Useful feedback identifies the asset and location, explains the problem, requests a specific change, and states what acceptance looks like. Separate required corrections from optional preferences, and combine the comments into one coherent revision list.
Replace a reaction with a decision.
| Vague reaction | Actionable request |
|---|---|
| The video feels too busy. | At 00:06, the headline covers the product label. Move the headline above the pack and preserve the approved label in view. |
| This sounds wrong. | At 00:03, use the brand pronunciation from the supplied reference recording. Keep the rest of the sentence unchanged. |
| The carousel needs more impact. | Slide one should introduce the customer question before the product name. Use the approved question in the brief and retain the brand type hierarchy. |
The useful request contains a location and an intended result. It does not require you to prescribe every editing operation. Leave room for the producer to solve the problem while making the acceptance criterion clear.
Distinguish defects, facts, and preferences.
A missing caption, an outdated product screen, and a preference for warmer light are different issues. A factual error can block use. An editing defect needs correction. A style preference may be optional or may reveal that the brief needs a better reference.
Mark priority and supply the source. If the requested change contradicts an earlier approved decision, identify it as a brief change rather than silently treating the earlier version as a production mistake.
Consolidate the review.
Choose one person to resolve conflicting comments. Do not send an editor several contradictory directions from different reviewers. Keep the file version and timestamps attached to the comments, particularly when multiple exports look similar.
For a carousel, use slide numbers and exact text. For an image, identify the region. For a video, provide a time range and mention whether the issue concerns the visual, voice, caption, or mix.
Resolve conflicting comments against the same objective.
Consider a fictional 15-second coffee-choice video called coffee-choice-v03.mp4. Its agreed job is to help the viewer find the brand’s product-selection guide. The comments below are authored examples, not a NAIARA revision record or measured production result.
| Incoming comment | Decision for this revision |
|---|---|
| “Cut the product scene at 00:05–00:09 in half. It feels slow.” | Check why the scene holds: the viewer needs to read the product name and the guide invitation. Remove a repeated introductory phrase first; retain enough time to understand the scene. Do not trade readability for an arbitrary shorter duration. |
| “At 00:06, that is the old package.” | Treat the outdated package as a factual blocker. Replace it from the current approved reference and recheck the moving shot, caption contrast and crop. |
| “Add the new subscription offer at the end.” | That changes the agreed next step from finding a guide to buying a subscription. The business owner must decide whether to change the brief or make a separate variant before the editor rewrites the ending. |
The consolidated instruction is specific: correct the package, remove the redundant opening phrase, preserve the guide destination, and recheck reading time. The subscription idea stays pending a business decision. The editor receives one direction instead of three comments that pull the video toward different goals.
If the team cannot resolve the next step, stop that part of the revision and name the person who can decide. A production team can fix an overlap; it cannot establish which offer the business intends to promote.
Make the next revision inspectable.
A useful handoff preserves both what needs to change and what must remain. Write the acceptance check before sending the request, so the reviewer can tell whether the next version addresses the actual problem.
| Field | Example note for the fictional video |
|---|---|
| Reviewed asset | coffee-choice-v03.mp4; approved goal: open the product-selection guide. |
| Location and category | 00:05–00:09; product accuracy; required correction. |
| Observation | The visible pack differs from the current product reference supplied with the brief. |
| Required outcome | Use the current approved pack throughout this scene. Keep the product name visible and retain the guide invitation. |
| Preserve | The agreed destination and the approved spoken wording. |
| Acceptance check | Compare the replacement with the reference, then watch at normal speed on a phone. The pack must remain consistent through the shot; text must not cover its identifying label. |
| Decision status | Open until the revised export has been checked. A comment marked resolved does not approve the whole video. |
Keep the source reference beside the note rather than assuming the editor can identify the latest file. For changes that affect several moments, use a time range. If timing shifts in the next export, refer back to the reviewed version before applying an old timestamp.
Download the blank revision record to write your own handoff. Use one record per issue. For the wider review and final approval, use the creative review worksheet; the note record does not replace that check.
In Frame.io, comments can target a single frame or a time range, and annotations can identify a region of the image. Its commenting documentation explains those controls. The same version, location and acceptance fields remain useful when your team works in an ordinary document.
Verify the revision, not just the comment.
Check the requested change and the surrounding content. A longer replacement sentence can create a new overlap. A corrected product image can alter contrast behind the caption. Review the whole export once after the focused checks.
Record the approved version and any unresolved items. Keep final approval separate from first-pass acceptance; a revised piece can be fully approved without having passed the first review.