Client Video Review Workflow: Versions, Feedback, and Final Sign-Off

You might receive a pacing note on yesterday's cut, a replacement title in an email, and a message saying “looks good” from someone who doesn't own final approval. All three messages can be useful, but you need to know which version and decision each one concerns before acting on them. Have the producer collect those instructions beside the relevant cut, resolve conflicts with the client, and tell the editor which changes to make. The review brief should also name the person who can approve the finished work. For this example, we'll take a 60-second recruitment film for a company's careers page through review in Aspect, from the first client cut to final approval and delivery.

Give each review round a defined purpose

Before you export the first client cut, agree on who provides feedback and who can accept the finished video. In this example, the marketing lead owns final approval. An HR reviewer checks role descriptions and employee statements, and a legal reviewer checks employment claims. The producer coordinates the review, while the editor implements the agreed changes. The marketing lead decides pacing, while legal signs off on employment claims. Identify these dependencies early so the editor doesn't discover them after finishing the film.

One reviewer holds the approval key while several people are connected to the same video.

Send a short brief with the review link. For the first round, it could read:

Please review Harbor_Recruitment_60s_16x9_V01.mp4 for story structure, factual accuracy, and whether the film communicates the roles we are recruiting for. Music and color are temporary. Please leave comments by Tuesday at 3 p.m. Eastern, including an explicit response if you have no changes. The marketing lead will confirm the consolidated direction with the producer before the next edit begins.

The brief also needs to identify the intended deliverable: one 60-second, 16:9 film for the careers page. If your project includes a vertical social version or translated subtitles, list those as separate items requiring their own checks. Have the client check the framing of each crop and the wording of each translation before approving those versions. Use later rounds for progressively narrower decisions. The second round can confirm that requested edits were implemented and approve final graphics, music, and color. A final check then covers the complete export, including anything changed during finishing. Agree on how additional requests affect the schedule before that final round arrives.

Prepare the review cut and the client's access

The producer should watch the uploaded cut before asking the client to review it. Check that the filename identifies the round, the running time is correct, playback and audio work, and any temporary elements are explained in the brief. A missing graphic should be either corrected or clearly identified so reviewers can judge the work in its intended state. In Aspect, use a share link with commenting enabled for an external client. Guests can review in a browser without joining the workspace. Downloading, metadata visibility, and access to earlier versions are separate choices, so configure the actual link the client will receive. For this example, the first review link includes the recruitment cut, allows comments, and leaves downloads disabled because the client only needs to review. Internal budget fields remain hidden. If the material is confidential, set an appropriate password and expiration using the sharing security controls. The expiration should leave enough time for the agreed review; it's an access setting rather than a feedback deadline. Open the link as a guest before sending it. Confirm that it shows the intended cut and allows the requested actions. Repeat that check when changing what the link contains or which versions it exposes.

Ask for comments the editor can act on

Useful feedback identifies the location, describes the issue, and explains the desired result. “The titles are hard to read” is a starting point. “From 00:18 to 00:27, the role titles disappear before I can read them; please allow more reading time” gives the editor a problem to solve. Aspect supports comments on individual moments and time ranges, drawings on paused frames, attachments, and threaded replies. Use a frame comment for a misspelled title. Use a range for pacing or an audio problem that continues through a section. Attach the approved logo or exact replacement wording when the instruction depends on a particular reference.

The pinned frame, range bracket, and clipped reference show feedback tied to a specific moment.

In the recruitment film, the legal reviewer flags a line that implies a benefit applies to every role. The comment includes the approved replacement text and identifies the affected title. That's much more actionable than an instruction to “make the wording safer,” which would leave the editor responsible for interpreting an employment claim. Keep clarification in the original thread so the instruction remains understandable later. If a client phones in a change or sends it by email, the producer should add the instruction to the relevant review conversation and ask the client to confirm that it reflects their intent.

Turn conflicting feedback into one agreed edit

At the deadline, the producer checks that every required reviewer has responded. Ask for an explicit response from reviewers who have no changes, so silence isn't mistaken for approval. Follow up with anyone whose decision is still missing, then consolidate the feedback before committing the editor to a new direction. In the example, HR wants to extend the role montage so six job titles remain readable. Marketing wants to shorten the same section to improve pacing. Both notes describe legitimate concerns, but implementing either request alone would frustrate the other reviewer. The producer explains the tradeoff to the marketing lead and HR reviewer. They agree to show three approved role groups over seven seconds, with the full list of open positions on the careers page. The editor will extend the closing call to action by the two seconds gained, keeping the film at 60 seconds. The producer records that decision in the affected conversation, identifies who agreed, and references the approved title wording. For each remaining note, record whether the editor should make the change, wait for clarification, or leave the cut as it is. Record the reason for declining a request so the next reviewer can understand the outcome. A request outside the agreed deliverable should receive a scope and schedule decision before it enters the editor's work list. Internal comments can hold the team's private production discussion. The client-facing conversation should still contain the agreed instruction and any explanation the reviewer needs. Aspect notifies people about comments and mentions according to their notification preferences. The producer should still follow up on missing decisions at the review deadline.

Add the revision and verify the earlier notes

Export the revised film as Harbor_Recruitment_60s_16x9_V02.mp4. Preserve V01 because its comments explain why the changes were made. With Aspect's version stacking workflow, you upload the new cut, wait for the upload to finish, and drag it onto the existing asset or stack. Open the stack afterward and check the order.

The latest version sits on top while earlier feedback remains attached to a lower cut.

The version at the top appears by default, so the producer should confirm that V02 is the cut a client will see. Keep filenames specific even when the interface groups the revisions together. A name such as final_latest_new.mp4 gives little help when someone later needs to identify an approved export. The editor and producer then check V02 against the V01 comments. Aspect's comparison view places two versions side by side, while each revision retains its own feedback. Watch the exported role montage to confirm that it includes the approved wording, gives viewers enough time to read it, and keeps the film at 60 seconds. Reply to the original thread with the outcome and identify V02. Resolve the thread once the work is complete and no further action is needed. If a new problem appears in V02, comment on that version at its current position, since edits may have moved the relevant moment.

Record approval of a specific revision

Send V02 with a concise explanation of what changed and what decision is now required. The marketing lead should watch the complete film, while HR and legal confirm the changes within their areas. Reviewing only the altered montage would miss an accidental problem elsewhere in the export. If this round finds a typo that requires V03, identify V03 as the revision needing acceptance. Don't assume that an earlier approval transfers because the change seems minor. The reviewer can focus attention on the correction, but the acceptance record must name the file the team will deliver. In Aspect, approving a comment and updating the asset's approval status are separate actions. A comment approval records agreement in the conversation. To track the whole asset, create an Approval status single-select field in the project's metadata settings, with values such as Draft, In review, Changes requested, and Approved. The producer manually updates that field as the review progresses. Assign an owner to those updates. When a new revision needs review, that person should check the status and update it to reflect the current decision. Editors and producers can then filter the project by review stage and see which cuts need attention. Update the field when a new cut enters review and again when the client accepts it. A useful final decision in this example would read:

I approve Harbor_Recruitment_60s_16x9_V03.mp4, running 60 seconds, for publication on the careers page. HR and legal have confirmed their required changes. There are no outstanding conditions for this deliverable. Approved by Maya Chen, marketing lead, on 6 October 2026.

Use the client's name, role, accepted filename, and agreed publication use in the record. If approval is conditional, keep the conditions visible and obtain confirmation when they're met before marking the asset approved. Store the decision with the reviewed revision, then update the metadata.

Check the delivery file against the approval record

Before releasing the file, the producer should complete a short handoff check:

The approval identifies the exact revision, approving person, date, and deliverable.
Every required reviewer has responded, and outstanding conditions have been completed.
The selected delivery file matches the accepted revision, including the approved titles, music, and graphics.
The export has been checked for the agreed dimensions, running time, audio, and caption requirements.
The delivery link contains the intended files and has the appropriate download permissions.
The client knows which filename to use and how long the delivery link will remain available.

A browser review preview and the downloadable original serve different purposes. Check the actual delivery file, especially if someone has created another encode after approval. Any substantive content change needs renewed acceptance, and additional deliverables need their own checks. Keep the versions, review conversations, and decision record together so your team can find them after delivery. Aspect's custom metadata and filters can help the team locate approved assets later, while the written decision supplies the revision and scope behind that status. When someone requests an update months afterward, the producer can start from the file that was accepted and explain exactly which new changes need review.

FAQ

Name the person authorized to accept the deliverable before the first review. Other reviewers can own specific decisions, such as legal wording, brand treatment, or factual accuracy. The client lead should reconcile their requirements, while the producer records the agreed instruction and confirms that all required decisions are complete before requesting final approval.

Identify the notes that can't both be implemented and ask the designated decision owner to resolve the conflict. Explain the practical tradeoff, such as fitting readable titles into a fixed running time, and record the chosen direction in the relevant conversation. The editor can continue independent changes, but should avoid treating the most recent comment as authority to override an earlier requirement.

Approving a comment records agreement within the review conversation. An asset's overall approval status is tracked separately through a custom metadata field that your team creates and updates. Identify the accepted revision in a written decision, then update the custom status when the responsible reviewer has completed the review.

Clients can open an Aspect share link in their browser without an account or installed software. Enable commenting on the specific link when they need to leave feedback. Separately choose whether they can download files, view earlier versions, or see selected metadata, and confirm that the link contains only the intended review material.

Record the approving person's name, the date, the exact revision or filename, and the deliverable covered by the approval. State any conditions explicitly and resolve them before treating approval as complete. Keep the decision with the reviewed asset, then verify that the file shared for delivery is the accepted revision and meets the agreed technical requirements.