Key decisions
- The cut version and review stage are named.
- Comments include a timecode and intended result.
- Problems are separated from proposed solutions.
- Captions and written names were checked.
Choose the review stage
A script review checks the message and sequence; a rough-cut review checks structure; a delivery review checks the agreed formats. Name the current stage before collecting comments. If the concept changes after editing, record it as a scope decision rather than hiding it among small corrections. Keep the version name and review date visible so the team does not merge feedback from incompatible cuts.
Describe the effect at a timecode
Write what happens, why it affects the message and what should be different. ‘At this moment the product name disappears before the viewer can read it’ is more actionable than ‘make it premium’. If you propose a solution, distinguish it from the problem itself. The editor may have another way to resolve the same issue while preserving the approved structure.
Review captions and visual context
Check spoken names, caption timing and important written information on the intended screen. YouTube’s caption guide explains supported caption workflows; it does not confirm that an uploaded transcript is accurate. Verify the actual words and timing. If still images appear, keep their source and intended meaning clear; W3C’s image guidance is relevant when those assets are also used on a web page.
Resolve conflicts and check the new cut
Ask one approval owner to reconcile contradictory requests before revision starts. Group comments by message, picture, sound and delivery. After the new cut, revisit each resolved comment at its timecode and inspect neighbouring moments for unintended changes. Save the approval decision with the final file list. This editorial process does not create unlimited revision rounds or alter the terms of an existing production order.
Try the exercise
Review a fictional thirty-second course introduction. Write three comments with timecodes, classify each by message, picture or sound and specify the expected result without prescribing every editing choice.
Expected output
A short revision list with one approval owner and a repeatable review of the next cut. No production timeline or revision entitlement is promised.
Your evidence checklist
Mark only what you have checked. This records your own progress, not an independent audit or a predicted result. There is no automatic saving; download the note if you want to keep it.
0 / 6 checked
Questions and answers
Is ‘make it more stylish’ useful feedback?
It expresses a preference but leaves the editor guessing about the problem. Point to a moment and explain the intended viewer response, reference or message. The team can then choose a concrete change and check whether it answers the request.
Should comments from everyone go directly to the editor?
Collect them, then resolve contradictions through the agreed approval owner. Otherwise one person may request a shorter shot while another asks for the same shot to last longer. A consolidated decision saves the editor from guessing whose instruction takes priority.
Next step
A revision works when the problem, intended effect and approval decision are specific enough to check.