Feedback is useful when the designer can act on it without guessing which direction the client has chosen. Approval is a separate event: an authorised person accepts a specific version for a defined use. Treat neither a friendly comment nor silence as that decision.
Name the decision-maker before review
The requester may collect input from several stakeholders, but one person should resolve conflicts before the studio begins a revision. Agree who can approve, what they are approving and which checks remain the client's responsibility. A studio may assess layout quality without being responsible for the accuracy of supplied claims or specialist legal review.
Include a substitute approver or a procedure for absence. Otherwise a request can wait indefinitely while staff try to infer authority from whoever replied most recently.
Run a review round
- Give the review file a stable version identifier. State the brief objective and the decision needed, such as direction selection or final approval.
- Send reviewers to one agreed location. Ask comments to identify the affected element, the problem and any required replacement input.
- Have the client approver consolidate conflicting comments into one instruction set. Mark open decisions as unresolved rather than choosing silently.
- Check the instruction set against scope, assess the effort and confirm any effect on the queue before revising.
- Present the new version with a short change summary. Record explicit approval against that version, then complete the delivery checks.
Decide whether it is a revision or new work
Compare the proposed change with the accepted objective, audience, format and supplied content. Correcting work that missed the agreed brief is different from replacing the objective after a direction was accepted. A new deliverable or substantial content replacement may need a new request under your service policy.
Do not label every inconvenient comment out of scope. Explain the particular boundary, offer a workable path and let the authorised client choose. Document the decision and revised estimate using the workflow and approval checklist.
Close the loop with delivery
Check export specifications, file names, access and any agreed source-file handoff. Preserve the approval record beside the final version reference. If an approved file later changes, reopen review for the changed version rather than reusing an approval that no longer describes it.
Use proofing software criteria when version confusion or positional feedback remains a problem after the process is clear. A shared file can be enough for simpler reviews. Connect the result to request completion, and return unresolved scope questions to the service policy. This is an operational approval process, not certification that a design meets every legal or technical requirement.