It depends on what we mean by interaction. When I am reading a book, I am, to a certain extent, interacting with it in that reading is a two-way street, so to speak, as it allows the book to tell me a story, for instance. I am using the term “interaction” in a very broad sense, as any experience is, to a certain extent, an interaction. Contemplating a landscape, for instance, is an interaction to the extent that this landscape gives itself to be seen through my contemplation (this is, by the way, why we speak about data in science, even if data (what is given) implies its mirror action (what is obtained)).
This is the essence of a relational ontology, as it shows that any action can always be seen from the perspective of what I am interacting with. For instance, if I am following arrows that lead me to the bathroom, it means that these arrows, by definition, are leading me there. If I am learning something from a book, it is because this book is teaching me something (as well, of course, by proxy, the author of the book, as well as the publisher, etc.). Any action has a mirror action, which explains why studying interaction is so interesting.
Now, to go back to your question. Documents are crucial in organizations, as they are a source of stabilization (to some extent, they embody what the old sociology would call their structures, a term that I am using in practice, but that does not explain anything in theory, as it is a form of shortcut and a hodgepodge term), but they make a difference only if they are invoked or if they somehow lead people to do what they do. So for me, documents must be part, directly or indirectly, of interactions in order to make a difference, otherwise they are just things that we forget about in shelves where dust accumulates. A mission statement, in order to make a difference, has to be invoked or known by members in order to make a difference in their daily life. If it is invoked or ventriloquized, it is part of the interaction. If it is known by someone and it animates his or her action, then it is part of his/her interactions.
Instead of talking of interaction, Barad (2003, 2007) prefers to speak of intra-action, which means, for her, that the relation creates, to some extent, the relata. I understand what she means and I agree with her up to a point. When I am driving my car and I notice a yellow vest on the side of the road, I am slowing down because this yellow vest caught my attention and alerted me about the presence of someone whose car appears to be broken down. What Barad tells us is that the relation that makes this experience possible creates two relata: on one side, I have been warned about the presence of a car and its driver along the road, and on the other side, the car and his driver have been noticed by me. This is the essence of intra-action, but there is still interaction (this term is still useful), as the car and myself are not reducible to these experiences, beyond their creative dynamics.
I know I am using examples that do not illustrate what we traditionally have in mind when we speak about interactions, but this is to show what I mean when I am using this term. I could have used classical human interactions, but I have already done that in several articles, books and chapters so I am trying to broaden the point I am making.