Identify the file before recording the response
Write down the project, deliverable, version and location the reviewer saw. Record the reviewer, date and a reference to the comment, message or meeting note. If a file changes after review, give the revision its own reference.
A version label should let another person find the same material. When an attachment has an ambiguous name, record its date or use your existing naming convention.
Use the words the reviewer actually gave you
Classify each event as a comment, question, change request, rejection or approval. A request to move a chart is a request to edit. A brief ‘looks good’ may refer to one section, so ask whether it applies to the whole named version before recording sign-off.
When several people review the work, record their decisions separately. Your approval policy determines whose decision is needed. The log does not decide legal acceptance or permission to publish.
- Link each event to the exact version and original response.
- Ask a neutral question when the scope of the response is unclear.
- Record explicit approval separately from the changes that preceded it.
One proof, three different review events
The project, reviewers and dates in this example are fictional. Avery asks for a service comparison to move in homepage proof v03. The studio revises the proof, and Avery then explicitly approves v04 for the agreed build. Jordan separately asks whether that approval includes the mobile layout.
The team can record Avery's decision on v04 while keeping Jordan's scope question open. The earlier comment should not be converted into a wider approval. The original example log remains available as a supplement.
Keep the trail useful after a revision
If an apparent acceptance is unclear, prepare a short question naming the deliverable and version, then save the reply with the record. If the version changes again, log the new review rather than rewriting the prior event.
Retain the original messages and versions in the project's normal storage. A tool may offer approval controls, but the record depends on the team's actual review and permissions.
Using Areinum to prepare the review trail
Give Areinum Assistant the relevant version references and review messages, and ask it to organize the events and flag ambiguity. Check the summary against the messages. The named reviewer, not the summary, provides the decision.
See the example
Feedback and Version Approval Log
Project names, reviewers, file versions, comments, and dates in the log are fictional.
| Project ref | Deliverable | Version | Reviewer | Event type | Decision or comment | Source link | Date | Decision status | Owner | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PR-014 | Homepage proof, fictional | v03 | Avery Stone, fictional | Change requested | Move the service comparison below the introduction | Comment 8 on v03, fictional | 2026-10-16 | Open | Studio | Make the requested edit and upload v04 |
| PR-014 | Homepage proof, fictional | v04 | Avery Stone, fictional | Approval | Approved for the agreed website build | Review message for v04, fictional | 2026-10-18 | Explicit approval recorded | Studio | Use v04 for the next agreed production step |
| PR-014 | Homepage proof, fictional | v04 | Jordan Lee, fictional | Question | Does approval include the mobile layout? | Email thread, fictional | 2026-10-18 | Clarification needed | Project lead | Confirm the scope of the decision before closing review |
- Add a separate row for each meaningful review event and keep the same project and version identifiers throughout.
- Use Change requested for a requested edit and Approval only for an explicit decision about the named version.
- Link to the actual comment, message, or file history so another person can inspect the source and wording.
- When the decision is unclear, use Clarification needed and record the question rather than guessing.
- Keep the underlying files and messages in their current project location. The fictional examples do not describe a real client.
Limits of this method
- The Reddit source is a single participant's account and should not be read as a verified finding about client review practices.
- The log records what a person said and which version they referred to. It does not determine legal acceptance, authority, or the meaning of a contract.
- A tool's approval button or version history only helps when the team configures and uses it consistently.
Questions you may have
Is ‘looks good’ enough to approve a file?
It may refer to only part of the work. Ask the reviewer to identify the deliverable, version and scope when those are unclear.
Can feedback on one version approve a later revision?
Keep the earlier feedback attached to the version reviewed. Obtain a decision on the later version if your process requires one.
Does the log establish legal acceptance?
It records the review trail. It does not determine contractual rights, reviewer authority or publication permission.
Sources and further reading
- Client agreed to my delivrable but then disagreed during committee
One author describes reviews they understood as acceptance followed by disagreement. The post gives that person's account of the review.
This is one person's account; it does not establish how common the problem is or decide the contractual outcome.
The author describes review sessions they understood as acceptance followed by a later disagreement. The account illustrates why an explicit, version-specific record can be useful.
This is one self-reported Reddit account with no independent confirmation of the project, parties, or events. It does not establish how often review misunderstandings occur or resolve any contractual question.
2026-10-18 - Understand the difference between project collaborators and reviewers
Filestage documents reviewer permissions that may include change requests and approval, and collaborator access to version history.
Features can depend on settings or plans; this documentation describes Filestage rather than an Areinum feature or a particular team's policy.
Filestage documents reviewer permissions that may include requesting changes or approving a version, and collaborator access to version history and comments.
This is vendor documentation about Filestage's product and permissions. Features can depend on settings or plans and do not independently establish a team's approval policy.
2026-10-18
The demo is in English. Access may need to be arranged.
Explore the demo