Define the scope of a creator revision round.

1. Name the version and the decisions under review

Identify the exact draft and the purpose of the round. A structure review, wording review, and final technical check ask different questions. If the sequence is still changing, detailed polish comments may be premature; if the content is approved, a new concept needs to be identified as a new decision.

ATN suggests a short review note containing the version name, requested feedback, response date, and person who consolidates decisions. Point back to the existing brief and any agreed revision terms. Do not invent a standard number of included rounds or assume that silence means approval. Those details need to come from the actual project arrangement.

2. Make feedback specific enough to act on

Ask reviewers to identify the location, problem, and desired outcome. For a video, a timestamp or time range is more useful than “somewhere near the middle.” For a document or graphic, use a page, heading, or clearly identified element.

Frame.io’s current Share Link documentation describes timestamped and range-based comments, along with drawing annotations. These tools can help locate feedback, but they do not determine whether a request belongs in the agreed scope. ATN recommends keeping the requested change understandable in words as well, so another collaborator can follow it without guessing what a mark on the image means.

Sources: [1]

3. Separate corrections from new direction

Review each request against the approved purpose and deliverables. A factual correction, a refinement within the existing concept, and a request for an additional format may require different decisions. Do not hide those differences inside one broad task called “client changes.”

These categories are an editorial workflow, not legal definitions. If a request changes the work, document the decision before treating the additional task as already agreed.

4. Consolidate conflicting instructions

Ask for one resolved direction when reviewers request incompatible changes. Do not quietly choose whichever comment arrived last and present it as a shared decision. Identify the conflict in practical terms, such as one reviewer asking for a shorter explanation while another requests more detail in the same section.

Check that the review tool actually permits the intended feedback. Frame.io notes that a Share Link can have commenting disabled, so a recipient’s inability to comment may be a link setting rather than a refusal to review. Keep the consolidated decision list with the draft, and make unresolved questions visible before the editing pass starts.

Sources: [1]

5. Close the round with a clear result

Deliver the revised version with a concise note explaining which agreed changes were made and which items remain open. Review the actual output against the decision list. Marking a comment complete is useful for tracking, but should not be confused with the client approving every aspect of the project.

Record the round’s completion and the next decision required. If the brief changes, update the relevant deliverable and timing notes so the following round starts from the same understanding. Preserve earlier versions according to the project’s agreed retention process. Clear scope makes collaboration easier because both sides can see what work is underway and what still needs a decision.