITS
Preening of a post - haven't done that in a while! Will hopefully return for the lost paragraph after dinner... and elaborate on 3. maybe. But essentially, the crux is "get plugging away additional meta into your sheets and get crafting your own documentation structure."

HTH

Thank you for the reply..I shall try