Video Client Approval Workflow: Keep Feedback Attached to the Right Cut

“Approved” is incomplete when a job contains several cuts. Before treating a reply as a final decision, connect it to a deliverable, format and version. A landscape interview and its vertical adaptation may use the same footage while needing different decisions.

This guide is for editors and recurring video studios that already have somewhere to share media. Keep precise visual notes in that review tool. Add a short review packet around its link so the client knows which decision you are requesting.

1. Main v1: notes
2. Main v2: approved
3. Excerpt v1: awaiting review

The first two nodes follow the main interview. The excerpt is a separate branch and remains unapproved.

Separate the branches of the job

In this fictional Cedar Studio job, Jo is the client’s authorized approver. The package contains one landscape interview and one vertical excerpt, each with one consolidated revision round. This is a later snapshot of the shared handoff example: Jo has now supplied the excerpt quote, so the excerpt can enter review.

Deliverable	Version history	Current decision
Landscape interview	v1 received notes; v2 addresses them	Jo approved v2 in writing
Vertical excerpt	v1 uses a separately selected quote	Jo has not reviewed v1

Main interview: v1 → notes → v2 → approved. Vertical excerpt: v1 → awaiting review. Approval of main v2 applies only to that branch.

The excerpt may crop a face differently or omit context around a quote. Do not inherit approval because the underlying footage appeared in the approved main edit. If a replacement main v3 is created, its decision also starts as pending.

Check the cut before sending it

Internal review and client review serve different purposes. Before opening a client round, check the export against the brief: duration, aspect ratio, sound, captions if included, and the agreed output. Confirm that the review link opens the named version. A corrected internal export can retain its internal history without pretending the client has already reviewed it.

Name versions consistently, for example Finch-interview-landscape-v2. Avoid “final-final” because it gives no stable reference for a later reply. If a review link always opens the newest upload, preserve a version-specific reference or record the reviewed filename and date alongside the decision. The link alone may change its meaning later.

Send a packet with a specific request

Copy this message and replace the bracketed fields. The quantity and deadline below belong to this fictional example, not a recommended universal service policy.

Hi Jo,

Finch interview, landscape v2, is ready for your review:
[link opening main landscape v2]

This cut addresses your consolidated v1 notes about the opening
and name caption. Please approve this exact version in writing,
or leave your remaining notes against v2 in the review tool.

Could you consolidate the team's response by the agreed Friday
review date? Please tell me if that timing needs to change.
You are the named approver for this job.

The vertical excerpt v1 is a separate review and remains pending.
The main cut's included revision round has been used. If a new
request falls outside the agreed correction policy, I will confirm
its scope with you before starting.

Thank you,
Mira

For reuse, change the deliverable, version, addressed notes, feedback owner, timing, allowance and remaining work. Never send a template’s example allowance as if it were your client’s agreement.

Resolve notes before editing another cut

Frame.io’s receiving-feedback guide, checked 23 October 2026, describes anchoring comments to timecode. That makes a precise editing note easier to locate. The surrounding review packet adds package context and decision ownership; it does not replace media review.

When two reviewers disagree, list the conflict for the nominated coordinator. For example: “One note asks to remove the introduction; another asks to extend it. Which direction should v3 follow?” Keep the request in writing and wait for one resolved instruction rather than guessing which colleague has authority.

An ambiguous “looks good” reply can be clarified gently: “Thank you. May I record that as approval of Finch interview, landscape v2?” Save the answer with the version. Do not turn a reaction emoji, a resolved comment or silence into approval unless the existing agreement explicitly defines that behavior.

Preserve the decision after delivery

Record the approver, exact version, decision text, date and the source message or review record. Mark the vertical excerpt as waiting until it receives its own decision. Then check the sold package before calling the whole job complete.

If the client requests a new opening after approval, describe the requested change and its effect on scope or timing. Obtain agreement before working beyond the package. Preserve the approved v2 and mark the replacement v3 as needing review. This keeps the historical approval meaningful without treating it as permission for every future export.

Use the shared handoff fields to connect this packet to the brief. If an episode also includes show notes and clips, the podcast checklist handles the separate release decision.

I am using this example to improve a practical resource for service operators. If you have a moment, email the one point where this packet differs from your last video approval. Please describe it without private links or client files. Thank you.