Send a file suited to the current decision and label it clearly. A review copy can make feedback convenient; a final master must satisfy the agreed delivery requirements. Neither filename nor visual similarity makes them interchangeable. Keep the approved master identifiable so a client does not publish a compressed or unfinished review version.
Define what is being reviewed
Story order, timing, voiceover and final picture quality need different evidence. A small proxy may support checking the sequence while hiding compression artifacts or small text defects. Say which decisions the review copy supports and which still require inspection of the master.
Do not make the review copy misleadingly polished if important elements are placeholders. Mark draft captions, temporary audio or missing scenes where relevant. A client should not need hidden production knowledge to distinguish a complete deliverable from a work in progress.
A fictional wedding-film delivery
An invented editor sends a compact review cut for the couple to check story and narration. It contains temporary music and a draft ending. The couple accepts the story. That does not approve the music rights, final audio balance or export quality.
After completing those steps, the editor sends a separately named master and a clear publication instruction. The old review link remains labelled superseded in private records. If the couple already downloaded it, explicitly identify the replacement rather than assuming a new folder name changes the file on their device.
Review the master as a new artifact
Check complete playback, resolution, aspect ratio, audio, captions and final text on the delivered file. An approved timeline does not prove the export is intact. If you produce horizontal and vertical versions, verify both rather than calling the second a simple duplicate.
Use a file identifier or checksum in your delivery record when appropriate. It can help identify the exact version, but does not prove creative approval or correctness. Keep any missing or unsupported delivery requirement visible rather than silently substituting another format.
Make the handoff understandable
Use Imagild's available task and library workflows to locate actual outputs. Do not assume every review comment, permission role or proxy-generation feature exists in the product. Where external editing or review services are used, state their role separately and use authorized access.
Provide short instructions: which file to publish, which version is obsolete, what captions accompany it and what storage period applies. Keep final masters and source permissions organized. A temporary asset URL should not be represented as a permanent archive or ownership transfer.
Is higher quality always better for review?
Not always. Convenience matters, but the copy must show enough evidence for the decision requested. Final image quality should be checked in the actual master.
Can a client publish the review copy?
Only if it is also deliberately approved for that use. Otherwise provide and identify the completed publication file, including any relevant disclosure and rights checks.
Sources and related reading
For a vendor-specific example of review access, see Descript’s project access documentation. Imagild should not be assumed to provide Descript’s collaborator roles.