Podcast Client Approval Checklist: Audio, Show Notes and Clips Before Release

An approved audio edit does not tell a podcast production service whether it may publish the episode. The show notes may still contain a factual error. A clip may need a different reviewer. The client may want to hold the release even after accepting every asset.

Use an episode readiness matrix to separate those decisions. It can live in the same document that already carries your episode brief. The aim is to make the release dependency visible before anyone presses Publish.

1. Audio: approved
2. Notes: correction pending
3. Clip: awaiting review
4. Release: permission missing

The episode is held because notes and clip decisions remain open and final release permission has not been given.

An episode that is almost ready

Everything in this example is fictional. Alder Audio produces episode 18 for the Finch podcast. Its package includes an audio edit, show notes and one promotional clip. Sam is the client approver. Lee at Alder prepares the files and publishes only after Sam gives written release permission.

Asset or decision	Current version	State	Owner and next action
Audio master	Episode 18 audio v3	Approved by Sam	Lee preserves approved export
Show notes	Episode 18 notes v2	Correction pending	Sam confirms guest spelling; Lee corrects notes
Promotional clip	Episode 18 clip v1	Awaiting review	Sam approves or gives consolidated notes
Permission to publish	Episode 18 bundle	Not given	Sam authorizes the named final bundle after checks

Audio approved + notes corrected and approved + clip decision resolved → final bundle checked → written release permission → Lee publishes at the agreed time.

The audio approval stays valid for v3 while the notes are corrected. The bundle remains unreleased. If the clip is optional for the episode launch, record an explicit agreement to publish without it and a separate next action for the clip. Do not assume the same dependency rule fits every show.

Start with the sold episode bundle

List what the service actually includes. An audio-only package needs fewer rows than a video podcast with a transcript, thumbnail and promotional assets. Add those rows only when they belong to the agreement. Record who supplies factual details such as guest spelling and links, and who resolves conflicting requests.

Give each reviewable asset its own version. “Episode 18 final” is ambiguous if audio v3, notes v2 and clip v1 are in circulation. The release row should name the accepted bundle so a later file replacement cannot quietly become the authorized master.

Copy the readiness matrix

Item	Version or link	Approver	State	Blocker and next owner
Audio	[exact export]	[name]	[pending/changes/approved]	[action]
Notes	[exact document revision]	[name]	[state]	[action]
Included promotional assets	[one row per asset]	[name]	[state]	[action]
Final release permission	[named bundle and destinations]	[name]	[given/not given]	[action]

Below the matrix, record the publishing owner, intended date, time zone and agreed action if approval is late. Where you do not control publication, say “client publishes” and give the client the accepted files. Do not imply you have account access or release authority.

Handle corrections without losing the release state

In the example, Sam confirms the guest’s surname is “Chen”, not “Cheng”. Lee updates notes v2 to v3, preserves the change record and asks Sam to confirm the corrected copy. Audio v3 remains unchanged. If the incorrect name is spoken in the audio too, the audio needs a new edit and decision; a corrected text row cannot clear that dependency.

A request for an extra clip is a separate scope question. Check whether it replaces the included clip, uses a remaining allowance or needs an additional agreement. Record the answer before doing extra production. The matrix shows readiness; it does not determine entitlement.

Ask for release permission in one written message

Hi Sam,

Episode 18 is ready for your release decision:
Audio v3: [link], approved [recorded date]
Notes v3: [link], corrected guest spelling, awaiting confirmation
Clip v1: [link], awaiting your review

Please confirm the corrected notes and the clip decision.
Once those are resolved, may Lee publish this named bundle to
[agreed destinations] at [date, time and time zone]?

If approval is not complete by [agreed cutoff], our agreed action
is to hold publication and confirm a revised time in writing.
Please let me know if you would like a different plan.

Thank you,
Lee

Use a cutoff and hold policy only if already agreed. If the answer is partial, update the corresponding asset row and ask only for the remaining decision. Silence does not supply the missing permission.

Make the final check a handoff

Before release, the publishing owner compares the selected files with the approved versions and checks the destination and scheduled time. Afterward, record the actual publication link or the status reported by the client. Scheduled, approved and published are different states. A scheduled entry alone does not prove the episode is publicly available.

For a video episode, use the video version guide for each cut. The shared handoff template connects the episode record to required inputs and package scope.

Descript’s podcast workflow guide, checked 23 October 2026, covers production and publishing work beyond the audio edit. The matrix here is an original client-approval worksheet for the assets your service actually sells.

I am developing this checklist to learn which release decisions matter to recurring production services. If you have a moment, email which asset or decision waited longest on a recent episode. A short description without client details would be helpful. Thank you.